OOTS #844 - The Discussion Thread

[Jay R]

Something tells me that our heroes will be adventuring in Kraagor's tomb in the final part of the comic...

Well, .. in the next part of the comic, at least. Maybe they will then have to go through and explore the world inside the Snarl's prison.

[rbetieh]

Well, .. in the next part of the comic, at least. Maybe they will then have to go through and explore the world inside the Snarl's prison.

Nah, O-chul was sent there, all of Serinis monsters are either dead or toilet trained by now.

[Math_Mage]

Nah, O-chul was sent there, all of Serinis monsters are either dead or toilet trained by now.

Well, Go-trained, anyway.

[rbetieh]

Well, Go-trained, anyway.

I am suddenly reminded of the Palladium Games RPG first edition book of two Balrogs playing chess..... Who wins, the Purple Worm or the Roc?

[Forikroder]

I'm honestly disinclined to believe that we're biased or insufficiently informed about the schism in the Order of the Scribble based on Shojo's retelling. We may hear more about it from Girard, but it's pretty clear that the key event was what Girard perceived as Soon sacrificing Kraagor to complete the Gate (presumably drawing on preexisting, previously lighthearted tensions between the two due to Lawful/Chaotic behavior split). Also, the story Shojo told was not the same as the drawings we saw, as proven by Roy not being able to guess why Girard distrusted Soon so much. So the embellishments placed there by the author are more likely to be real--there's no point setting up images for the reader to misinterpret if the characters never get to misinterpret them.

And there's STILL no reason to booby-trap the message, even if all of that is true.

why do you keep saying that?
of course theres reason to boobytrap the message, diplomacy doesnt keep the gate safe

Since this is not a horror film with aliens, I fail to see the connection.

in this case soon and his paladins would be the aliens and the rest of the party/world being the ignorant bystanders who treat the main character as crazy while hes saving the world

We have no indication whatsoever that any of the three continents are ignorant of the core base classes.

well we know the desert is completely lacking in Paladins, and unless Girard learned about Paladins in the Deserts amazing educational system (the education part was sarcasm BTW) then he wouldnt know anything about Paladins

[Math_Mage]

why do you keep saying that?
of course theres reason to boobytrap the message, diplomacy doesnt keep the gate safe

No, secrecy and illusions do.

in this case soon and his paladins would be the aliens and the rest of the party/world being the ignorant bystanders who treat the main character as crazy while hes saving the world

I think the idea that Girard's paranoia could lead him to be this sadly deluded would, again, be a point AGAINST him.

well we know the desert is completely lacking in Paladins

We do?

and unless Girard learned about Paladins in the Deserts amazing educational system (the education part was sarcasm BTW) then he wouldnt know anything about Paladins

This requires Miko's special ability of Monk-style leaping to conclusions.

[Forikroder]

No, secrecy and illusions do.

and deadly traps

I think the idea that Girard's paranoia could lead him to be this sadly deluded would, again, be a point AGAINST him.

its not a result o his paranoia its a result of his adventuring with Soon

someonething Soon did caused Girard to think Paladins were terrible

[Math_Mage]

and deadly traps

*sigh* Look, what I'm saying is, if Shojo had sent paladins off to check on Girard's gate subsequent to, let's say, "concrete evidence of a threat to all the gates,", they probably would have been blown up by a trap specifically DESIGNED to blow up Soon's paladins. Not only would this be foreseeable, it's what Girard counted on. This is indiscriminate harm towards undeserving targets.

its not a result o his paranoia its a result of his adventuring with Soon

someonething Soon did caused Girard to think Paladins were terrible

I'm bemused as to how you consider those mutually exclusive. In any event, we know with a reasonable degree of certainty what Soon did that caused Girard to think Paladins are terrible. Still doesn't justify the trap in the message.

[Kish]

and deadly traps


its not a result o his paranoia its a result of his adventuring with Soon

someonething Soon did caused Girard to think Paladins were terrible

You realize that you've gone from rather unlikely speculation ("Maybe Girard didn't know what a paladin is!" to purely speculative assertions ("If Girard thought something bad about Soon, it was Soon's fault, not Girard's!").

There is no good reason to take Girard's obvious irrational paranoia as not meaning "Girard was/is irrationally paranoid."

I am sorry but there isn't a game in the world whose objective isn't to win.

That's quite an assertion.

Oh, and has Rich done anything with the Drow or are they all still evil and dark-skinned in his world?

You...really have trouble with the fact that you, not Rich, are the one whose approach to D&D morality involves house-ruling, don't you?

Your question is unanswerable, because it hinges on an incorrect premise.

If I were to rephrase it to eliminate the incorrect premise and get something answerable, one possible answer would be, "Has Rich made the same changes to the drow that I have so that every one of them is evil, or are somewhere between 50% and 99% of them still evil in the OotS world, as they are in D&D?"

But that rephrasing might, in and of itself, render the answer obvious enough that actually asking the question would be unnecessary.

[rbetieh]

That's quite an assertion.

Just because something is asserted does not mean it is wrong, you know. Name some games that don't have win conditions (well besides RPGs since we already discussed this...)

[Forikroder]

*sigh* Look, what I'm saying is, if Shojo had sent paladins off to check on Girard's gate subsequent to, let's say, "concrete evidence of a threat to all the gates,", they probably would have been blown up by a trap specifically DESIGNED to blow up Soon's paladins. Not only would this be foreseeable, it's what Girard counted on. This is indiscriminate harm towards undeserving targets.

how is it indiscriminate? its very discriminate its designed to blow up on anyone who obtained information about the whereabouts of the gate from Soon and is there to find it and wether there deserving or not is entirely opinion, ones man execution is another mans murder

I'm bemused as to how you consider those mutually exclusive. In any event, we know with a reasonable degree of certainty what Soon did that caused Girard to think Paladins are terrible. Still doesn't justify the trap in the message.

i dont think that could possibly be all, one act right at the end of there adventure wouldnt be enough to make Girard hate Soon so much

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html

if i ahd to guess, id say that Soon took it upon himself as a full time job to ensure the rest of his party (which would mainly be Girard and Serini id say) acted exactly how he wanted them to completely following his idea of Lawful Good which im also guessing is close to Mikos definition but perhaps not as strict so id say the reason Girard doesnt like him is because Soon essentially went out of his way to force Girard to act un-Girard-ish which seriously pissed him off

and there was probably a few especially notable events

looking closely at 276, we see soon standing next tot he gate with Kraagar fighting off the snarl and Soon calling for the rift to be sealed with him survivng and Kraagar dieing we know Paladins are big on the whole self sacrifice thing and helping people no matter the cost, so maybe since Soon allowed Kraagar to be caught in the rift instead of heroicly throwing him out of the way and taking the hit himself it just cemented Girards belief that everything Paladins say they stand for is nothing but a lie?

You realize that you've gone from rather unlikely speculation ("Maybe Girard didn't know what a paladin is!" to purely speculative assertions ("If Girard thought something bad about Soon, it was Soon's fault, not Girard's!").

There is no good reason to take Girard's obvious irrational paranoia as not meaning "Girard was/is irrationally paranoid."

aside from leaving a bomb for soon, has we seen any other irrational behaviour? isnt it more likely when you only have one single piece of evidence that its easier to assume that piece as the outlier instead of the standard?

and im not saying neccesarily he has never heard of what a paladin is at all, but its plausible that he has only heard the bare bones of what paladins are from an anti-paladin crowd instead of most people who would hear a very detailed description from a pro-paladin crowd

its the difference between learning what apaladin is from tsukiko and from Ochul

[Math_Mage]

Just because something is asserted does not mean it is wrong, you know. Name some games that don't have win conditions (well besides RPGs since we already discussed this...)

Does The Sims have a win condition? I'm not aware of one.

how is it indiscriminate? its very discriminate its designed to blow up on anyone who obtained information about the whereabouts of the gate from Soon and is there to find it and wether there deserving or not is entirely opinion, ones man execution is another mans murder

I'm struggling to find a viewpoint from which Girard's trap taking out, hypothetically, Thanh because Shojo dispatched him on a mission after discovering evidence of a threat to all the gates, would not be murder.

Just because Girard has an irrationally paranoid viewpoint where taking out Soon's paladins would be considered 'execution' doesn't mean we have to consider that viewpoint just as valid as a rational one.

i

dont think that could possibly be all, one act right at the end of there adventure wouldnt be enough to make Girard hate Soon so much

The mind boggles.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html

if i ahd to guess, id say that Soon took it upon himself as a full time job to ensure the rest of his party (which would mainly be Girard and Serini id say) acted exactly how he wanted them to completely following his idea of Lawful Good which im also guessing is close to Mikos definition but perhaps not as strict so id say the reason Girard doesnt like him is because Soon essentially went out of his way to force Girard to act un-Girard-ish which seriously pissed him off

Ahem...

We may hear more about it from Girard, but it's pretty clear that the key event was what Girard perceived as Soon sacrificing Kraagor to complete the Gate (presumably drawing on preexisting, previously lighthearted tensions between the two due to Lawful/Chaotic behavior split).

Not that I necessarily agree with your highly speculative and slanted opinion on the Order of the Scribble's intraparty interaction, but the relevant element of tension between Soon and Girard is something I've already noted.

aside from leaving a bomb for soon, has we seen any other irrational behaviour? isnt it more likely when you only have one single piece of evidence that its easier to assume that piece as the outlier instead of the standard?

Pathological distrust of anyone who isn't family leading him to establish a secret cultlike familial clan around the Gate that encourages continuance of the clan by having children with, and kidnapping them from, people around the continent?

and im not saying neccesarily he has never heard of what a paladin is at all, but its plausible that he has only heard the bare bones of what paladins are from an anti-paladin crowd instead of most people who would hear a very detailed description from a pro-paladin crowd

its the difference between learning what apaladin is from tsukiko and from Ochul

Quite apart from this continued discussion about whether we should assume that Girard never learned any pertinent information about paladins based on...thin air, I rather doubt Soon never once explained anything about paladinhood to Girard while they were adventuring together.

[Porthos]

Just because something is asserted does not mean it is wrong, you know. Name some games that don't have win conditions (well besides RPGs since we already discussed this...)

Conway's Game of Life?

[jere7my]

Just because something is asserted does not mean it is wrong, you know. Name some games that don't have win conditions (well besides RPGs since we already discussed this...)

Minecraft (originally, anyway) and The Sims. (And yes, there are goals you can set for yourself in both those games, and you can "win" a session in that sense. But if that's your argument, then any human activity with any sort of purpose has a "win condition", which seems broad to the point of uselessness.)

There are parlor games that can be played with or without "winning", too — people play Charades and Chain-Link Murder for purely social purposes, without keeping track of points. And what is the win condition of Pac-Man?

[rbetieh]

Does The Sims have a win condition? I'm not aware of one.

It does not, unless you create one yourself. But you should note the The Sims, Sim City, and Spore; all Will Wright creations, are in fact toys. There is a good NYT article on this circa 2008. It was a review of Spore if I recall. I can find it and PM it to you if you have an interest.

[Math_Mage]

It does not, unless you create one yourself. But you should note the The Sims, Sim City, and Spore; all Will Wright creations, are in fact toys. There is a good NYT article on this circa 2008. It was a review of Spore if I recall. I can find it and PM it to you if you have an interest.

Fair enough. I suppose that if we get down to technical definitions, a lot of things typically described as 'games' would be more readily slotted as puzzles, recreations, or toys. But then, that feels a lot like defining away the issue.

[rbetieh]

people play Charades and Chain-Link Murder for purely social purposes, without keeping track of points.

Ok, I will agree with you if you can find some charades playing group that says after a player guesses correctly "Hooray, you are right, but lets keep guessing on what I might have been miming because guessing is fun!" Somebody won that round....

[Omergideon]

As a genuine question, how does one define a toy as distinct from a game? I ask because if the definition requires external victory conditions then it is not useful for the discussion.

Though I played many games as a child with my friends that were essentially roleplaying. We played make believe. The purpose was to do something fun and in character and to together tell the story we had. DnD is simply a variation on that that includes a mechanism for random chance to interact with your decisions, allowing you to react to things that you might never choose to happen in your normal make believe games.

Is there anything wrong with that idea?


And regarding girard I repeat, whilst his paranoia is a satisfying explanation for his actions it is distinct from providing a justification for them.

[jere7my]

Ok, I will agree with you if you can find some charades playing group that says after a player guesses correctly "Hooray, you are right, but lets keep guessing on what I might have been miming because guessing is fun!" Somebody won that round....

There are collaborative storytelling games in which nobody "wins", unless you define "winning" as "having a good time." I think you would have a hard time drawing a line between them, RPGs, and The Sims, and most people would consider all three of them to be games.

But if you're judging whether something is a game or not solely by whether it includes winning conditions (which you can define to be whatever you like), then no, we will not be able to come up with a game that does not have winning conditions. That just means you're using an artificially rigid definition of "game."

[Forikroder]

I'm struggling to find a viewpoint from which Girard's trap taking out, hypothetically, Thanh because Shojo dispatched him on a mission after discovering evidence of a threat to all the gates, would not be murder.

Just because Girard has an irrationally paranoid viewpoint where taking out Soon's paladins would be considered 'execution' doesn't mean we have to consider that viewpoint just as valid as a rational one.

thats becuase you refuse to believe anyone other then you could possibly be correct and arent actualyl trying at all to understand what im saying

to Girard, Paladins are as bad as blackguards, are you saying that its a bad idea to set a trap to kill blackguards?

Pathological distrust of anyone who isn't family leading him to establish a secret cultlike familial clan around the Gate that encourages continuance of the clan by having children with, and kidnapping them from, people around the continent?

makes perfect sense, hes in teh middle of the biggest war in the world in a place thats constantly at war with everyone and some hot shot warlord apears yearly to take over a country

who else in the country is he gonna trust? who else CAN he trust? the only way for him to recruit people to help him guard the gate and ensure the gate remains safe for eternity is to get his family to help and charge them and there descendants with guarding the gate

Quite apart from this continued discussion about whether we should assume that Girard never learned any pertinent information about paladins based on...thin air, I rather doubt Soon never once explained anything about paladinhood to Girard while they were adventuring together.

oh ya cause if theres any information Girard would trust it would be information coming from Soon, if anything Soon teaching him about Paladins would only make Girard like them less since hed assume there lieing braggards who go around fluffing up there own storys

[t209]

I'm getting shaky since What if Redcloak took all the dead resistance members and turn them into undead for his army for this gates. (Waste Not, Want not) It could be creepy for Zombie Thanh to attack haley.

[Forikroder]

I'm getting shaky since What if Redcloak took all the dead resistance members and turn them into undead for his army for this gates. (Waste Not, Want not) It could be creepy for Zombie Thanh to attack haley.

hed have to dig out all of there bodies first

[Somewhere]

Just because something is asserted does not mean it is wrong, you know. Name some games that don't have win conditions (well besides RPGs since we already discussed this...)

What do you consider games where the focus is on racking up the highest score possible and in which there is literally no ending programmed? A rather noticable percentage of arcade games pre-1990 would count as that.

(unless you count 'overflowing the level counter and borking the game' as winning...)

[t209]

hed have to dig out all of there bodies first

1. The place is empty.
2. A demon got a corpse (meaning they took the corpses).
P.S- Don't even think about digging up the corpses and reviving them. There are no barbarians (mix max) or any magicians. Game Over for Azure City, Man. Unless the arc end in time travel.

[thepsyker]

I'm honestly disinclined to believe that we're biased or insufficiently informed about the schism in the Order of the Scribble based on Shojo's retelling. We may hear more about it from Girard, but it's pretty clear that the key event was what Girard perceived as Soon sacrificing Kraagor to complete the Gate (presumably drawing on preexisting, previously lighthearted tensions between the two due to Lawful/Chaotic behavior split). Also, the story Shojo told was not the same as the drawings we saw, as proven by Roy not being able to guess why Girard distrusted Soon so much. So the embellishments placed there by the author are more likely to be real--there's no point setting up images for the reader to misinterpret if the characters never get to misinterpret them.

And there's STILL no reason to booby-trap the message, even if all of that is true.

Someone he doesn't trust is coming after a gate he is dedicated to protecting, how is that not a reason for a booby trap?

As for the crayon strips being the complete story, just because Roy doesn't get why Girard would trap the message doesn't mean he doesn't know about Kraagor. It could just mean that he, like you, doesn't think that it is something that would justify the booby trap and so is wondering what would make Girard do something like that.

edit:

*sigh* Look, what I'm saying is, if Shojo had sent paladins off to check on Girard's gate subsequent to, let's say, "concrete evidence of a threat to all the gates,", they probably would have been blown up by a trap specifically DESIGNED to blow up Soon's paladins. Not only would this be foreseeable, it's what Girard counted on. This is indiscriminate harm towards undeserving targets.

It is not indiscriminate harm at undeserving targets, it is specifically focused harm at people who have been previously told, and in fact have taken an oath too, stay the heck away from his gate and yet have come poking around anyway.

[Kish]

to Girard, Paladins are as bad as blackguards, are you saying that its a bad idea to set a trap to kill blackguards?

Are you saying that "Paladins are as bad as blackguards" is a rational belief? Seriously?

This is goofy. Why do you have this investment in Girard?

Why are you arguing so vehemently, with no support at all but your assertions, that the obvious explanation for the amoral idiot behaving like an amoral idiot is not the correct one?

[rbetieh]

I will try to explain this to both of you together, since it is essentially the same argument.....

What do you consider games where the focus is on racking up the highest score possible and in which there is literally no ending programmed? A rather noticable percentage of arcade games pre-1990 would count as that.

(unless you count 'overflowing the level counter and borking the game' as winning...)

There are collaborative storytelling games in which nobody "wins", unless you define "winning" as "having a good time." I think you would have a hard time drawing a line between them, RPGs, and The Sims, and most people would consider all three of them to be games.

But if you're judging whether something is a game or not solely by whether it includes winning conditions (which you can define to be whatever you like), then no, we will not be able to come up with a game that does not have winning conditions. That just means you're using an artificially rigid definition of "game."

Let us begin with a couple of analogies: A ball is a Toy, Baseball is a Sport (which is a specialized kind of game), Playing Catch is not a game, its play or practice (unless you make some rule about failing to catch the ball being bad).

A doll is a toy, playing pretend with said doll is play (its also what you are doing in the sims), Coming up with a bunch of rules about how your doll can beat another doll if it rolls a 5or 6 on a die is a game. Which, is what you are doing when you play an RPG. Take beat to mean overcome, the same concept works with an attack roll and a diplomacy check.

So what is Gallaga? You shot a bunch of spaceships to clear a level, and when you cleared all the levels you started back at level 1. Thats a Pinball machine. What's a pinball machine, then? Technically, its a form of gambling, except at some point people decided it was wrong to give people money for being skilled at pinball, and instead they gave them extra balls. You decide what that means.

[Forikroder]

Are you saying that "Paladins are as bad as blackguards" is a rational belief? Seriously?

This is goofy. Why do you have this investment in Girard?

Why are you arguing so vehemently, with no support at all but your assertions, that the obvious explanation for the amoral idiot behaving like an amoral idiot is not the correct one?

a couple reasons, mainly becuase when i know waht somes saying is wrong its like a scratch i can only itch by proving them wrong

the problem is your allowing your bias to get into this, you know what paladins are really like and basing all your opinions on what you know and so Girard looks irrational, but if you look at what Girard knows then things get different

looking at Miko, shes as bad as a blackguard she does her job in order to hurt others and has no problem with killing anyone who is evil or anyone she conceives as evil despite any evidence she has, she attacks first to kill and then starts wondering if she should consider diplomacy and killed her Lord becuase of her irrational obsession to what Lawful Good is to her

assuming that Soon acted like Miko which we have evidence he does *cough* killing everything that might endanger the gates *cough* then obviously Girard would have an extremely negative view of paladins and list thema s an enemy to his gate

[Belril Duskwalk]

Are you saying that "Paladins are as bad as blackguards" is a rational belief? Seriously?

Given an adequately high value placed on personal freedoms and liberties, yes. If a person's primary concern is whether or not they are free to do as they please, does it really matter why someone else is telling them they can't?

[Kish]

You decide what that means.

It means that you've decided the definition of "a game" involves winning. And if it's a game without winning, then it's "a toy." And you're prepared to keep repeating these definitions, even though you have no support for them, until everyone else gives up.

Given an adequately high value placed on personal freedoms and liberties, yes. If a person's primary concern is whether or not they are free to do as they please, does it really matter why someone else is telling them they can't?

Premise which I do not grant: "The belief that whether or not one is free to do as s/he pleases even in the ways a paladin would restrict, is more important than whether one's internal organs are internal, is rational."