OOTS #1165 - The Discussion Thread

[The Giant]

New comic is up.

[zimmerwald1915]

Did. . . did you just make a D&D fight into a game of snakes and ladders? That's amazing.

[HorizonWalker]

To be fair, Squeaky seems a lot more tolerable than Elan. Still a Bard, but not nearly so... y'know.

[Peelee]

I guess those musical swordsmen get a bonus to dash when making quips, then.

[Fyraltari]

They don’t even get bonuses from that! They’re doing it for the love of the art! Elan could learn a thing or two from them.

[slp0001]

Even dwarves do it?! And here I was thinking it was an Elan or Dashing Swordsman thing...

[Peelee]

They don’t even get bonuses from that! They’re doing it for the love of the art! Elan could learn a thing or two from them.

So they just do it for the prestige, and could teach a class on it?

[Fyraltari]

So they just do it for the prestige, and could teach a class on it?

[insert gif of people clapping here]

[Turin_19]

Oh man, I laughed so hard at this one. What an amazing strip!

[Keltest]

Punning is an unwritten class feature of bards, clearly.

[Peelee]

Punning is an unwritten class feature of bards, clearly.

Would being unwritten mean it's silently spelled?

...ok, I'm really reaching on that one.

[Fyraltari]

Would being unwritten mean it's silently spelled?

...ok, I'm really reaching on that one.

Don’t worry, Durkon is reaching too.

[JT]

Roy is bravely stopping the worm from attacking anyone else.

[ken]

So... the worms orders were...

"Defend this area." "Yes, this area here, this... uh... platform thing"
"Prevent anyone from getting through this door into the Middle Chamber. Except us and our mind-controlled thralls".

The ramp bypasses the platform and goes in through a window - bypassing the "platform thing" and the specified "door into the Middle Chamber"
I'm not sure if the worm will even try to stop them.

Meanwhile - Roy is in the worm's mouth!!! (Potential for being swallowed/level drained?)


Ken D

[Timy]

Only twice an hour...

[Ninerga]

I find the detail of Roy being eaten really funny.

[Clovis]

Mr Scruffy busy scratching away! First he disemboweled a hapless gladiator, now a Death Worm? Go Mr Scruffy!

[JT]

Mr Scruffy busy scratching away! First he disemboweled an arena guard, now a Death Worm? Go Mr Scruffy!

Intestines, worms... They all look the same to a cat.

[drazen]

Intestines, worms... They all look the same to a cat.

Let's hope Squeaky can launch a few Songs of Freedom - otherwise once the dwarves cross the orange barrier, won't they be just as susceptible to the domination gaze?

[Gorgon_Heap]

Immediately upon seeing the new strip was up and let a friend know ...


Me: "1165 is up. I think it's right up your alley."

Him: "Oh, chute, I wish I'd thought of those!"

Me: "I'll let it slide."

[Agnostik]

Sure looks like somebody should talk to Elan about a certain prestige class...

[Anarion]

I’m glad Durkon and family are getting a starring role, though I do hope they manage to lower the barriers and the order gets to participate in the climax here.

[Resileaf]

Looks like the rest of the worm battle will take place off-screen. Time for the Durkon family's time to shine.

[Jasdoif]

It appears Thirden's gotten used to Janna calling him "Master" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1087.html).

[Resileaf]

It appears Thirden's gotten used to Janna calling him "Master" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1087.html).

Or he managed to get her to say "Master Squeaky" and decided "Good enough".

[zimmerwald1915]

Looks like the rest of the worm battle will take place off-screen. Time for the Durkon family's time to shine.
Good riddance to the Order of the Stick.

[Jasdoif]

It appears Thirden's gotten used to Janna calling him "Master" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1087.html).Or he managed to get her to say "Master Squeaky" and decided "Good enough".That would be one way of getting used to her calling him "Master", yes.

[chy03001]

I wonder if all bards pun in this world...

[Gallowglass]

In before:

*nasal whine* "but Wall of Stone doesn't work that way! */nasal whine*

Great comic!

[2D8HP]

I'll owe a pint to whomever I first hear say out loud "Kill two bushes with one stone axe"

[Eadee]

Nice! I honestly didn't expect that such stuff is possible with stone wall.

[hamishspence]

In before:

*nasal whine* "but Wall of Stone doesn't work that way! */nasal whine*



Actually, it can:

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

Unlike a wall of iron, you can create a wall of stone in almost any shape you desire. The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation; however, it must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone. It can be used to bridge a chasm, for instance, or as a ramp. For this use, if the span is more than 20 feet, the wall must be arched and buttressed. This requirement reduces the spell’s area by half. The wall can be crudely shaped to allow crenellations, battlements, and so forth by likewise reducing the area.

[zimmerwald1915]

In before:

*nasal whine* "but Wall of Stone doesn't work that way! */nasal whine*

Great comic!
[nasal whine] But wall of stone works exactly that way![/nasal whine]


Unlike a wall of iron, you can create a wall of stone in almost any shape you desire. The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation; however, it must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone. It can be used to bridge a chasm, for instance, or as a ramp. For this use, if the span is more than 20 feet, the wall must be arched and buttressed. This requirement reduces the spell’s area by half. The wall can be crudely shaped to allow crenellations, battlements, and so forth by likewise reducing the area.

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

EDIT: Drat! Ninja'd again!

[Peelee]

In before:

*nasal whine* "but Wall of Stone doesn't work that way! */nasal whine*

Great comic!

Sure it does (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=11664910&postcount=11)!

[Dion]

Actually, it can:

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

Unlike a wall of iron, you can create a wall of stone in almost any shape you desire. The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation; however, it must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone. It can be used to bridge a chasm, for instance, or as a ramp. For this use, if the span is more than 20 feet, the wall must be arched and buttressed. This requirement reduces the spell’s area by half. The wall can be crudely shaped to allow crenellations, battlements, and so forth by likewise reducing the area.

Sure, you can make the rules say anything you want, just be reading exactly what they say and then discovering they agree with what you want them to say.

[LtPowers]

Man, I love Dwarves.


Powers &8^]

[Peelee]

Actually, it can:

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

Unlike a wall of iron, you can create a wall of stone in almost any shape you desire. The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation; however, it must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone. It can be used to bridge a chasm, for instance, or as a ramp. For this use, if the span is more than 20 feet, the wall must be arched and buttressed. This requirement reduces the spell’s area by half. The wall can be crudely shaped to allow crenellations, battlements, and so forth by likewise reducing the area.


[nasal whine] But wall of stone works exactly that way![/nasal whine]



EDIT: Drat! Ninja'd again!

Devil's Advocate:


Wall of Stone

Unlike a wall of iron, you can create a wall of stone in almost any shape you desire. The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation; however, it must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone.

The ramp has support pillars created by the wall itself. It would be a good argument, if it weren't for the "this version of Wall of Stone doesn't have that clause" rebuttal.

[JumboWheat01]

You can never escape bard jokes. NEVER.

[Emperor Time]

Pretty sure there isn't a bard joke that Durkon hasn't heard before. But I guess it could be an acquired taste kind of thing.

[Resileaf]

Random thought from that wall of stone conversation; would it be possible to use wall of stone offensively by creating a wall that cannot possibly be supported by the surrounding area, so that it breaks apart on top of characters underneath? Or would the spell just fail?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Sure, you can make the rules say anything you want, just be reading exactly what they say and then discovering they agree with what you want them to say.

Best comment, would read again. 10/10

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

Random thought from that wall of stone conversation; would it be possible to use wall of stone offensively by creating a wall that cannot possibly be supported by the surrounding area, so that it breaks apart on top of characters underneath? Or would the spell just fail?
The spell would just fail.

[Resileaf]

The spell would just fail.

Magic is boring.

[Peelee]

Magic is boring.

Imean, not really; a 3rd level spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneShape.htm) can take out those supports right after popping up the wall.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sgt Sigdi leading the troops with "what are you waiting for, engraved invitation."
Go Sarge! (Panel 5)

C'mon, what're ye waitin' fer, a fancy engrav'd invitation? Let's go!

[zimmerwald1915]

Imean, not really; a 3rd level spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneShape.htm) can take out those supports right after popping up the wall.
Can be accomplished in one round by a single 13th-level Cleric (wall of stone, quickened stone shape) or by a 9th-level and a 5th-level Cleric working in concert.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Can be accomplished in one round by a single 13th-level Cleric (wall of stone, quickened stone shape) or by a 9th-level and a 5th-level Cleric working in concert.

At 9th level, isn't the damage from falling stone as practically irrelevant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html) to a character as natural fire damage, though?

Grey Wolf

[Dion]

would it be possible to use wall of stone offensively by creating a wall that cannot possibly be supported by the surrounding area, so that it breaks apart on top of characters underneath? Or would the spell just fail?

Since the spell description says it must be solidly supported, I don’t think you can create a wall that’s not solidly supported.

But if your goals is to create lots of heavy, well supported stone, and then remove the supports so it collapses (like by breaking your wizard staff on a bridge so your enemy falls in the bottomless pit, or whatever), then sure... i think it’s just regular stone after it’s been created.

[zimmerwald1915]

At 9th level, isn't the damage from falling stone as practically irrelevant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html) to a character as natural fire damage, though?

Grey Wolf
Falling rocks get an arbitrary bonus to damage sufficient to kill everything :smallwink:

[Peelee]

At 9th level, isn't the damage from falling stone as practically irrelevant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html) to a character as natural fire damage, though?

Grey Wolf

Damage regardless, fire you can walk through. A bit harder to accomplish that feat through stone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html).:smallamused:

[Resileaf]

Falling rocks get an arbitrary bonus to damage sufficient to kill everything :smallwink:

Rocks fall, you die is a trope for a reason.

And being burried does have rules that you can't unbury yourself (at least in Pathfinder), so unless someone helps you out, you're stuck.

[Dion]

Falling rocks get an arbitrary bonus to damage sufficient to kill everything :smallwink:

No! I just know Thog is alive. He’ll come back. You’ll see!

[KorvinStarmast]

At 9th level, isn't the damage from falling stone as practically irrelevant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html) to a character as natural fire damage, though?

Grey Wolf
Depends on how much stone. Thog may not entirely agree with you. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html)



No! I just know Thog is alive. He’ll come back. You’ll see!
Betting the under on that.

[Gallowglass]

Actually, it can:
[/I]


[nasal whine] But wall of stone works exactly that way![/nasal whine]


Sure it does!

I'd make a comment about you all missing the joke, but if it happened three times, then the fault must've been with my delivery of said joke.

I apologize.

[HandofShadows]

I knew it! BARDS! :smallcool::smallbiggrin:

[Dion]

I apologize.

If we’re all expected to apologize for telling bad jokes, I have a LOT of apology posts to write.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Oof, the puns were particularly bad, and it’s not even like they get bonuses for saying them! (Let‘s not reflect on how the same is true of my puns)

[Dion]

Oof, the puns were particularly bad, and it’s not even like they get bonuses for saying them! (Let‘s not reflect on how the same is true of my puns)

The puns were a little “rocky!”

[AutomatedTeller]

That were awesome!!

let's just... keep movin', aye?

I had all sorts of ideas as to how the order got into the chamber, but I guess Durkon and Hilgya get another solo adventure...

I kind of expect a "hi ho, hi ho" joke along in here somewhere...

[Ron Miel]

I find the detail of Roy being eaten really funny.

Durkon seems to have forgotten the party rules (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0963.html).

[Elves]

The bridge looks great.

Hoping we get to see the worm's quickened cones of cold.

[Timy]

What worries me is the fact that once all the dwarf will be inside the building, there will be no more cleric with the team fighting the death worm...

[Fish]

Once the worm learns the party can’t go through the door, there might not be much reason left to fight.

[Peelee]

Once the worm learns the party can’t go through the door, there might not be much reason left to fight.

That's a good point. The worm was told to defend the platform thing and prevent anyone from getting through that door into the Middle Chamber. Anyone except the vampires and their mind-controlled thralls (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1159.html). Didn't say anything about the window up top.

[Elenna]

That last panel is perfect. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Ironsmith]

"Once a week"? Oh, Kandro, you don't know how lucky you actually are...

[bc56]

I see the Cousin's Brother-in-Law's Niece's Fiance in the lower right!

[Pampukin]

Im guessing casting song of freedom doesnt count as casting a spell, since its a class feature. So a good idea would have been V casting mindblank on the dwarf bard, he goes in the council frees the dudes (at least long enough for them to vote no on blasting the universe.) I didnt got the feeling that they got time to prepare something like that though.

Awesome comic, as always.

Edit: I checked, the wall turns to stone anyone casting a spell or a supernatural effect, song of freedom is considered a spell-like ability, so I guess its a no go from inside the blue barrier, and outside, since it blocks sounds. Hmmm.

[WombleofDarknes]

Hmm.... On the subject of bad bard puns, would the sound of a chorus of bards be an achoired taste?

I'll get my coat.

[Peelee]

Im guessing casting song of freedom doesnt count as casting a spell, since its a class feature.
It's still a spell-like ability.

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name.

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell:

ETA: Ninja'd...by you! Well played, Pampukin, well played.

[WindStruck]

I'm still wondering how the Dwarves are going to get through the window and into the building without shattering their ankles. Seems like at least a 30 foot drop to the floor? Unless there's a 2nd floor?

[Sian]

Intestines, worms... They all look the same to a cat.

Specially if the order is to gut worms :D

[Peelee]

I'm still wondering how the Dwarves are going to get through the window and into the building without shattering their ankles. Seems like at least a 30 foot drop to the floor? Unless there's a 2nd floor?

The old "Cleric's Feather Fall (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html)." Or the old Bard's Feather Fall, it's only a first-level spell. Not as funny though.

[danielxcutter]

The old "Cleric's Feather Fall (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html)." Or the old Bard's Feather Fall, it's only a first-level spell. Not as funny though.

Or, well, maybe, an actual Feather Fall:


Feather Fall
Transmutation
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1

Edit: Damn white text.

[understatement]

Durkon is just the best dwarf, isn't he.

On a side note, I guess Roy emulates after Jonah and the whale.

[Fyraltari]

What worries me is the fact that once all the dwarf will be inside the building, there will be no more cleric with the team fighting the death worm...
Durkon isn't going with them, though, he's on the wrong side of the chasm.

I'm still wondering how the Dwarves are going to get through the window and into the building without shattering their ankles. Seems like at least a 30 foot drop to the floor? Unless there's a 2nd floor?
Most likely this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1157.html) is where the windows lead to.

[understatement]

Looks like Durkon's going with them in the last panel, though. Hopefully Elan prepared plenty of cure spells.

[dmc91356]

Bards are spontaneous casters in this edition, they don't prepare spells.

[Ezekiel]

And now I know what sound a magical wall of stone makes. VHRNNG!

[Fyraltari]

Looks like Durkon's going with them in the last panel, though. Hopefully Elan prepared plenty of cure spells.

Oh, you're right, Kandro pulled him up.

Well I guess he can throw a cure critical wounds at the Worm in passing, then.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

Looks like Durkon's going with them in the last panel, though. Hopefully Elan prepared plenty of cure spells.

Elan both has a freshly recharged Cure Moderate Wounds wand as well as Cure Critical Wounds and Mass Cure Light wounds in his known spells. They'll be fine.

[Peelee]

Or, well, maybe, an actual Feather Fall:



Edit: Damn white text.

From what I remember, being in Korea is like perpetually living five years in the future, and yet I still managed to get ahead of you. :smalltongue:

[gerryq]

Roy is bravely stopping the worm from attacking anyone else.

Yes, he is cleverly blocking its mouth.

[Fish]

So no pointless 15-page debate about the comparative morality of entering a building via the windows? Nobody’s going to take the position that entering via the window is a crime against humani... uh, dwarfanity?

That’s rather refreshing, for some reason.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Give it time. We're only on page three for crying out loud.

And Kandro is right. Durkon isn't limited to hearing bard puns once a week. He gets them all the time!

[Jasdoif]

Nobody’s going to take the position that entering via the window is a crime against humani... uh, dwarfanity?That's an awfully defenestrative position to take.

[Dion]

So no pointless 15-page debate about the comparative morality of entering a building via the windows? Nobody’s going to take the position that entering via the window is a crime against humani... uh, dwarfanity?

That’s rather refreshing, for some reason.

Well, Gontor has taken a very strong position on doors. And, I do have a soft spot in my heart for Gontor.

If you’d like, I can post hundreds of pages of posts claiming that using doors incorrectly is dishonorable, and how that makes Hel and Gontor the good guys.

Or, we can talk about Star Wars.

Your call.

[Peelee]

Well, Gontor has taken a very strong position on doors. And, I do have a soft spot in my heart for Gontor.

If you’d like, I can post hundreds of pages of posts claiming that using doors incorrectly is dishonorable, and how that makes Hel and Gontor the good guys.

Or, we can talk about Star Wars.

Your call.

I have been looking for a way to bring the Jolee Bindo talk out of the Picard thread and into this one...

[Ridureyu]

Can that stone bridge be dispelled, thus sending all the dwarves falling to their tragic deaths?

[PontificatusRex]

That's an awfully defenestrative position to take.

Bravo.

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. 2Ot-benA5sUnXdPpsXyJbQHaDx%26pid%3DApi&f=1

[deuterio12]

Can that stone bridge be dispelled, thus sending all the dwarves falling to their tragic deaths?

No, it's instantaneous conjuration so it's there forever until physically broken.

Luckily Redcloak didn't remember to cast that during the siege of Azure city (standard cleric spell so every one gets it regardless of god/domain).

Although Durkon didn't use it to just seal up any breaches in the walls so meh.

[Cirin]

In before:

*nasal whine* "but Wall of Stone doesn't work that way! */nasal whine*

Great comic!

Looking at the 3.5 SRD, at first glance, it certainly appears to be a valid use of Wall of Stone.


This spell creates a wall of rock that merges into adjoining rock surfaces. A wall of stone is 1 inch thick per four caster levels and composed of up to one 5-foot square per level. You can double the wall’s area by halving its thickness. The wall cannot be conjured so that it occupies the same space as a creature or another object.

Unlike a wall of iron, you can create a wall of stone in almost any shape you desire. The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation; however, it must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone. It can be used to bridge a chasm, for instance, or as a ramp.

Using it to create a ramp from the broken part of the stone bridge to the higher part of the meeting hall, at first glance, does fit with the spell description.

[Rrmcklin]

How nice of Roy to keep Giant Death Worm from being unable to eat anyone else while the others all attack.

And we see Mysterious Not!Thad again, if only briefly.

[Ghosty]

That's an awfully defenestrative position to take.

Praguematic of you to point that out.

Let's not poke the sleeping dragon. Seriously Fish, did you also ask the teacher back in grade school if s/he forgot to pick up everyone's homework from last night? (Whistles aimlessly, watches clock until next strip.)

(It is really refreshing.)

[Peelee]

Praguematic of you to point that out.

You need to Czech yourself before you wreck yourself.

[KishouTheBadger]

Ah, so awesome to see Durkon's Cleric magic in action again.

and lol, he doesn't have the heart to tell his uncle that he has a bard on his party 24/7.

[Resileaf]

No, it's instantaneous conjuration so it's there forever until physically broken.

Luckily Redcloak didn't remember to cast that during the siege of Azure city (standard cleric spell so every one gets it regardless of god/domain).

Although Durkon didn't use it to just seal up any breaches in the walls so meh.

To be fair, Durkon never got close enough to the breach to close it in time.

[GAAD]

Well, it certainly seems like circumstances are beginning to... slide into place for our heroes, eh? :smallwink:

[deuterio12]

To be fair, Durkon never got close enough to the breach to close it in time.

Durkon was in the walls at that time wasn't he? And Wall of Stone has a pretty nice range of 100 feet+10 per CL, so certainly over 200 feet for Durkon.

If nothing else, Durkon could've used it to seal the secondary gate once the first wall was lost.

Although granted that just goes to show just how crazy things start getting once you start adding even medium-level magic in D&D 3.5.

Like Xykon could've gone around teleporting packs of hobgoblins right inside the city to bypass the fortifications right away, then after there is some carnage inside the walls animate the corpses for complete chaos. Bring some wights too which we know they had, those can multiply on their own. Even a dozen dropped in the middle of the fleeing civilians could spiral out of control pretty fast.

[Peelee]

Durkon was in the walls at that time wasn't he? And Wall of Stone has a pretty nice range of 100 feet+10 per CL, so certainly over 200 feet for Durkon.

If nothing else, Durkon could've used it to seal the secondary gate once the first wall was lost.

Although granted that just goes to show just how crazy things start getting once you start adding even medium-level magic in D&D 3.5.

Like Xykon could've gone around teleporting packs of hobgoblins right inside the city to bypass the fortifications right away, then after there is some carnage inside the walls animate the corpses for complete chaos. Bring some wights too which we know they had, those can multiply on their own. Even a dozen dropped in the middle of the fleeing civilians could spiral out of control pretty fast.

The wall was pretty long, and the Giant did make it a point to separate the Order from the start. Plus, maybe Durks didn't prepare a Wall of Stone, thinking that they wouldn't breach the wall. Nobody expected the Titanium elementals, after all.

[Psychronia]

Look's like Squeaky's apprentice has improved a lot. Good for her.

So what's the game plan after the family make it into the barrier? They'll be mostly safe from attacks at least.

[Ruck]

I find the detail of Roy being eaten really funny.
Some things about fighting alongside Durkon never change (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0963.html).


It appears Thirden's gotten used to Janna calling him "Master" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1087.html).
Dang, this was one of my first observations!


I'll owe a pint to whomever I first hear say out loud "Kill two bushes with one stone axe"
Hah, I didn't notice until you pointed it out that Durkon mixed up two metaphors / used a metaphor far more appropriate for Dwarven culture.

[Peelee]

Hah, I didn't notice until you pointed it out that Durkon mixed up two metaphors / used a metaphor far more appropriate for Dwarven culture.

I love when, in stories with different races/aliens, the writer has then say idioms that make far more sense in their culture. IIRC I think Timothy Zahn in particular is fond of that as well.

[F.Harr]

O.K., so now the dwarves are the primary team and Roy&Co. are serving to distract the bad guys. I love it!

And Mr. Scruffy's helping! :)

[Breccia]

That's a waterslide and everyone here knows it.

[Sian]

That's an awfully defenestrative position to take.

Defenestration is out of an window. They're going in, so its, I don't know ... Refenestration?

[dtilque]

Look's like Squeaky's apprentice has improved a lot. Good for her.

It's been 20 or 30 years (I forget exactly how many). I would hope she got better.


So what's the game plan after the family make it into the barrier? They'll be mostly safe from attacks at least.

Only if they make into the blue barrier.

As far as what they'll do inside there, here's my theory:

They won't be able to change the votes of the dominated Councilors. But each of the Councilors is head of a Dwarven Clan. So they'll create a new Clan on the spot, with all of Durkon's extended family plus the Thor clerics as members, headed by Sigdi. She'll vote No, of course. Since the dominated ones are a bare majority, that'll result in the vote being tied. Then the tie-braking rules are consulted, at which point I run out of guesses as to what happens.

In other words, a repeat (of sorts) of the Godsmoot.

[Ruck]

Defenestration is out of an window. They're going in, so its, I don't know ... Refenestration?

But they weren't even fenestrated the first time!

[factotum]

What worries me is the fact that once all the dwarf will be inside the building, there will be no more cleric with the team fighting the death worm...

We haven't seen a single cure wounds or heal being thrown, so it's not likely to make any difference that I can see.

[HorizonWalker]

We haven't seen a single cure wounds or heal being thrown, so it's not likely to make any difference that I can see.

Yes, but we have seen a "Remove Paralysis" spell being cast. And, importantly, "Remove Paralysis" is only a Cleric or Paladin spell. V doesn't have any way of preparing it. Which means... it's all on Durkon.

[dtilque]

As far as healing goes, Elan has quite a bit of it at his disposal. In fact, because the worm is undead, a Cure Serious Wounds spell would probably cause more damage to the worm than his sabre. (If that's wrong, I'm sure one of you will let me know.) If Roy gets swallowed, Elan should cast Mass Cure Light Wounds (which he can up to 3 times, I believe) on the whole party plus the worm. Roy will need all the healing he can get to survive the worm's gizzard.

[martianmister]

Good riddance to the Order of the Stick.
I never liked them in the first place.

It appears Thirden's gotten used to Janna calling him "Master" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1087.html).
Or he managed to get her to say "Master Squeaky" and decided "Good enough".
Or maybe she's saying it ironically, in a joking manner?

Sure looks like somebody should talk to Elan about a certain prestige class...
About what?

[Timy]

Yes, but we have seen a "Remove Paralysis" spell being cast. And, importantly, "Remove Paralysis" is only a Cleric or Paladin spell. V doesn't have any way of preparing it. Which means... it's all on Durkon.

Exactly that.

I was not worried about healing but about drained level, paralysis and any other nasty stuffs we haven't see yet...

[Heksefatter]

Noooooo! Please don't kill the awkward nightcrawler!

[Wizard_Lizard]

I love when, in stories with different races/aliens, the writer has then say idioms that make far more sense in their culture. IIRC I think Timothy Zahn in particular is fond of that as well.

edge chronicles does that too

[Fyraltari]

I love when, in stories with different races/aliens, the writer has then say idioms that make far more sense in their culture. IIRC I think Timothy Zahn in particular is fond of that as well.
Depends, when the author just akes a real expression and change one word, like in this case, it breaks my immersion, unless the alien is very close to humanity or the work isn't serious in the first place.

Defenestration is out of an window. They're going in, so its, I don't know ... Refenestration?

https://i.imgur.com/H5Kwryj.jpg

[CandidKid]

I see the puns already run ramp-ant in this thread... great strip, Roy taking one for the team!

[Riftwolf]

As far as healing goes, Elan has quite a bit of it at his disposal. In fact, because the worm is undead, a Cure Serious Wounds spell would probably cause more damage to the worm than his sabre. (If that's wrong, I'm sure one of you will let me know.) If Roy gets swallowed, Elan should cast Mass Cure Light Wounds (which he can up to 3 times, I believe) on the whole party plus the worm. Roy will need all the healing he can get to survive the worm's gizzard.

Spell resistance would block most of Elans magic (as hes multiclassed and so his caster level will be lower), and cure spells against LDW amounts to a tickle at best. Fight first, heal later would be the better tactic; this will probably be the only fight the non-dwarf Order will be involved in today, so once the LDW is down, they'll have plenty of by time for wand healing/cure light wounds.

[SilverCacaobean]

Oh, uncle Kandro, you poor ignorant fool...

TO be honest, though, I liked the "inclined" pun, because I learned a new meaning of that word because of it. :smalltongue:

[zimmerwald1915]

Spell resistance would block most of Elans magic
The nightcrawler has SR 31. Elan pierces its SR on a roll of 17 or better, Durkon on a roll of 18 or better, and Vaarsuvius on a roll of 14 or better. Casting SR: yes spells is a sucker's bet for any of the Order.

[Ron Miel]

Defenestration is out of an window. They're going in, so its, I don't know ... Refenestration?

Intrusive ?

[danielxcutter]

From what I remember, being in Korea is like perpetually living five years in the future, and yet I still managed to get ahead of you. :smalltongue:

...lolwut.

[martianmister]

...lolwut.

Living in Korea is like living in the future, compared to Alabama, and yet he "beat" you, someone from Korea, in the game of threads.

[Peelee]

Living in Korea is like living in the future, compared to Alabama, and yet he "beat" you, someone from Korea, in the game of threads.

Also compared to NYC, IMO, but definitely compared to Alabama.

[Roderick_BR]

Did. . . did you just make a D&D fight into a game of snakes and ladders? That's amazing.
Dang! I didn't notice that. lol

Also, once a week? Try once a round

[denthor]

Punning is an unwritten class feature of bards, clearly.


Would being unwritten mean it's silently spelled?

...ok, I'm really reaching on that one.

We do not speak of puns.
that is only for the paper.

[Jasdoif]

Nobody’s going to take the position that entering via the window is a crime against humani... uh, dwarfanity?That's an awfully defenestrative position to take.Defenestration is out of an window. They're going in, so its, I don't know ... Refenestration?But they weren't even fenestrated the first time!The position in question would be that going in was wrong, though; so it'd be antifenestrative.

Except "we'll throw you back out the window if you try to come in the window" was funnier than trying to transmogrify the word "antidisestablishmentarianism", which I only remember because someone pointed out its length when I was in middle school decades ago (compare "sesquipedalian", which I stumbled across in a dictionary in high school)....Plus "defenestrative" could be unseriously construed as a form of "defensive", and that amused me.

[Dion]

Wasn’t the American “chutes and ladders” board game originally called “snakes and ladders”?

There must be a pun involving chutes and snakes,, but I’m not creative enough to make it work.

[Zhorn]

heh, bad bard jokes are the best jokes :smallbiggrin:

[Martok]

I've always enjoyed OOTS's humor, but this is the first one in a while that made me literally guffaw out loud. That last panel was absolutely brilliant. :smallbiggrin:

[dtilque]

Spell resistance would block most of Elans magic (as hes multiclassed and so his caster level will be lower), and cure spells against LDW amounts to a tickle at best. Fight first, heal later would be the better tactic; this will probably be the only fight the non-dwarf Order will be involved in today, so once the LDW is down, they'll have plenty of by time for wand healing/cure light wounds.

The multiclassing isn't a huge disadvantage. As far as I can tell, he only took one level of DS. After that he's taken two more levels of Bard.

However, he's using a Chaos sabre on a chaotic being, which means he loses the bonus points there. I guess he can't do much damage either way.

[Snails]

The multiclassing isn't a huge disadvantage. As far as I can tell, he only took one level of DS. After that he's taken two more levels of Bard.

Not much of a disadvantage for Elan, being someone who just doesn't cast offensive spells very often. Healing and buffing loses only very little for one less level.

While I understand why The Giant went that way, can you imagine the comic potential of Elan actually using, say, Suggestion and Mass Suggestion in combat?

[understatement]

On a mildly-unrelated note, why is Animate Dead an Evil spell while Dominate Person isn't?

(I was just imagining Elan semi-controlling against their will, which gives off a weird vibe)

[Jasdoif]

On a mildly-unrelated note, why is Animate Dead an Evil spell while Dominate Person isn't?Probably the same reason zombies and skeletons are Evil despite mindless creatures normally being Neutral because they have no capacity for moral or ethical decisions, and why detect evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) always detects undead: "Undead = evil" is sort of a standard D&D motif.

[Snails]

On a mildly-unrelated note, why is Animate Dead an Evil spell while Dominate Person isn't?

It is a minor "sacred cow" of D&D. In the mythologies that informed ye olde D&D, most especially certain Christian medieval mythologies and story traditions that were inspired by some of those Christian mythologies, animating dead is disturbing the dead in a very wrong kind of way. Or worse. The belief that messing with a dead body can disrupt the "proper" journey of the soul is a very common one, 'round the globe, in fact.

Logically speaking, one can easily imagine a campaign world where Animate Dead was not evil, with only miniscule rule changes. I do not believe that TST/WotC has ever created such a campaign world, though.

In other words: Design Decision.
Corollary: You do not have to like a particular design decision, but not liking it for reasons does not make the decision bad.

[Dion]

On a mildly-unrelated note, why is Animate Dead an Evil spell while Dominate Person isn't?

I believe the undead are unholy abominations against nature, while telling people what to do is just a thing a boss gets to do at work.

[Fyraltari]

On a mildly-unrelated note, why is Animate Dead an Evil spell while Dominate Person isn't?

(I was just imagining Elan semi-controlling against their will, which gives off a weird vibe)
Because the people who Animate the Dead wear black robes, have a sickly pale skin and have pet snakes while the protagonists might want to use Dominate Person.

I believe the undead are unholy abominations against nature, while telling people what to do is just a thing a boss gets to do at work.
[insert rant about appeal to nature and anarchism here]

[Dion]

[insert rant about appeal to nature and anarchism here]

But calling something unnatural automatically wins all arguments!

[Resileaf]

Undead in D&D are inherently evil and want to eat the flesh of the living and do much nasty stuff.

Dominating minds, although iffy most of the time, can be used for the right reasons and is therefore not inherently reprehensible.
At the very least it's not any worse than suggestion or charm person.

[Fyraltari]

Undead in D&D are inherently evil and want to eat the flesh of the living and do much nasty stuff.
If they are mindless, that amounts to say that a storm is evil because all it does is destroy stuff and yet...


Dominating minds, although iffy most of the time, can be used for the right reasons and is therefore not inherently reprehensible.
At the very least it's not any worse than suggestion or charm person.
It’s not inherently reprehensible to snatch the agency out of someone? To make them a prisoner of their own body while a foreign intelligence does with them as it pleases?

[Resileaf]

If they are mindless, that amounts to say that a storm is evil because all it does is destroy stuff and yet...
They are not mindless, they are driven to do it. If they were mindless, they'd be as animals.


It’s not inherently reprehensible to snatch the agency out of someone? To make them a prisoner of their own body while a foreign intelligence does with them as it pleases?
If the person whose agency you are taking away is a killer on a murdering spree, is it more evil to dominate them to arrest them, or shoot a crossbow bolt in their face and kill them?
The answer is neither. You're protecting people either way, just using different methods.

[Rogar Demonblud]

It also gets into how Death deities are pretty much always Evil (and often Chaotic Evil at that), despite the fact that death is one of the most natural things out there. Or Evil versions of Good races just happening to have dark skin. To wit, certain people's prejudices and fears have been baked into the rules.

[Jasdoif]

They are not mindless, they are driven to do it. If they were mindless, they'd be as animals.Skeletons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/skeleton.htm) and zombies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/zombie.htm), the only types of undead animate dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) creates, have no intelligence scores and are thus mindless; Animals have intelligence scores (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType) and are thus not mindless.

[hamishspence]

They are not mindless, they are driven to do it. If they were mindless, they'd be as animals.

Skeletons and zombies are more mindless than most animals, being INT -, whereas most animals are INT 1-2 (with the exception of insects, spiders, and other invertrebrates which are classed as "Vermin" in D&D and are Int -.)

[Fyraltari]

They are not mindless, they are driven to do it. If they were mindless, they'd be as animals.
Except many Undeads are explicitly called mindless by the rulebooks.



If the person whose agency you are taking away is a killer on a murdering spree, is it more evil to dominate them to arrest them, or shoot a crossbow bolt in their face and kill them?
Why would that matter? Isn't killing someone inherently reprehensible too?
If you consider creating an undead evil because an undead is a destructive force then all destructiv action should be evil too. After all, they are situations where using undeads would be the lesser evil as well. What is more evil, to conscript your countrymen to fight the armies of the Evil EmpireTM or using the dead imperials as zombies to fight their former comrades, thus minimizing the body count?

The logical solution here is to consider that the morality of all spells, like all other actions is context-dependent, and call none of them evil, save perhaps, for those who cannot have a positive use (like Familicide).

[Resileaf]

They are perhaps mindless in the way that they have no intelligence score, but unintelligent undead are still driven to attack and kill the living. That's why they're inherently evil, it's because they, without provocation or reason, will do it.

[Fyraltari]

So will fire, yet Fireball isn't evil.

[Peelee]

Spell resistance would block most of Elans magic (as hes multiclassed and so his caster level will be lower)


The multiclassing isn't a huge disadvantage. As far as I can tell, he only took one level of DS. After that he's taken two more levels of Bard.

Every level of Dashing Swordsman contains the "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" clause in their Spells Per Day table.

Prove me wrong. :smalltongue:

[Resileaf]

So will fire, yet Fireball isn't evil.

Fire is not driven. Fire is not a creature, living or unliving, either (and don't bring up fire elementals, they're a different kind of being entirely). It's a chemical reaction, a law of nature. It would be like calling gravity evil because it makes people fall.
Arguing in bad faith is pretty evil, though.

[Kish]

I think "why is Dominate Person not evil?" is the more interesting half of the question.

Though I think the sudden accusation of arguing in bad faith is inappropriate and bizarre here.

Every level of Dashing Swordsman contains the "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" clause in their Spells Per Day table.

Prove me wrong. :smalltongue:
Elan said he took a bard level because he wanted to advance his spellcasting and grab Mass Cure Light Wounds and Neutralize Poison, and the point there was that he was actually planning because of being impacted by Therkla's death, not that he was stupidly not realizing how his prestige class worked.

[Fyraltari]

Fire is not driven. Fire is not a creature, living or unliving, either (and don't bring up fire elementals, they're a different kind of being entirely). It's a chemical reaction, a law of nature. It would be like calling gravity evil because it makes people fall.
Arguing in bad faith is pretty evil, though.

Fire is not driven because fire is... wait for it... mindless! Just like gravity, by the way.

[Jasdoif]

I think "why is Dominate Person not evil?" is the more interesting half of the question.I think the crossover third question is the interesting as well: Why is neither creating a golem nor golems themselves Evil, when....

The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator. ?

And of course, golems are also mindless, just like skeletons and zombies are; but golems are (True) Neutral.

[Resileaf]

Fire is not driven because fire is... wait for it... mindless! Just like gravity, by the way.

Again, fire is not a creature, and neither is gravity. Undead are creatures.

[Fyraltari]

Again, fire is not a creature, and neither is gravity. Undead are creatures.

So what? What does that change? Why is creating a destructive creature evil, when creating a destructive chemical reaction isn't?

[Resileaf]

So what? What does that change? Why is creating a destructive creature evil, when creating a destructive chemical reaction isn't?

Because fire is an element that can be used for good while undead are creatures that spread evil?
I mean, it's not my lore, it's how it is in D&D. If undead are different in your campaigns, that's how it works for you and I have no problem with that, but in D&D, that's how it is.

[Keltest]

Fire is not driven because fire is... wait for it... mindless! Just like gravity, by the way.

Im pretty sure youre reading "mindless" over-literally here. Zombies and skeletons have no capacity for independent thought but still perceive their environment and react to stimuli. They are mindless like a lobster is mindless, not in that they literally have no minds at all.

[Fyraltari]

I think the crossover third question is the interesting as well: Why is neither creating a golem nor golems themselves Evil, when....
?

And of course, golems are also mindless, just like skeletons and zombies are; but golems are (True) Neutral.
What is the spirit for, then? Is it a battery?

Because fire is an element that can be used for good while undead are creatures that spread evil?
How do they spread evil? Until now, all you said is that they would atrack the living without reason, which fire also does.


I mean, it's not my lore, it's how it is in D&D. If undead are different in your campaigns, that's how it works for you and I have no problem with that, but in D&D, that's how it is.
And that cannot be changed? I mean, D&D has got through eight editions right? Did Wizard of the Coast ever claim that there was nothing to improve in their game? No double standards or contradictions?

EDIT:

Im pretty sure youre reading "mindless" over-literally here. Zombies and skeletons have no capacity for independent thought but still perceive their environment and react to stimuli. They are mindless like a lobster is mindless, not in that they literally have no minds at all.
Ah, but the question wasn't wether the undead itself is evil, that's another bag of worms entirely. It was argued that the spell Animate Dead is evil because its creation, a mindless undead, would attack the living without rhyme or reason. And so does fire.

[Kish]

I mean, it's not my lore, it's how it is in D&D. If undead are different in your campaigns, that's how it works for you and I have no problem with that, but in D&D, that's how it is.
When someone asks "why is X?" there's something lacking about replying, "Because X, now stop arguing in bad faith."

Presumably everyone who ever even thought about asking "Why is Animate Dead evil?" had noticed that Animate Dead has the evil tag.


Ah, but the question wasn't wether the undead itself is evil, that's another bag of worms entirely. It was argued that the spell Animate Dead is evil because its creation, a mindless undead, would attack the living without rhyme or reason. And so does fire.
That's not strictly true. Fire consumes its fuel sources and burns whatever it touches. If there are no living creatures in its area it will simply burn out; if it could kill a dozen people by going south but the wind is blowing north, it will go north. As least in some sources, a mindless undead creature that isn't specifically directed by magic will constantly move toward the nearest living creature, attack them until they are dead, then repeat this until destroyed.

[Rogar Demonblud]

What is the spirit for, then? Is it a battery?

Pretty much. Which also what happens with undead and the Negative Energy Plane.

Really, you could clean up the monster categories in D&D a bit by consolidating them. Really, what's the difference between elementals and celestials? They're both outsiders from a specific subset of planes. Undead are just constructs powered by NPE instead of elemental energy, and I'm pretty sure there's also a sub-category powered by PPE that could get folded in as well.

[Snails]

We could easily ask:
Why do vampires suck blood?
Why are giants tall and strong?
Why do dragons (often) breath fire?
Why are genies magical?
Why does a pegasus have wings?
Why does Medusa turn people to stone?
Why do unicorns have healing powers?
Why are trolls nasty?

The answer:
Many, many many stories. The stories say so.

The stories that the designers chose to emulate (usually) said that undeath is an evil abomination.

One could choose to prefer other stories -- I have no doubt it is quite possible to make a wonderful campaign world with other choices. But let's not pretend the stories the designer honored are "wrong" or do not exist.

[Fyraltari]

That's not strictly true. Fire consumes its fuel sources and burns whatever it touches. If there are no living creatures in its area it will simply burn out; if it could kill a dozen people by going south but the wind is blowing north, it will go north. As least in some sources, a mindless undead creature that isn't specifically directed by magic will constantly move toward the nearest living creature, attack them until they are dead, then repeat this until destroyed.

Unless the undead has a magical way of divining the position of the nearest living creature, that's about equivalent. If it could kinn a dozen people by going south but there's a wall in the way and it doesn,'t know they are people on the other side, it will go north.

EDIT:

We could easily ask:
Why do vampires suck blood?
Why are giants tall and strong?
Why do dragons (often) breath fire?
Why are genies magical?
Why does a pegasus have wings?
Why does Medusa turn people to stone?
Why do unicorns have healing powers?
Why are trolls nasty?

The answer:
Many, many many stories. The stories say so.

The stories that the designers chose to emulate (usually) said that undeath is an evil abomination.

One could choose to prefer other stories -- I have no doubt it is quite possible to make a wonderful campaign world with other choices. But let's not pretend the stories the designer honored are "wrong" or do not exist.
Having inborn needs or ability is not the same as having an inborn (for as muc as "born" applies here) morality.

It is entirely possible to be mindless and turn people to stone, but being mindless and evil is a contradiction.

Furthemore, the question wasn't whether the undead was evil, the question was wether creating one was.

Also, one should always question why they consider specific things wrong/evil or right/good and wether they have a good reason for doing so.

[Snails]

Unless the undead has a magical way of divining the position of the nearest living creature, that's about equivalent. If it could kinn a dozen people by going south but there's a wall in the way and it doesn,'t know they are people on the other side, it will go north.

That argument equally applies to all non-omniscent creatures, no matter how evil.

Thus it is a non-argument.

[Jasdoif]

They are perhaps mindless in the way that they have no intelligence score, but unintelligent undead are still driven to attack and kill the living. That's why they're inherently evil, it's because they, without provocation or reason, will do it.I'm looking at Libris Mortis's table on the subject; there are numerous types of undead without diet dependencies nor inescapable cravings (skeletons and zombies among them). Can cite a source for your position? (Even if it's not 3rd edition; it's fascinating to see weird lore changes across editions.)


What is the spirit for, then? Is it a battery?My best theory is that it parses the controller's commands for the golem to follow. Clay golems (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm#clayGolem), in particular, have a chance for the elemental spirit to break free during combat, at which point the golem goes berserk and will try to kill or destroy the nearest creature/object until the golem itself is destroyed. (Flesh golems (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm#fleshGolem) are similar, though a Charisma check can let the controller reestablish control...with no indication how that's supposed to work without the elemental spirit.)

[Fyraltari]

That argument equally applies to all non-omniscent creatures, no matter how evil.

Thus it is a non-argument.

Considering I'm on the side that being driven to attack does not make them different from fire, that also not making them different from all other creature is not a fault in my reasoning.

[Peelee]

Elan said he took a bard level because he wanted to advance his spellcasting and grab Mass Cure Light Wounds and Neutralize Poison, and the point there was that he was actually planning because of being impacted by Therkla's death, not that he was stupidly not realizing how his prestige class worked.

Dammit, I didn't actually want to be proven wrong. Stupid actually-reading-the-comic arguments.

[Fish]

Dominate Person and undead are equally evil. It’s all in the eyes, you see. Dominated people have swirly eyes, and eyes are the windows to the soul. Since undead have no soul, you can’t look through the windows. One particular undead, the vampire, can only come in through the window if you give him permission. And as we all know, going in through windows the wrong way is a reprehensible act only committed by the most evil of beings. And crows. And raccoons sometimes, if you forget to put the bread away.

[danielxcutter]

Dang! I didn't notice that. lol

Also, once a week? Try once a round

More than that, since he has to do that once per attack(see his attack against Enor), and I'm fairly sure he got his third iterative attack this level. So yeah.


The multiclassing isn't a huge disadvantage. As far as I can tell, he only took one level of DS. After that he's taken two more levels of Bard.

However, he's using a Chaos sabre on a chaotic being, which means he loses the bonus points there. I guess he can't do much damage either way.

Nitpick: I believe Nightcrawlers are NE.


On a mildly-unrelated note, why is Animate Dead an Evil spell while Dominate Person isn't?

(I was just imagining Elan semi-controlling against their will, which gives off a weird vibe)

Other guys have mentioned other reasons, but I think one reason is because they're powered by negative energy, which is related to death, decay, and destruction. The Deathless from the Eberron setting are powered by positive energy, so therefore aren't evil - in fact, I think the default alignment for them is Neutral Good.

[Fish]

Yes, but what is their stance on windows? We’re trying to gin up a bIg argument here.

[danielxcutter]

Yes, but what is their stance on windows? We’re trying to gin up a bIg argument here.

I dunno, but Defenestrating Sphere(SpC) isn't an Evil spell... *shrugs*

[thorr-kan]

The position in question would be that going in was wrong, though; so it'd be antifenestrative.

Except "we'll throw you back out the window if you try to come in the window" was funnier than trying to transmogrify the word "antidisestablishmentarianism", which I only remember because someone pointed out its length when I was in middle school decades ago (compare "sesquipedalian", which I stumbled across in a dictionary in high school)....Plus "defenestrative" could be unseriously construed as a form of "defensive", and that amused me.
Actually...

Since defenestration is being thrown out the window, would not fenestration be being thrown in the window?

<Bianca>
Or can you only be fenestrated in Europe?
</Bianca>

[Peelee]

Actually...

Since defenestration is being thrown out the window, would not fenestration be being thrown in the window?

<Cher>
Or can you only be fenestrated in Europe?
</Cher>

They'd have to give you the final countdown.

[Fish]

Since defenestration is being thrown out the window, would not fenestration be being thrown in the window?
I submit “abfenestrate.” The prefix ad- means “toward,” but the initial adf- (alveolar stop + labiodental fricative) would assimilate to abf- (labial stop + labiodental fricative) in the same way that in+ possible becomes im+ possible.

[Keltest]

Unless the undead has a magical way of divining the position of the nearest living creature, that's about equivalent. If it could kinn a dozen people by going south but there's a wall in the way and it doesn,'t know they are people on the other side, it will go north.

EDIT:

Having inborn needs or ability is not the same as having an inborn (for as muc as "born" applies here) morality.

It is entirely possible to be mindless and turn people to stone, but being mindless and evil is a contradiction.

Furthemore, the question wasn't whether the undead was evil, the question was wether creating one was.

Also, one should always question why they consider specific things wrong/evil or right/good and wether they have a good reason for doing so.

They hear and see things. As I said, they can react to stimuli and perceive their environment. Theyre capable of and will go out of their way to find living creatures if such creatures exist to be found.

[Fyraltari]

They hear and see things. As I said, they can react to stimuli and perceive their environment. Theyre capable of and will go out of their way to find living creatures if such creatures exist to be found.

That's really stretching the difnition of mindless, for one.

But again, is "create a creture that will seek living things to destroy if left unchecked" more evil than "create a phenomenon that will spread in every direction it can and destroy most thing (including living) it touches if left unchecked"? Because that sounds utterly arbitrary.

[Keltest]

That's really stretching the difnition of mindless, for one.

But again, is "create a creture that will seek living things to destroy if left unchecked" more evil than "create a phenomenon that will spread in every direction it can and destroy most thing (including living) it touches if left unchecked"? Because that sounds utterly arbitrary.

Fireball doesn't just create the California wildfires though, its a relatively controlled blast that needs specific conditions to start expanding like that. For Animate Dead, its the default state.

[Fish]

A computer could be programmed to react to stimuli (the keyboard) and perceive its environment (with a microphone), and yet it is mindless. It has no mind of its own, but it has been directed by some other animating force.

Of course, it helps if the animating force is Windows. Which is evil.

Man, these moral and ethical questions about the evil uses of windows are everywhere.

[Fyraltari]

Fireball doesn't just create the California wildfires though, its a relatively controlled blast that needs specific conditions to start expanding like that. For Animate Dead, its the default state.

Doesn't it create a ball of fire? It takes it out too, after the explosion? I didn't know that.

Anyway, my point is that even if the mindless undead is inherently destructive, so are pretty much all attack spells of D&D. That they keep going after one use and they require to be put out to stop (how hard can that be when you're controlling them) makes them more efficient tools than other spells, not more evil.

[Keltest]

Doesn't it create a ball of fire? It takes it out too, after the explosion? I didn't know that.

Anyway, my point is that even if the mindless undead is inherently destructive, so are pretty much all attack spells of D&D. That they keep going after one use and they require to be put out to stop (how hard can that be when you're controlling them) makes them more efficient tools than other spells, not more evil.

Its not so much that it specifically takes it out as almost none of the target area can actually sustain a fire. You hold a candle in the air, the fire will only stay there as long as the candle is there because just air with nothing else doesn't have the fuel to keep a fire burning. If theres something flammable in the area that can catch fire, it will (ie a haybale, assuming it wasn't destroyed in the burst), but just chucking it up into the air isn't going to start any out of control fire. So you could start a wildfire with fireball, but fireball by itself is not enough to cause a wildfire.

Put another way, its the difference between something that *could* be used for evil and something that is *intentionally designed* for evil.

[Oxenstierna]

‘Wall of Stone’ definitely needs an updated name for the next edition! ‘Wall of stone or a ramp or a bridge or something’ would be more descriptive, but lacks brevity...

[dtilque]

Dominate Person and undead are equally evil. It’s all in the eyes, you see. Dominated people have swirly eyes, and eyes are the windows to the soul. Since undead have no soul, you can’t look through the windows. One particular undead, the vampire, can only come in through the window if you give him permission. And as we all know, going in through windows the wrong way is a reprehensible act only committed by the most evil of beings. And crows. And raccoons sometimes, if you forget to put the bread away.

So you're saying that the Dwarves in the current strip are Evil because they're planning on umm.. retro-fenestrating? I thought they were just being Praguematic....



[Hey, the thread drift of the strip discussion thread brought us back to discussing the strip. Amazing.]

[Fyraltari]

Its not so much that it specifically takes it out as almost none of the target area can actually sustain a fire. You hold a candle in the air, the fire will only stay there as long as the candle is there because just air with nothing else doesn't have the fuel to keep a fire burning. If theres something flammable in the area that can catch fire, it will (ie a haybale, assuming it wasn't destroyed in the burst), but just chucking it up into the air isn't going to start any out of control fire. So you could start a wildfire with fireball, but fireball by itself is not enough to cause a wildfire.


I mean unless you're doing fireworks, you're not shooting in the air, and unless you're really stupid you're aiming at something/someone flammable. Which will burn, which will then spread the fire.


Put another way, its the difference between something that *could* be used for evil and something that is *intentionally designed* for evil.
If by evil you mean "killing stuff" then around, what 90%?, of D&D spells are intentionally designed for evil.
And even if you don't, the question was how come it was evil when Domination isn't, and frankly Domination is intentionally designed for evil too.
I mean it didn't take me more than 30 seconds to come up with a scenario where using aniùate dead would reduce the bloodshed.

[Keltest]

I mean unless you're doing fireworks, you're not shooting in the air, and unless you're really stupid you're aiming at something/someone flammable. Which will burn, which will then spread the fire.


If by evil you mean "killing stuff" then around, what 90%?, of D&D spells are intentionally designed for evil.
And even if you don't, the question was how come it was evil when Domination isn't, and frankly Domination is intentionally designed for evil too.
I mean it didn't take me more than 30 seconds to come up with a scenario where using aniùate dead would reduce the bloodshed.

Only if you believe combat is inherently evil.

Otherwise, no. Only one of those tools leads to (attempted) indiscriminate mass murder by default.

[Paleomancer]

They hear and see things. As I said, they can react to stimuli and perceive their environment. Theyre capable of and will go out of their way to find living creatures if such creatures exist to be found.

Except that one has to have significant mental and sensory abilities, by definition, to specifically target living creatures. Canonically, in D&D, even mindless undead can effectively use tools and weapons, and can understand "simple" verbal or mental commands (i.e. language - not nearly so simple). Most real-life animals cannot do either, and even intelligent species are often quite limited. What you posit is consistent only with the sentience of an animal-level intellect (again, not at all mindless), and the canonical examples I include above require human-level intellect at a bare minimum.

As an alternative, consider using this trope from actual western folklore: undead minions could be the result of necromancers summoning evil souls or malevolent spirits to possess bodies (yeah, conjuration isn't so distinct from necromancy and enchantment in actual folklore). Such beings are independently evil, and have at least near-human intellect, so the ritual involves a lot more safeguards versus betrayal or rebellion, but less concern over basic combat ability. Since free-willed undead in D&D are almost always more powerful, it could be argued that the rituals needed to bind a spirit fully leave it few options to interact with the world, adding another evil aspect to even using the spell at all. It also means the spirits are capable of being willfully evil, so the alignment of evil is suitable for them.

[Nemoricus]

But again, is "create a creture that will seek living things to destroy if left unchecked" more evil than "create a phenomenon that will spread in every direction it can and destroy most thing (including living) it touches if left unchecked"? Because that sounds utterly arbitrary.

"Arbitrary" is the most accurate characterization, in my view. Dungeons & Dragons subscribes to the notion that there are objective good and evil in the world, and creating undead is considered evil in that model. The authors were likely influenced by cultural beliefs that such actions constitute desecrating a corpse and is hence a reprehensible act.

I'm not even sure if 3.5's zombies are inherently hostile to the living. Their description in the Monster Manual merely notes that they are mindless automatons following the instructions of their creator without hesitation. The same is true of skeletons, and yet Animate Dead is considered an Evil spell. I thought that this might be because of the use of negative energy, but the various Inflict spells are not evil.

[zimmerwald1915]

Why does it matter if zombies are Evil? If we accept that they are mindless, which it seems everyone does, then the only thing the Evil alignment does is make them susceptible to certain spells and class abilities. They suffer from a stigma, but who cares, they're mindless. Is it because there's some objection to them being so susceptible from a gameplay perspective? If so, what is it? Is it because it's a flaw in the alignment system? Great, it's one in a thousand flaws.

[Jasdoif]

Why does it matter if zombies are Evil? If we accept that they are mindless, which it seems everyone does, then the only thing the Evil alignment does is make them susceptible to certain spells and class abilities. They suffer from a stigma, but who cares, they're mindless. Is it because there's some objection to them being so susceptible from a gameplay perspective? If so, what is it? Is it because it's a flaw in the alignment system? Great, it's one in a thousand flaws.Well, the original question was why creating zombies (or skeletons) was called out as evil, when depriving someone of their mental autonomy was not.

[jwhouk]

Could somebody tell me whose turn it is in this game of Snakes and Ladders?

[DougTheHead]

Sounds like Squeaky's apprentice is being invited to the family dinners now! That's nice!

I wonder how big those dinners have gotten...they must be renting out the banquet hall every Wednesday by now.

[thorr-kan]

They'd have to give you the final countdown.
Oooh, skipping right over the <10 Things I Hate About You> reference and redirecting to a 80s rock pun. Well played.

Defenestration is totally worth a countdown!

[Peelee]

Oooh, skipping right over the Clueless reference and redirecting to a 80s rock pun. Well played.

Defenestration is totally worth a countdown!

I don't like to think of Turk before his med school days. :smallwink:

[Paleomancer]

Well, the original question was why creating zombies (or skeletons) was called out as evil, when depriving someone of their mental autonomy was not.

Exactly! Which is a valid question. Why is it perfectly fine to enslave elemental spirits (whose berserk ability indicates they really don't want to be enslaved), strip free will from other people (Charm, Suggestion, Dominate... and also Hold and Sleep), or summon/bind extraplanar creatures (without so much as a by-your-leave), but creating explicitly mindless undead is a vile act? These all seem equally deplorable acts, in terms of stripping free will from beings for personal gain and placing them in harm's way. I don't have a specific answer, but the various D&D settings often have some... questionable ideas as to what constitutes moral behavior, so this inconsistency is rather endemic to the game as a whole. A bit of a problem, this.

[Doug Lampert]

Exactly! Which is a valid question. Why is it perfectly fine to enslave elemental spirits (whose berserk ability indicates they really don't want to be enslaved), strip free will from other people (Charm, Suggestion, Dominate... and also Hold and Sleep), or summon/bind extraplanar creatures (without so much as a by-your-leave), but creating explicitly mindless undead is a vile act? These all seem equally deplorable acts, in terms of stripping free will from beings for personal gain and placing them in harm's way. I don't have a specific answer, but the various D&D settings often have some... questionable ideas as to what constitutes moral behavior, so this inconsistency is rather endemic to the game as a whole. A bit of a problem, this.

You can't bring someone back while their body is animated as an undead.

Not even with True Resurrection or other magic that doesn't need the body at all.

Since nothing you do to the body can have that effect, you MUST be grabbing the soul of the former person to empower the undead. They're enslaved in their own rotting body without even a vampire spirit to talk too.

EVIL.

Now, you can come up with other fluff, but your fluff MUST explain why the soul can't possibly be brought back by any magic while the skeleton is animated. If it doesn't then, your explanation fails to match D&D rules, much less lore. The assumption that you're not doing something horrible to the dead soul when you animate dead is IMAO unsupportable. And that explains nicely and easily why it's always EVIL. The soul has gone on, to the judgment of the gods, and you yank it back and torment it so you'll have a not particularly effective servant.

[Paleomancer]

You can't bring someone back while their body is animated as an undead.

Not even with True Resurrection or other magic that doesn't need the body at all.

Since nothing you do to the body can have that effect, you MUST be grabbing the soul of the former person to empower the undead. They're enslaved in their own rotting body without even a vampire spirit to talk too.

EVIL.

Now, you can come up with other fluff, but your fluff MUST explain why the soul can't possibly be brought back by any magic while the skeleton is animated. If it doesn't then, your explanation fails to match D&D rules, much less lore. The assumption that you're not doing something horrible to the dead soul when you animate dead is IMAO unsupportable. And that explains nicely and easily why it's always EVIL. The soul has gone on, to the judgment of the gods, and you yank it back and torment it so you'll have a not particularly effective servant.

Firstly, D&D is very inconsistent as to what is meant by "being turned into an undead creature." Skeletons and zombies are typically reanimated by negative energy and, at least in Libris Mortis if I remember rightly, are considered "soulless." In the case of certain variations (see Revived Fossil) it would be impossible to resurrect the creature anyway, because of raise/resurrection time limits. Canonically, souls do reach a point of no return, except perhaps epic or divine power. Since we have canon undead fossils, at a point where the souls couldn't be resurrected with mortal magic, suggests that binding a soul to lesser undead isn't a requirement. Having the body intact might be, depending on the spell.

Secondly, if you are thinking of my post-before-last, the whole point of my comment was that TSR/WotC didn't go far enough in creating a reprehensible form of animate dead - the spell seems less horrible than many options - a bit of desecration, but people have done worse in fiction and in RL under the "lesser evil" rationale. The current spell also gives no reason why the skeletons or zombies would do anything... at all, really. Their mindlessness should make it impossible to use weapons or tools, make them clumsy and disorganized, and they shouldn't be self-aware enough to act on their own for any reason. If animate dead instead meant the caster bound the souls of evil people or demons to corpses, you have a pretty nasty spell that is unambiguously evil, and also gives the resulting minions a narratively-consistent reason for being sufficiently aware and malevolent that attacking the living out of sadism or spite is a predictable response. In other words, why isn't animate dead more obviously evil like create undead? Instead of the vague "negative energy is evil except when we use inflict spells," it would be tied to actual moral choices and consequences - much more interesting from a narrative perspective.

Thirdly, you are operating under the entirely incorrect assumption that I, or the other posters asking this question, feel that animate undead is NOT evil (it is ambiguously defined). What our question actually concerns is that spells, feats, and effects that involve enslaving other beings, such as golem creation, the various mind control spells, and summoning/binding extraplanar beings all seem equally as evil as animate dead. Yet Animate Dead has an evil descriptor, while the others generally do not. The only exception that comes to mind, which also doesn't make any more sense, is using Summon Monster to summon evil creatures... apparently it's perfectly fine to enslave a celestial being without asking it for permission, but enslaving an evil creature to fight another evil creature (a classic Dominate Person/Monster setup, no less) is apparently evil.

So... I hope this explains what I'm actually discussing, since apparently I wasn't clear enough :smallannoyed:.

[Xel]

You can't bring someone back while their body is animated as an undead.

Not even with True Resurrection or other magic that doesn't need the body at all.

Since nothing you do to the body can have that effect, you MUST be grabbing the soul of the former person to empower the undead. They're enslaved in their own rotting body without even a vampire spirit to talk too.

EVIL.

Now, you can come up with other fluff, but your fluff MUST explain why the soul can't possibly be brought back by any magic while the skeleton is animated. If it doesn't then, your explanation fails to match D&D rules, much less lore. The assumption that you're not doing something horrible to the dead soul when you animate dead is IMAO unsupportable. And that explains nicely and easily why it's always EVIL. The soul has gone on, to the judgment of the gods, and you yank it back and torment it so you'll have a not particularly effective servant.

I think you’re making it more complicated than it needs be.
I. Undead are evil (axiom)
II. Tools and act of using a tool that are purely for creating evil things are evil (axiom)
III. The Animate Dead spell is a tool for creating undead (implicit in definition)
Therefore:
IV. Animate Dead and it’s use are evil (modus ponens twice)

As for the axioms (good and evil as defined and applied by D&D), they are arbitrary and capricious constructs with some well-applied behavioral rationalizations that draw on cultural stereotypes to get you to buy into them.

The real question becomes: am I now tarnished by invoking a spirit from the demi-plane of arbitrarity to animate this construct, and is my alignment now, in fact, capricious-arbitrarity?

[Xel]

...What our question actually concerns is that spells, feats, and effects that involve enslaving other beings, such as golem creation, the various mind control spells, and summoning/binding extraplanar beings all seem equally as evil as animate dead...
I think you are conflating Evil and morality. They aren’t truly related in D&D, despite the behavioral descriptions attached to the alignment system. It’s perfectly acceptable in D&D to perform immoral actions on creatures of opposing alignment labels just because they are of opposing alignment.

[Nemoricus]

I. Undead are evil (axiom)


This is not true. As a D&D 3.5 counterexample, I present ghosts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ghost.htm), which are both undead and may be of any alignment. Which, in my view, is as it should be. There are many reasons for a spirit to linger, not all of which are malign.

[Kish]

I think you are conflating Evil and morality. They aren’t truly related in D&D, despite the behavioral descriptions attached to the alignment system. It’s perfectly acceptable in D&D to perform immoral actions on creatures of opposing alignment labels just because they are of opposing alignment.
Mysteriously lacking from and completely incompatible with the actual alignment descriptions in the 3.5 Player's Handbook or the SRD.


Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

[understatement]

I mean, I really don't know D&D but Dominate Person just reeks of mind violation. You literally can make people kill their own family members.

Heck, if you use Animate Dead against an evil person doesn't that just make the spell "neutral?" Spells are tools and it should depend on the wielder, not the spell inherency itself. Just a lil observation.

Also, I'm so down on seeing Roy go full Greenhilt and cut his way out.

edit: extra fluff and grammar

[Xel]

Mysteriously lacking from and completely incompatible with the actual alignment descriptions in the 3.5 Player's Handbook or the SRD.

As I said, there exist behavioral rationalizations in the text designed to get you to buy into labels. But a deeper perusal shows that violating those behavioral rationalizations is generally quite acceptable if done to the “correct” targets. Good and Evil are inherent in what a creature *is* (alignment) and only affected by what they do — it isn’t solely defined by their actions.

[Xel]

This is not true. As a D&D 3.5 counterexample, I present ghosts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ghost.htm), which are both undead and may be of any alignment. Which, in my view, is as it should be. There are many reasons for a spirit to linger, not all of which are malign.
Yeah, I started with “axiom [there are exceptions]” for each of those. Took them out as I was mostly trying for amusing (I know better than to aim for “funny” by now). Knew I should’ve gone with my first instinct.

[Kish]

As I said, there exist behavioral rationalizations in the text designed to get you to buy into labels. But a deeper perusal shows that violating those behavioral rationalizations is generally quite acceptable if done to the “correct” targets. Good and Evil are inherent in what a creature *is* (alignment) and only affected by what they do — it isn’t solely defined by their actions.
Tosh. Calling shoving away the actual text and replacing it with something else "a deeper perusal" doesn't make it accurate. You'll never find anything in an official 3.5 book to support "It’s perfectly acceptable in D&D to perform immoral actions on creatures of opposing alignment labels just because they are of opposing alignment".

[blunk]

RIP, Uncle Kandro.

[The Shadow]

Interesting discussion about undead, Dominate Person, etc.

First off, I think 'mindless' in D&D really means 'without any trace of initiative', with a side order of 'can't be affected by many kinds of magic'. Clearly, skeletons and zombies can understand orders and act on them, so they aren't really 'mindless' in the usual sense of the word.

Why is making undead evil? That question can be taken three different but intertwined ways:

1) Why do people in the campaign world believe it to be evil?

2) What reasons do the game texts suggest for why it is evil?

3) Why did the designers set up the game that way?

1) can be nearly anything the GM can imagine. For that matter, I can imagine campaign worlds in which most people don't.

2) I propose to punt on. I personally loathe D&D lore about the positive and negative material planes, and always change things when doing my own campaigns. There's no reason why one can't re-interpret Inflict spells as smiting someone with the wrath of your god, for example - in which case they definitely won't heal undead, or anything else. I acknowledge that it's part of the RAW, but ignore it utterly. (I also loathe just about everything about the way D&D treats clerics and the gods in general, but that's for another thread.)

3) I think is easier to deal with. First off, there's the sheer visceral sense of desecration. The thought of one's body being turned into a shambling slave after one has died... That's more than 'ick'. That gets into the realm of 'kill it with FIRE!' Better a clean death than that. (I think the Giant captured this really well with the beatific smile on Durkon's face as he died... changing into the monstrous rage of being turned into a hell-beast.) And if there's any implication that one's soul is being impeded from its rest (as Durkon's was) that's even worse.

Second are the legends on the subject. Ghosts are ambivalent in legend, but corporeal undead are not. They are always, always, always, the worst of news - an offence to God, mom, and apple pie. The mere fact that 'Turn Undead' is a thing should be a major clue. (Though again, I think the way D&D treats it is fairly absurd.)

Third, and closely related to the second... D&D doesn't model this very well with skeletons and zombies at all, because they're so wimpy and so passive. But in most stories, the sheer *relentlessless* of the undead in pursuing the living is terrifying. They usually want you to join them in death or undeath, and they aren't willing to take 'no' for an answer. Watch your typical zombie movie. The zombies themselves may be too dumb to be 'evil' in an ethical sense... but you can't tell me that turning people into *that* is a good thing.

Fire is a tool that can be used for good or ill. Fireball is no different really than a flamethrower. But I think that turning corpses into undead could well be argued to be intrinsically evil in a way that fire or guns or what have you are not. You're stealing something you have no right to steal, desecrating something that should not be defiled. Perhaps even enslaving someone's soul. It's Bad News.

That said, I think Dominate Person is thoroughly abhorrent as well. Suggestion can perhaps be used in acceptable ways ('These are not the droids you are looking for'), but even Charm Person seems out of bounds of ethical use to me. It might be acceptable to use to get someone to stop attacking you, but anything beyond that strikes me as wrong. And Domination, bluntly, makes someone your slave in a way more far-reaching than any usual kind of slavery.

Then come the issues about golems, summoning elementals, and so on. Legendarily, these are only a small cut above undead in terms of wrongness. (The original Golem being an exception.) It's often seen as almost tantamount to treating with demons.

A lot depends on what sort of beings are involved. If elementals are just people, with their own societies and so on, then binding them to do your will is no different from enslaving anyone else. It's wrong.

But are they? It would be easy enough to model them as not, and there's legendary support for it too - by saying that faeries don't have souls, one is effectively saying they don't have free will in the first place. Alternatively, it would be possible to re-interpret such spells not as enslaving but as entreating, calling upon favors, or making deals. That would actually make a lot of sense for druids, in particular. A little less so, for wizards.

One could also come up with scenarios in which the beings in question *want* to serve. I was in an Arabian Nights True20 game in which many djinni regard being summoned as perhaps inconvenient at times, but also something of a status symbol. If mortals regard you as worth summoning, that carries a certain cachet in djinni society. It would be quite daring to summon a major noble, he might well take it the wrong way and smite you; but an up-and-coming young Turk might well regard it as a feather in his cap. He'd make a show of grumbling about it (can't let the mortals get uppity) but secretly be quite pleased.

[Xel]

Tosh. Calling shoving away the actual text and replacing it with something else "a deeper perusal" doesn't make it accurate. You'll never find anything in an official 3.5 book to support "It’s perfectly acceptable in D&D to perform immoral actions on creatures of opposing alignment labels just because they are of opposing alignment".
By “a deeper perusal,” I meant to indicate specificallly that it’s implied, not expressly spelled out anywhere. As such, I’ll freely admit it’s somewhat subjective, and I’m happy to go the “agree to disagree” route, if you don’t see it. I do still assert that my view is a reasonable one to infer from the way the game rules are set up (such as heavy combat focus, alignments inherent in creature types, use of terms Good and Evil that have been used to rationalize all manner of atrocities by the “Good” groups against the “Evil” ones) and in the official content (how many modules have “Evil” monsters placed with the expectation that the PCs can simply attack them pre-emptively? Without any attempt to resolve issues peacefully.

To get this back to the comic, there’ve been several instances of this aspect of the game, including express parodies of it. Two of those instances come immediately to mind:
- The young black dragon killed while defending his home from armed invaders — didn’t seem to be a mark against the LG PCs (I consider the “color-coded dragons” comment a bit later on to be the parody part).
- the unprovoked attack on the Nightcrawler just now (the good PCs are arguably at least aiding and abetting the aggression started by their neutral allies after the worm tried to defend itself)

[martianmister]

Wasn’t the American “chutes and ladders” board game originally called “snakes and ladders”?

It's "snakes and ladders" too in where I come from.

Sounds like Squeaky's apprentice is being invited to the family dinners now! That's nice!

I wonder how big those dinners have gotten...they must be renting out the banquet hall every Wednesday by now.

They gave her the Durkon's chair.

[deuterio12]

I think "why is Dominate Person not evil?" is the more interesting half of the question.


Clearly you haven't met the hypno community in the net yet.

[hamishspence]

Tosh. Calling shoving away the actual text and replacing it with something else "a deeper perusal" doesn't make it accurate. You'll never find anything in an official 3.5 book to support "It’s perfectly acceptable in D&D to perform immoral actions on creatures of opposing alignment labels just because they are of opposing alignment".

One of the things that helps me forgive BoED all its flaws, is that it specifically spells out that some immoral acts are not OK to do to Evil characters regardless of the circumstances.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If they are mindless, that amounts to say that a storm is evil because all it does is destroy stuff and yet...

Well, you've convinced me. Storms are clearly Evil.
Not serious

So will fire, yet Fireball isn't evil.

Nope, you convinced me above. Fire is also most clearly Evil.
Still not serious

Fire is not driven because fire is... wait for it... mindless! Just like gravity, by the way.
Gravity is clearly Evil, then.
Third time not serious

The logical solution here is to consider that the morality of all spells, like all other actions is context-dependent, and call none of them evil, save perhaps, for those who cannot have a positive use (like Familicide).

Familicide smallpox.
Mostly not serious
Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Smallpox pathogens don’t share no blood with each other.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Smallpox pathogens don’t share no blood with each other.

I don't think familicide cares. After all, the black dragon and the Draketooths probably had barely any blood in common with each other. We can say "blood", but the magic clearly targets family relations (bloodlines) more than, say, DNA or the physical blood itself.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

By the same token smallpox virus ( that’s a virus, right?) doesn’t reproduce with descendants. And the spell probably has to target a Creature of more than miscropic size, else V would have missed the Dragon and killed ther skin bacteria.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

By the same token smallpox virus ( that’s a virus, right?) doesn’t reproduce with descendants.

It is (was) indeed a virus. And given that I'm sure that some monsters in D&D reproduce via budding or cloning or duplication (because there is examples of everything), I don't think magic would care about that detail either.

In any case, this is a hypothetical use of familicide for Good. If familicide could be used to wipe out a horrific infectious disease, that covers sufficiently your clause of "it can be used for something other than Evil". Bit confused about you picking this hill to die on, since you were clearly on the "magic isn't Good or Evil, you should judge on the use it is put towards" camp.


And the spell probably has to target a Creature of more than miscropic size, else V would have missed the Dragon and killed ther skin bacteria.

Again, magic. V intended it to affect the dragon, so it did. Spells that are targeted by touching don't fail to affect their target just because you only touch clothing that is not the actual individual.

Grey Wolf

[Paleomancer]

I don't think familicide cares. After all, the black dragon and the Draketooths probably had barely any blood in common with each other. We can say "blood", but the magic clearly targets family relations (bloodlines) more than, say, DNA or the physical blood itself.

Grey Wolf

Now you've got me wondering whether viruses count as sufficiently "alive" for the purpose of Familicide. In the modern biological sense, "life" as we know it depends on having a metabolism, hence why viruses are not considered "alive." Moreover, if viruses (and viroids, infectious strands of loose DNA or RNA that plague plants) are like prions (neural proteins) in being rogue cellular processes that never were functional cells, they may never have been alive. Would even an epic death effect have any effect at all on a virus? Since like an undead being, it isn't really "alive"? I suppose the biggest unknown is whether the spell targets anything "related," such as undead relatives or flesh golems containing tissue from relatives. I do get you are being delibrately facetious for the fun of it, but it is a genuinely interesting point.

Say... Isn't the Order infected with Sphinx Pox? Future plot point or throwaway joke about D&D disease conditions?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Isn't the Order infected with Sphinx Pox? Future plot point or throwaway joke about D&D disease conditions?

Only Mr. Scruffy. And it can be easily cleared by a Cure Desease anyway.

In fact, the biggest thing against Familicide smallpox, is that it seems the gods of desease can create deseases ex-nihilo, so even if it did work, there is no particular reason to think it would stay extinct.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

It is (was) indeed a virus. And given that I'm sure that some monsters in D&D reproduce via budding or cloning or duplication (because there is examples of everything), I don't think magic would care about that detail either.

Why do you say that? If you familicided, say, a slaad (no autocorrect, not a salad) theres no reason to think that its host's bloodline would be included in the spell, and im uncertain that even its parent slaad would be, as their reproduction is itself at least partly magical.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Why do you say that?

Because epic magic is generally broken. Really, that's the long and short of it. Faced with non-bi-sexual forms of reproduction, what do I think an Epic spell designed to eliminate everyone in any way related to the target? Why, eliminate everyone in any way related to the target, even if "any way" involves non-bi-sexual reproduction. Because Epic.

After all, dragon-human mating usually involves a polymorphed dragon, so magic was involved in the Draketooh reproduction ancestry, and the spell didn't seem to care about that either.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

Because epic magic is generally broken. Really, that's the long and short of it. Faced with non-bi-sexual forms of reproduction, what do I think an Epic spell designed to eliminate everyone in any way related to the target? Why, eliminate everyone in any way related to the target, even if "any way" involves non-bi-sexual reproduction. Because Epic.

After all, dragon-human mating usually involves a polymorphed dragon, so magic was involved in the Draketooh reproduction ancestry, and the spell didn't seem to care about that either.

Grey Wolf

The spell was specifically designed to go after bloodlines. A polymorphed dragon still creates a bloodline. A slaad parasite does not, at least not from the host's side, and im uncertain about the slaad's side. Just because its magic doesn't mean it automatically fills in any and all conceivable gaps in the logic of the person designing it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The spell was specifically designed to go after bloodlines. A polymorphed dragon still creates a bloodline. A slaad parasite does not, at least not from the host's side, and im uncertain about the slaad's side. Just because its magic doesn't mean it automatically fills in any and all conceivable gaps in the logic of the person designing it.

I'm not saying the magic fills in the gaps automatically. I'm saying I'd expect Haerta to have considered non-bi-sexual forms of reproduction, because they are not uncommon in D&D monsters.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

I'm not saying the magic fills in the gaps automatically. I'm saying I'd expect Haerta to have considered non-bi-sexual forms of reproduction, because they are not uncommon in D&D monsters.

Grey Wolf

Ok, but presumably she wasn't planning on using it on random monsters. She's already epic level, its not like she's going to go out hunting monsters for loot and XP. She's conquering nations with armies of undead and using it on her rivals and enemies. If she needs to kill a Slaad or whatever, she has other tools for that. Familicide is a tool for dramatic effect.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ok, but presumably she wasn't planning on using it on random monsters. She's already epic level, its not like she's going to go out hunting monsters for loot and XP. She's conquering nations with armies of undead and using it on her rivals and enemies. If she needs to kill a Slaad or whatever, she has other tools for that. Familicide is a tool for dramatic effect.

And sometimes that dramatic effect needs to be applied to non-humans. In fact, by the time you get to Epic level, it seems that dramatically wiping out large chunks of humanity is probably not high on the to-do list (unless the old headcanon that she familicide'd herself by mistake is true). If you are devoting resources to create a spell that not only kills your target but everyone that they are related to, it seems weird it'd only work on standard bi-sexual relationships even when they involved polymorphing between species, but not regular non-magical non-bi-sexual reproduction which you probably have encountered by the time you are Epic enough to create the spell.

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

She's conquering nations with armies of undead and using it on her rivals and enemies.
I'm not sure that's true. The fiends had a world-conqueror at their disposal, and they did not describe Haerta in the same terms they used to describe him. She is described as "casually end[ing] lives with but a thought," not creating armies of undead or conquering nations.

[Keltest]

And sometimes that dramatic effect needs to be applied to non-humans. In fact, by the time you get to Epic level, it seems that dramatically wiping out large chunks of humanity is probably not high on the to-do list (unless the old headcanon that she familicide'd herself by mistake is true). If you are devoting resources to create a spell that not only kills your target but everyone that they are related to, it seems weird it'd only work on standard bi-sexual relationships even when they involved polymorphing between species, but not regular non-magical non-bi-sexual reproduction which you probably have encountered by the time you are Epic enough to create the spell.

Grey Wolf

So what? Lots of weird decisions get made in the stickverse all the time. Maybe giving it a special separate effect when used on species that don't sexually reproduce raised the crafting costs higher than she was interested in. Maybe she decided that species that don't reproduce in a way that leaves bloodlines wouldn't be as bothered by a spell that targets them even if she could theoretically get it to work. Maybe she made it to intimidate a specific dynasty into doing what she wanted, and wasn't concerned about the actual applications of the spell beyond that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So what? Lots of weird decisions get made in the stickverse all the time. Maybe giving it a special separate effect when used on species that don't sexually reproduce raised the crafting costs higher than she was interested in. Maybe she decided that species that don't reproduce in a way that leaves bloodlines wouldn't be as bothered by a spell that targets them even if she could theoretically get it to work. Maybe she made it to intimidate a specific dynasty into doing what she wanted, and wasn't concerned about the actual applications of the spell beyond that.

Or maybe she did not.

I'm sorry, if your entire argument against it is "maybe Haerta didn't consider it", that has as much strength as my "maybe she did". I see no reason to think the spell only works on bi-sexual reproduction, because Epic can easily encompass all other forms, and I don't see a reason why Haerta wouldn't add the others.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

Or maybe she did not.

I'm sorry, if your entire argument against it is "maybe Haerta didn't consider it", that has as much strength as my "maybe she did". I see no reason to think the spell only works on bi-sexual reproduction, because Epic can easily encompass all other forms, and I don't see a reason why Haerta wouldn't add the others.

Grey Wolf

Because it makes the spell harder to craft and cast. Adding new effects to an epic spell both increases the DC to actually create it, and the gold cost you need to put into it (which may well be trivial at that point, but is still a thing.) Perhaps more importantly, it also costs XP based on that gold cost, which can be difficult to come by at epic levels.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Because it makes the spell harder to craft and cast. Adding new effects to an epic spell both increases the DC to actually create it, and the gold cost you need to put into it (which may well be trivial at that point, but is still a thing.) Perhaps more importantly, it also costs XP based on that gold cost, which can be difficult to come by at epic levels.

From what I recall when it was discussed, the spell is ludicrous. Limiting its effects in the way you suggest is hardly going to make a dent on the DC or cost, compared to everything else that goes into it.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

From what I recall when it was discussed, the spell is ludicrous. Limiting its effects in the way you suggest is hardly going to make a dent on the DC or cost, compared to everything else that goes into it.

Grey Wolf

/shrug

As you pointed out, we don't have a lot beyond speculation either way. From where im sitting, theres no support for your stance at all beyond "why not?" so I don't feel like I have a terribly large hurdle to overcome to have the stronger position.

[Fish]

While ingenious, I don’t think familicide would work on smallpox in the way one would hope.

1. The description by the Giant is that it affects all those related by blood “in any way.” Surely that includes replication.

2. However, it also requires a living link to pass along the effects of the spell. Viruses are, in some ways, pretty fragile; smallpox doesn’t survive well outside the body (less than 24 hours, I read). It’s altogether likely there would be vast populations of the disease remaining, cut off from the effect because a some crucial link or links have been cut somewhere.

[facw]

Only Mr. Scruffy. And it can be easily cleared by a Cure Desease anyway.
Grey Wolf

Hel says:


Thanks to my unholy power, every man and woman on that ship is now infected.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1081.html

Though you are right that the fact they currently have at least three clerics who if they are infected, were infected after they left the airship and so presumably would be symptomatic later greatly lowers the threat. Could be bad news for the airship crew though.

[Doug Lampert]

While ingenious, I don’t think familicide would work on smallpox in the way one would hope.

1. The description by the Giant is that it affects all those related by blood “in any way.” Surely that includes replication.

2. However, it also requires a living link to pass along the effects of the spell. Viruses are, in some ways, pretty fragile; smallpox doesn’t survive well outside the body (less than 24 hours, I read). It’s altogether likely there would be vast populations of the disease remaining, cut off from the effect because a some crucial link or links have been cut somewhere.

Nope, a living link is only required for the secondary effect where it goes after relatives of your bloodline. The primary effect where it gets your bloodline does not need a living link.

Cast familicide on any living thing in our world, and it probably eliminates all life on Earth. We're all directly related if you go back far enough.

Edited to add link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?234374-Familicide-Mega-Thread/page36&p=12856280#post12856280) to how the spell works.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hmm.... On the subject of bad bard puns, would the sound of a chorus of bards be an achoired taste?
Puns like that are nearly sinphonic.

That's a waterslide and everyone here knows it. I disagree. As the local health and safety officer, I approve of Durkon providing hand rails for the ascent via ramp to the window. :smallwink:
And of course, golems are also mindless, just like skeletons and zombies are; but golems are (True) Neutral. While it can be argued that the evil (such as might accrue due to a golem being summoned) is laid at the feat of the golem's creator, that's a digression that does not further interest me. Just tossing that out there for your consideration.
Dominate Person and undead are equally evil. I respectfully disagree. Here is why.
The undead raised by a spell caster using animate dead have (in ther basic description) the pursuit and slaying of the living.
Hard not to call that other than evil.
Dominate Person can surely be used for evil purposes (Durkula exhibited such cases a plenty) or, for a counterexample it could be used to stop Belkar from killing someone innocent. Thus the "good or evil" of Dominate person is solely in the hands of what the caster is doing with it - logical not to apply the not evil tag on that spell, versus the evil tag on animate dead. As noted previously about literary influences on the game since its inception, it takes a bit of trope torturing to out of one's way to cast animate dead and then go forth with some pure hearted mission of planting flowers with your zombie minions. (Or other "good" use of raising the dead from their rest and exploiting their labor/efforts).
That Fyraltari is doing his The_Weirdo impersonation in this thread strikes me as ... someone having too much time on their hands. (I suspect we are all a bit guilty on that score).
Well, the original question was why creating zombies (or skeletons) was called out as evil, when depriving someone of their mental autonomy was not. See my answer to Fish.
I mean, I really don't know D&D but Dominate Person just reeks of mind violation. You literally can make people kill their own family members. Or you can stop Belkar from killing an innocent. The spell is a tool, the caster's use of it is where you may wish to make a moral judgment on the spell's effects.
After all, dragon-human mating usually involves a polymorphed dragon, Meme moment response:
pictures, or it never happened. :smallcool:

[AutomatedTeller]

I did not expect this thread to get into a discussion of the intricacies of familicide on various species, depending on how they reproduce. I would have guessed trying to figure out where Hilgya is in the mass of dwarves and how that choice shows/affects her alignment would be higher...

[KorvinStarmast]

I would have guessed trying to figure out where Hilgya is in the mass of dwarves and how that choice shows/affects her alignment would be higher... Just look for the next flame strike. You'll find her. :smallbiggrin:

[understatement]

Yeah, so if someone were to, let's say, command some undead to kill an evil person, then it's a [neutral] spell used for good!

...I'm really not sure where I'm going with this.

[Fish]

I respectfully disagree.
——> The Joke ——>



You

Warning: frog dissection.
I have been unseriously lamenting, whistling past the graveyard as it were, the refreshing lack of a moral and ethical shouting match in this thread, given the recent tedious horse-beating about She Who Must Not Be Named Lest The Weirdo Start Up The Argument Again. I decided the likely topic for such a discussion would be the alleged sin of entering a building via the windows. The post you replied to is one of a series that attempts to relate all positions taken by anyone as a pro- or anti-windows position in order to forward the illusion that an argument about windows is, in fact, in progress.

I imagined the bit about the raccoon was a dead giveaway.

[Peelee]

——> The Joke ——>



You


Would you say the joke was thrown out the window?

[Particle_Man]

Another theory is that Animate Dead is like a gateway drug. Once you create Zombies and Skeletons, you hunger to create the more significant undead, who tend to be intelligent and evil. Eventually you hunger to *be* a significant undead, and that way lies lichdom.

The good gods noted this and decided to slap the "Evil" tag on the spell in order to discourage this trend among otherwise well-meaning non-evil necromancers.

[Jasdoif]

Would you say the joke was thrown out the window?Stay glassy, my friend.

[thorr-kan]

The position in question would be that going in was wrong, though; so it'd be antifenestrative.

Except "we'll throw you back out the window if you try to come in the window" was funnier than trying to transmogrify the word "antidisestablishmentarianism", which I only remember because someone pointed out its length when I was in middle school decades ago (compare "sesquipedalian", which I stumbled across in a dictionary in high school)....Plus "defenestrative" could be unseriously construed as a form of "defensive", and that amused me.


RIP, Uncle Kandro.
"I'm not dead yet!"

Though it's certainly a trope-filled foreshadowing of coming death. But there are two dwarven bards who could recognize the situation and save him!

Let's see what happens...

[zimmerwald1915]

Another theory is that Animate Dead is like a gateway drug. Once you create Zombies and Skeletons, you hunger to create the more significant undead, who tend to be intelligent and evil. Eventually you hunger to *be* a significant undead, and that way lies lichdom.

The good gods noted this and decided to slap the "Evil" tag on the spell in order to discourage this trend among otherwise well-meaning non-evil necromancers.
Problem 1: the Good gods are not the arbiters of which spells get [Evil] tags, or of anything else related to alignment.

Problem 2: the gateway drug theory is largely bunkum even when it comes to real drugs.

[Peelee]

Stay glassy, my friend.

Your unending wit keeps shattering my expectations.

[Jasdoif]

Your unending wit keeps shattering my expectations.And here I thought I was just being transparent.

[Peelee]

And here I thought I was just being transparent.

Probably my fault, I know I can be a pane at times.

[hroþila]

Ooooh, window puns. This is my jamb.

[Fish]

Would you say the joke was thrown out the window?
If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a mullion times.

[Peelee]

If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a mullion times.

At this point it's like the blinds leading the blinds.

[Kish]

- the unprovoked attack on the Nightcrawler just now (the good PCs are arguably at least aiding and abetting the aggression started by their neutral allies after the worm tried to defend itself)
The nightcrawler used Cone of Cold on the Order while they were attacking Gontor, so that characterization of events in the comic has much in common with your assertions about alignment in general: it hinges on shoving away text and imposing made-up weirdness.

That's not even getting to the implied dichotomy between "we saw the villain who's enacting a plan to literally destroy the world summon a powerful undead creature and start giving orders to it; we'll treat the summon as friendly until it proves otherwise!" and "Listed alignment Evil=kill!" As Lien says, Good, not dumb.

[Jasdoif]

"we saw the villain who's enacting a plan to literally destroy the world summon a powerful undead creature and start giving orders to it..."A creature that actively sought permission to eat people (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1159.html)...so it's probably the type of person who eats people.

[Xel]

The nightcrawler used Cone of Cold on the Order while they were attacking Gontor, so that characterization of events in the comic has much in common with your assertions about alignment in general: it hinges on shoving away text and imposing made-up weirdness.

That's not even getting to the implied dichotomy between "we saw the villain who's enacting a plan to literally destroy the world summon a powerful undead creature and start giving orders to it; we'll treat the summon as friendly until it proves otherwise!" and "Listed alignment Evil=kill!" As Lien says, Good, not dumb.

Look again. Haley shoots the Nightcrawler first. And the party doesn’t enter the chamber until after the summoning and guard duty discussion. They don’t know what’s going on between those two.

I’ll grant that there’s room to interpret that scene as the party overhearing the whole interaction, but it’s at least as reasonable to interpret it that they wouldn’t know and just assumed the worm was a valid target for a preemptive strike. I think even more reasonable, since it would be more effective to launch the surprise attack while the bad guys were planning, yet the party did not do that (not as entertaining, though).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Look again. Haley shoots the Nightcrawler first. And the party doesn’t enter the chamber until after the summoning and guard duty discussion. They don’t know what’s going on between those two.

False, false, and false. You are the one that needs to re-read the comic. The nightcrawler enquires if they are allowed to eat V & Haley, while they are in earshot, as evidenced by Blackwing's comment about crows. Generally, someone inquiring if they can eat their opponents, and then asks if you are considered an opponent and is told you are is already an enemy - Haley is at this point fully justified in attacking, since the worm is working for her enemy.


it’s at least as reasonable to interpret it that they wouldn’t know and just assumed the worm was a valid target for a preemptive strike.

No, it is not a reasonable interpretation.

Grey Wolf

[Xel]

False, false, and false. You are the one that needs to re-read the comic. The nightcrawler enquires if they are allowed to eat V & Haley, while they are in earshot, as evidenced by Blackwing's comment about crows. Generally, someone inquiring if they can eat their opponents, and then asks if you are considered an opponent and is told you are is already an enemy - Haley is at this point fully justified in attacking, since the worm is working for her enemy.



No, it is not a reasonable interpretation.

Grey Wolf

Eh, it’s a matter of timing. Blackwing hears the comment in panel 8. Haley, V, and Blackwing fly into the room at least by panel 6. The last exchange that specifically identifies identifies the Nightcrawler as guarding the area (and willing to eat people who just want to go by) is panel 4. To me, movement is happening as part of panel 6, so that’s the time frame where Haley, et al are flying in, with the Nightcrawler immediately reacting by having another question. I still think my interpretation is reasonable from the evidence (again, not the only reasonable one).

I’m quite willing to change my mind on the reasonableness of that interpretation if there’s additional evidence I’ve missed.

I should also state that I have no problem with the Order attacking the Nightcrawler pre-emptively, based on “it’s Evil” (known or unknown to the party). The point is entertainment, and the whole scene with the Nightcrawler is a great bit of heroic storytelling without needing the complications of worrying about moral ambiguity. That’s the purpose of alignments (IMHO): a helpful simplification for a game system that centers around combat, letting people get on with the heroics without all of the ambiguity of fact, intent, etc, that exist in the real world.