OOTS #887 - The Discussion Thread

[Rakoa]

The reason the Order is at Girard's is because the Oracle said so, not because Xykon did his "wink wink" at them. (I could buy him being within 1k feet of the gate, but not able to actually find it, give up, and going to Kraagor's afterwords, though.)

Alright, now THAT would funny. Xykon shows up, can't find the entrance to the pyramid and says, "Screw this, off to Kraagor's Gate!"

[brionl]

A little thing like a collapsing building stop Thog?

"Thog not dead. Thog was just sleeping."

Seriously, I am not accepting Thog as dead until I see either his corpse (maybe not even then) or I see word of The Giant on his death.

Sometime recently, Elan and Tarquin had a conversation about why Nale wasn't dead, and that they should have expected him to be still alive, but didn't because that wouldn't be part of the narrative convention.

Same thing applies here. Schrödinger's Half-Orc.

[rodneyAnonymous]

This is hardly an "odd standard."

Maybe not in general, but in this context, yes, it is. There are low-level spells that create matter and energy; according to this standard they are also more complex than Familicide, which is more obviously irrelevant to the objection being made there. Using "real" complexity to judge whether a spell effect is "contrived" is the wrong metric. D&D magic rules is the right yardstick for deciding whether a D&D magic effect is plausible, and according to it, an effect that puts victims in a shared dream-world is less complex than an effect that kills direct blood relations of its target.

[Ezra_The_Mad]

Sorry for not going through all 17 pages of dialogue to confirm, but has anyone else noticed that the panel layout for this strip looks exactly like the "swirly-eyes under enchantment" effect?

No, really. Compare Roy's left eye in 886 to the panel layout. They're identical.

[Kish]

You sure the swirly effect doesn't actually exist? Does Roy have the X's in his eyes?

Better yet, does the dragon have swirly eyes?

[brionl]

Sorry for not going through all 17 pages of dialogue to confirm, but has anyone else noticed that the panel layout for this strip looks exactly like the "swirly-eyes under enchantment" effect?

No, really. Compare Roy's left eye in 886 to the panel layout. They're identical.

Even if you don't want to read all 20+ pages, you should at least glance at the first two pages.

[Daubechies4]

Maybe not in general, but in this context, yes, it is. There are low-level spells that create matter and energy;

That's what I was talking about when I wrote this (although you might not have seen this particular message because I didn't address it to you):

And in particular, I'm suggesting that it would take some very fancy footwork and perhaps even something close to a conscious, thinking being to figure out how to weave a single utopian narrative from several minds that somehow resolves mutually exclusive desires. This is the sort of problem that transcends issues involving the laws of physics or the laws of magic.

I think there's a logical problem here that's more fundamental than "simply," "it's complex because the laws of physics don't work like that." It's a problem that doesn't necessarily affect the area version of Microcosm (although the single-target version suggests it would), but it would affect the joint illusion involved here. The problem, as mentioned, is that of satisfying potentially mutually exclusive desires with a single, unified fantasy.

...according to this standard they are also more complex than Familicide, which is more obviously irrelevant to the objection being made there.

I agree it's moot point (so I don't want to get too sidetracked), but while we're here, I'd still say they're typically less complicated than Familicide. Familicide has to use some kind of wacky genetic quantum entanglement trick to figure out whom to kill--no matter where they happen to be--and then a mechanism by which to kill them. I'd say fireballs are much simpler (despite raising issues involving the conservation of matter/energy).

Using "real" complexity to judge whether a spell effect is "contrived" is the wrong metric.

Yeah, I think "complexity" might be the wrong concept for what I'm talking about. I apologize if that choice of words has extended this discussion unnecessarily. It's not that the spell itself is necessarily complex, it's that's it's hard to explain how it could work--even in any possible universe. It seems to me that to make it work would involve playing with not just the laws of physics, but the axioms of logic (e.g. law of the excluded middle).

D&D magic rules is the right yardstick for deciding whether a D&D magic effect is plausible, and according to it, an effect that puts victims in a shared dream-world is less complex than an effect that kills direct blood relations of its target.

A shared dream world is no problem (relatively speaking). A shared dream world that caters to the hopes and desires of everyone that happens to be standing in the area of effect simultaneously is... complicated... no matter what yardstick you choose. If A's sole purpose in life is to murder B, and B's sole purpose in life is to murder A, and they both get hit with this joint illusion, what could they see? Familicide doesn't suffer from anything remotely this problematic. Nor does Phantasmal Killer, Melf's Acid Arrow, etc.

That's why individual fantasies make a whole lot more sense to me, despite the fact that this means either discarding the "close-up eye" interpretation of the page, or somehow resolving the issue that some panels go with some characters and other panels go with other characters.

[Aldrakan]

I'm pretty sure that Dungeons and Dragons magic works because it's magic, and any attempt to find a scale more consistent than "because the designers thought it was this good" is kinda doomed.

Although regarding your (Daubechies4) question regarding shared dreams with people with mutually exclusive goals, my wild guess is that this is why Belkar has little to no role in the illusion - his desire to murder without consequence isn't something that anyone in the party could stand by and let happen, and so the illusion had him die to remove the conflict.

[Cerlis]

That's what I was talking about when I wrote this (although you might not have seen this particular message because I didn't address it to you):



I think there's a logical problem here that's more fundamental than "simply," "it's complex because the laws of physics don't work like that." It's a problem that doesn't necessarily affect the area version of Microcosm (although the single-target version suggests it would), but it would affect the joint illusion involved here. The problem, as mentioned, is that of satisfying potentially mutually exclusive desires with a single, unified fantasy.



I agree it's moot point (so I don't want to get too sidetracked), but while we're here, I'd still say they're typically less complicated than Familicide. Familicide has to use some kind of wacky genetic quantum entanglement trick to figure out whom to kill--no matter where they happen to be--and then a mechanism by which to kill them. I'd say fireballs are much simpler (despite raising issues involving the conservation of matter/energy).



Yeah, I think "complexity" might be the wrong concept for what I'm talking about. I apologize if that choice of words has extended this discussion unnecessarily. It's not that the spell itself is necessarily complex, it's that's it's hard to explain how it could work--even in any possible universe. It seems to me that to make it work would involve playing with not just the laws of physics, but the axioms of logic (e.g. law of the excluded middle).



A shared dream world is no problem (relatively speaking). A shared dream world that caters to the hopes and desires of everyone that happens to be standing in the area of effect simultaneously is... complicated... no matter what yardstick you choose. If A's sole purpose in life is to murder B, and B's sole purpose in life is to murder A, and they both get hit with this joint illusion, what could they see? Familicide doesn't suffer from anything remotely this problematic. Nor does Phantasmal Killer, Melf's Acid Arrow, etc.

That's why individual fantasies make a whole lot more sense to me, despite the fact that this means either discarding the "close-up eye" interpretation of the page, or somehow resolving the issue that some panels go with some characters and other panels go with other characters.

yet the only person who conflicts is belkar. Every other member of the order of the stick can get their happy ending without ruining the others

[Daubechies4]

I'm pretty sure that Dungeons and Dragons magic works because it's magic, and any attempt to find a scale more consistent than "because the designers thought it was this good" is kinda doomed.

Nah, I think there's more consistency to the magic system than that. Generally, the spells don't wander into "logical contradiction" territory, and they're even arranged in quite tidy, sensible categories, balanced to be as fair as possible. People would complain if there were a spell that made 1 = 2 throughout the universe, a cantrip that would destroy a continent, or a ninth level spell that merely washed a small pile of dirty dishes. They require players (and audiences) to suspend disbelief in fairly consistent ways.

yet the only person who conflicts is belkar. Every other member of the order of the stick can get their happy ending without ruining the others

Even Belkar doesn't necessarily conflict. He does seem to have exhibited some survivor's guilt, so a martyr's death might actually seem to be one of the most favourable outcomes for him at this point.

But imagine getting Redcloak, Roy, Xykon, Elan, and Tarquin all together in the area of effect. If the illusory experiences are independent and distinct, it's quite easy to imagine some possible hallucinatory experiences for each of them. If the spell is required to satisfy everybody with a single story, however, it's hard to picture even what that story could possibly be, let alone how the spell would operate.

I think that's where I'm not really connecting with the other people in this discussion (which is probably my fault for not being clearer). I'm not talking about the underlying mechanics that implement the spell; I'm talking about an potentially severe ambiguity in the spell's description that would require a rather convoluted explanation of its effects. In contrast, the description for a similar spell that provided an individual illusion for each victim instead of a single, collective illusion would be trivial. I suppose that's the "complexity" I had in mind: the amount of trouble a DM would have trying to figure out exactly what the spell would do in any given situation.

Note that Microcosm might not suffer from the same problem because its area-based description says only this about the content of the hallucination:
"If microcosm is manifested on an area, it sends all affected creatures into a shared catatonia (the world is a construct, but within the world, the victims can interact with each other)."

[Waspinator]

It's probably not microcosm as exactly written anyway, since it's a psion power. People are bringing it up though since the effects seem to match what we're seeing. The runes probably cast a homebrew arcane epic spell that's similar to microcosm, but with higher HP limits and/or tougher saves. The terms under which the victims interact and influence the visions may also be different. Given that we've seen custom epic spells and things like that anti-spellcaster virus, an arcane microcosm isn't too much of a stretch.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Yes, it does seem to be a "wish-fulfilling dream world", which is different from the effect of microcosm.

[Daubechies4]

It's probably not microcosm as exactly written anyway, since it's a psion power.

I'd go as far as to say it's certainly not Microcosm, both because it's a rune-based spell and because it's (almost definitely) an Illusion spell rather than a psionic power.

People are bringing it up though since the effects seem to match what we're seeing.

Right. The only potential difference that would bear on the discussion is that the description for the area-based version of Microcosm doesn't specify much about content of the illusion--hence my last paragraph about Microcosm possibly not suffering from the same problem. It is (explicitly) required only to be a shared, imaginary world.

[Edit: Ninja'd by rodneyAnonymous]

The runes probably cast a homebrew arcane epic spell that's similar to microcosm, but with higher HP limits and/or tougher saves. The terms under which the victims interact and influence the visions may also be different. Given that we've seen custom epic spells and things like that anti-spellcaster virus, an arcane microcosm isn't too much of a stretch.

That's certainly possible. The only snag here arises if these runes are supposed to provide everyone affected--not just with a happy ending--but with the very same happy ending, and one that is believable, given the information known by all those affected. I'm not sure Microcosm is under such obligations.

Of course, if everyone is seeing their own personal, unique, happy ending and the spiral contains stills drawn from each of these, the spiral is less interesting and poetic, but the spell makes a lot more sense (to me, anyway).

Another possible resolution is to say that these runes are not under the stated obligations either, and the fact that the story they got is "happy" and yet believable is merely coincidental (perhaps they could have just as easily imagined they were all teleported to the Semi-Elemental Plane of Ranch Dressing and polymorphed into Robertson screwdrivers playing backgammon with Kim Jong-Ill).

Or it could be something in between: it "tries its best" to make everyone as happy as possible with a single narrative, but often has to make necessary compromises. This option just feels a little too sentient to me. It sounds more similar to a Faustian deal or a monkey's paw than a D&D spell.

[ti'esar]

This option just feels a little too sentient to me. It sounds more similar to a Faustian deal or a monkey's paw than a D&D spell.

Personally, I half-suspect there is something at least semi-sentient behind it.

[Waspinator]

Yeah, the fact that this thing seems to be deliberating creating a happy ending does contradict microcosm as-written. Microcosm creates a nice precedent for discussion though, since it shows that "stick people into a dream world" is definitely a possible effect with D&D magic.

[Holy_Knight]

Nah, I think there's more consistency to the magic system than that. Generally, the spells don't wander into "logical contradiction" territory, and they're even arranged in quite tidy, sensible categories, balanced to be as fair as possible. People would complain if there were a spell that made 1 = 2 throughout the universe, a cantrip that would destroy a continent, or a ninth level spell that merely washed a small pile of dirty dishes. They require players (and audiences) to suspend disbelief in fairly consistent ways.



Even Belkar doesn't necessarily conflict. He does seem to have exhibited some survivor's guilt, so a martyr's death might actually seem to be one of the most favourable outcomes for him at this point.

But imagine getting Redcloak, Roy, Xykon, Elan, and Tarquin all together in the area of effect. If the illusory experiences are independent and distinct, it's quite easy to imagine some possible hallucinatory experiences for each of them. If the spell is required to satisfy everybody with a single story, however, it's hard to picture even what that story could possibly be, let alone how the spell would operate.

I think that's where I'm not really connecting with the other people in this discussion (which is probably my fault for not being clearer). I'm not talking about the underlying mechanics that implement the spell; I'm talking about an potentially severe ambiguity in the spell's description that would require a rather convoluted explanation of its effects. In contrast, the description for a similar spell that provided an individual illusion for each victim instead of a single, collective illusion would be trivial. I suppose that's the "complexity" I had in mind: the amount of trouble a DM would have trying to figure out exactly what the spell would do in any given situation.

Note that Microcosm might not suffer from the same problem because its area-based description says only this about the content of the hallucination:
"If microcosm is manifested on an area, it sends all affected creatures into a shared catatonia (the world is a construct, but within the world, the victims can interact with each other)."

Hey, Daubechies4. I want to start by saying that you've been posting some excellent stuff--very nice analysis of potential logical difficulties. :)

Anyway, I highlighted these two portions of your post here because I think they speak to a possible solution. What if the shared dreamscape isn't necessarily designed to satisfy everyone who comes into it? That is, perhaps it allows its victims to interact with each other within the context of the hallucination, and then generates a plausible scenario based upon the interplay between them? In the case we have, the Order's goals happen to be largely aligned--all of them want to defeat Xykon, all of them want Durkon and V back, and for the most part their individual goals are mutually compatible. (So, while Roy wouldn't particularly desire Banjo to have a girlfriend puppet, he also has no reason to oppose its occurrence in Elan's imagination.) The only one who doesn't turn out so well is Belkar, and even that can be explained if the scenario is designed to produce a believable outcome--no one, Belkar included, would reasonably expect him to survive a fight with Xykon in his currently weakened state. So he gets the best anyone can really hope for--going down fighting, with at least some people to mourn and commemorate him. On the other hand, if as you hypothesize a number of people were caught in the spell who were antagonstic toward each other, then the shared vision might be one of conflict, combat, and battle for supremacy--perhaps lasting indefinitely, or with one side emerging victorious and then shaping the dreamscape accordingly as the other side looked on helplessly (much like Belkar would be imagining himself to be dead, here). The upshot of all this would be that the happiness of the vision we have could well be coincidental. Thus, with only the requirements that the hallucination seem believable and that the people caught in it can (seem to) interact with each other, I think we could get the kind of shared vision we're seeing without falling prey to problems of irresolvable mutually incompatible desires. What do you think?

[Niknokitueu]

Yay, it's over! Good guys win. :)

This comment makes me wish there was a way to give you positive reputation in this forum.

Whether you meant it straight or sarcastically, you deserve internet bennies for this.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[DawnKraken]

New comic is up.

Question: What are the pictures in panels 19 and 20 on this comic?
For panel 19, I can identify the 5 surviving members of the Order of the Stick (double-fantasy), but I don't know what they're doing.
For panel 20, all I can see is two blobs.
Can you please fill me in on this?

[Precure]

Question: What are the pictures in panels 19 and 20 on this comic? Can you please fill me in on this?

Panel 19: Roy is marrying Vaarsuvius.
Panel 20: Elan and Roy are kissing under a mistletoe.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Neither panel includes Necromancy.