OOTS #448 - The Discussion Thread

[malakim2099]

Good God, I've read pages 1..10 and so far what I've gathered, the whiners' points are (excluding very, very repetitive):

Just a minor observation.

Calling people "whiners" will not convince them of the rightness of your logic, no matter how well laid out it is. Unless your goal is, of course, to flame anyone who disagrees with you instead of actually trying to persuade people to your point of view that this strip is good.

Seriously, some people liked the strip, some people disliked it. Both points of view are valid, and calling one side or the other "sociopaths", "sadists", "whiners", "people out of touch with reality", etc. is just ridiculous, and really bad form. This is a debate about a comic strip, not who the next President will be. RELAX!

(And yes, I personally thought the strip was meh, but that's my own opinion, and I gave my reasons why without resorting to insulting commentary. Thankee.)

[cavalier973]

I wonder why they didn't move the throne/gate to a better hiding place?

[cavalier973]

Kudos to Rich. Excellent comic, superb strip. Don't let the whiners get to you.

Aw Maann. ..I hate it when I whine

[jindra34]

I wonder why they didn't move the throne/gate to a better hiding place?

They cannot move it... thats why the throne was up in the air and all...

[Cyborg Pirate]

I wonder why they didn't move the throne/gate to a better hiding place?

*smacks forehead*

Hi. Welcome. Have you read the story?






Incase you haven't, the gate is there to seal a tear in 'reality'. You can't actually move a tear.

[cavalier973]

Wow, I haven't seen this many pages since...well, never really.

I don't even hang out at the other forums, anymore. This is the happenin' place to be!

[cavalier973]

*smacks forehead*

Hi. Welcome. Have you read the story?






Incase you haven't, the gate is there to seal a tear in 'reality'. You can't actually move a tear.

Ha Ha! I got someone to respond to me!

[teratorn]

If one can't be bothered to read, one shouldn't bother to post. Posting without reading the entire thread first is nothing short of rude. Not to mention lazy and irritating to those who Did read all 37 pages.

Well, sort of. After 10 pages most of the posters started repeating ad nauseum what had been said before. I understand that people might skip some of it. I have no problems with someone asking if a particular aspect has already been discussed.

This poster was just a bit clumsy, I know he didn't mean it like that, but it sounded a bit like "hah you morons, 1000 posts and no one thought about this", but it did not irritate me , just amused me somewhat. And I don't think it's being lazy. I did read everything because I came here often, if I had only found the thread today I might have asked if this or that had been discussed.

[Repzak]

Well, sort of. After 10 pages most of the posters started repeating ad nauseum what had been said before. I understand that people might skip some of it. I have no problems with someone asking if a particular aspect has already been discussed.

This poster was just a bit clumsy, I know he didn't meant it like that, but it sounded a bit like "hah you morons, 1000 posts and no one thought about this", but it did not irritate me , just amused me somewhat. And I don't think it's being lazy. I did read everything because I came here often, if I had only found the thread today I might have asked if this or that had been discussed.

I would agree with this. If you read the first 10 pages it's ok to ask if something has been discussed in that situation. But as you say that wasn't what happened with this poster (In fact he can't even have read the first 10 pages or he would have known this was debated and dealt with - so I'd call him lazy)

[Cryo]

I would agree with this. If you read the first 10 pages it's ok to ask if something has been discussed in that situation. But as you say that wasn't what happened with this poster (In fact he can't even have read the first 10 pages or he would have known this was debated and dealt with - so I'd call him lazy)

Not to mention, if everyone read the damn thread, we wouldn't have to skim through 1140 reposts of the same 10 arguments over and over before posting

[malakim2099]

Not to mention, if everyone read the damn thread, we wouldn't have to skim through 1140 reposts of the same 10 arguments over and over before posting

Let's see... basic Cliff's Notes of the thread...

1. Xykon is evil! That's not funny! Yes it is! No it isn't! Whiner! Sadist!

2. That's not a legal symbol use! It's a comic! Based on D&D! So what??? Munchkin! Rules Lawyer!

3. Those poor paladins! Nah, they deserved it! Evil person! Whiner!

4. Boy, that was boring! But it was funny! Anticlimatic! Creative!

5. The paladins should have made the saves! No way! Math! More math!

Um, did I miss anything?

[jindra34]

Let's see... basic Cliff's Notes of the thread...

1. Xykon is evil! That's not funny! Yes it is! No it isn't! Whiner! Sadist!

2. That's not a legal symbol use! It's a comic! Based on D&D! So what??? Munchkin! Rules Lawyer!

3. Those poor paladins! Nah, they deserved it! Evil person! Whiner!

4. Boy, that was boring! But it was funny! Anticlimatic! Creative!

5. The paladins should have made the saves! No way! Math! More math!

Um, did I miss anything?

Yes; general accusations of wrongness. and lots of yelling.
add cavliers argument about moving the thing in
and of yeah eugene stuff.

[popesean]

Your example doesn't hold up at all. There are all sorts of spells and abilities in D&D which "grant" certain things. In many cases, I can use a spell to "grant" you something which I myself do not have--e.g., bull's strength to grant the party fighter a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength. Likewise, the sarrukh doesn't have to have any given ability in order to "grant" it to the subject creature.

If I take a drug that boosts my intelligence to incredible levels; and while thus augmented, I invent a device that gives me phenomenal cosmic power; does that device self-destruct when the drug wears off? Of course not. Pun-Pun is much the same.

All of which is to say, real-world legal conventions are not generally applicable to the D&D rule set. WotC's game designers are not lawyers, they do not understand the niceties of legal terminology, and it is therefore silly to parse the rules they write according to such niceties.

If your read the description of the Sarrukh carefully, all of its "grants" are limited to what it has. For instance, it can only grant an ability attribute that it already has. It can only grant an ability that it already has. This signals that the author of the rules intended the legal definition of "grant," which is that you can only grant what you have.

Your example of "grant" is used in a more vernacular way. It does not defeat my definition at all, because it is used in a different context. It is clear during a bull's strength that the +4 has nothing to do with the caster, because no such limitation is hinted in the spell description. Unlike that of the Sarrukh.

Furthermore, I do not understand you and others are suggesting that legal conventions have no place in interpreting WotC rules. The art of legal interpretation is applying logic and reason to come up with the least capricious and aribtrary interpretation to increase fairness. It applies wherever there are rules. What you are saying is like saying that a civil engineer cannot walk into a high school physics classroom and explain how the students' spaghetti bridges work. The students need not understand the laws of shear and moment diagrams--such things are inherent in the structure of the bridge, whether or not the student had them in mind when he or she created it.

[Gleanerizer]

I got another one:

6. The SG should have planned for an attack on the gate like this so that the slaughter wouldn't have happened like it did! No, it happened exactly in accordance with the founder's beliefs, with a de-emphasis on magic defenses around the gate! Nuh-uh! Uh-huh! Boy it sure is hard to condense this argument into a summary! You said it!

[Eva]

I wonder why they didn't move the throne/gate to a better hiding place?

Maybe they did!! Maybe it's a double!! :)

[Vargtass]

Let's see... basic Cliff's Notes of the thread...

1. Xykon is evil! That's not funny! Yes it is! No it isn't! Whiner! Sadist!

2. That's not a legal symbol use! It's a comic! Based on D&D! So what??? Munchkin! Rules Lawyer!

3. Those poor paladins! Nah, they deserved it! Evil person! Whiner!

4. Boy, that was boring! But it was funny! Anticlimatic! Creative!

5. The paladins should have made the saves! No way! Math! More math!

Um, did I miss anything?

Yes; general accusations of wrongness. and lots of yelling.
add cavliers argument about moving the thing in
and of yeah eugene stuff.

I got another one:

6. The SG should have planned for an attack on the gate like this so that the slaughter wouldn't have happened like it did! No, it happened exactly in accordance with the founder's beliefs, with a de-emphasis on magic defenses around the gate! Nuh-uh! Uh-huh! Boy it sure is hard to condense this argument into a summary! You said it!

Thank you! Now I only have to find out what has been said about Eugene to save me from reading the other 38 pages.

Once again: Thank you!

[Shatteredtower]

Sorry, but Xykon's ball throwing cannot constitute assault even by legal definition because no paladin felt threatened by the throwing of the ball.

Proof? If they had felt threatened, no one would have heeded Xykon's direction to, "Follow the bouncing ball, children."

Xykon would be subject to criminal charges as a result of bringing the ball into the room, but not assault. It was as much assault as having a dangerous criminal telling someone, "Walk over there," knowing full well that it would lead through a beartrap.

In any case, the spell's use was defensive, not offensive. Offense is an action you commit against another. Defense, whether it be the poisonous screen secretions of a tree frog, a porcupine's quills, unearthly beauty, or a nauseating aura, is a deterrent against a particular course of action.

If the symbol is touch triggered, you are deterred from touching it. It would not matter whether you meant to touch it or not. All that matters is that no one forces you into contact with it.

If the ball had been invisible and someone in the room had cast see invisibility to determine what was moving around, Xykon would clearly not have forced anyone to look at the symbol any more than he'd have forced anyone to touch it.

Once you accept that point as true, it follows that no one was forced into visual contact with the symbol in the actual comic strip either. It was visible, but no one had to look at it. Consequences were reliant entirely upon the actions of the injured party, making Xykon's tactic defensive in nature, not offensive.

[Lorde]

Sorry, but Xykon's ball throwing cannot constitute assault even by legal definition because no paladin felt threatened by the throwing of the ball.

Proof? If they had felt threatened, no one would have heeded Xykon's direction to, "Follow the bouncing ball, children."

Xykon would be subject to criminal charges as a result of bringing the ball into the room, but not assault. It was as much assault as having a dangerous criminal telling someone, "Walk over there," knowing full well that it would lead through a beartrap.

In any case, the spell's use was defensive, not offensive. Offense is an action you commit against another. Defense, whether it be the poisonous screen secretions of a tree frog, a porcupine's quills, unearthly beauty, or a nauseating aura, is a deterrent against a particular course of action.

If the symbol is touch triggered, you are deterred from touching it. It would not matter whether you meant to touch it or not. All that matters is that no one forces you into contact with it.

If the ball had been invisible and someone in the room had cast see invisibility to determine what was moving around, Xykon would clearly not have forced anyone to look at the symbol any more than he'd have forced anyone to touch it.

Once you accept that point as true, it follows that no one was forced into visual contact with the symbol in the actual comic strip either. It was visible, but no one had to look at it. Consequences were reliant entirely upon the actions of the injured party, making Xykon's tactic defensive in nature, not offensive.

Xykon intended to cause harm throwing the ball, thus it was a offensive act.

[jindra34]

Xykon intended to cause harm throwing the ball, thus it was a offensive act.

umm... all uses of the spell would be offensive under that definition so umm... yeah think up a new one...

[shylocxs]

Let's see... basic Cliff's Notes of the thread...

1. Xykon is evil! That's not funny! Yes it is! No it isn't! Whiner! Sadist!

2. That's not a legal symbol use! It's a comic! Based on D&D! So what??? Munchkin! Rules Lawyer!

3. Those poor paladins! Nah, they deserved it! Evil person! Whiner!

4. Boy, that was boring! But it was funny! Anticlimatic! Creative!

5. The paladins should have made the saves! No way! Math! More math!

Um, did I miss anything?

Yeah, that about beautifully sums it all up. Me? I've just been enjoying the thread.

And waiting for the next installment in MESS WITH THE READERS' MINDS!

Hehe