Villainous Competition XVI: Burn Baby Burn

[Tiri]

Well, I'm just going by what previous judges have done, which is penalising non-compliant entries in the area of Elegance.

Not to mention that since 'mechanically pretty' partly refers to the following of D&D 3.5 RAW, and the contest's rules should be taken as hard-and-fast as aforementioned RAW in context of the competition, 'mechanically pretty' could, conceivably, apply to how well a given entry follows both RAW and requirements.

[Ywvbevlin]

i changed phoenix and that guys scores, by the way

[AvatarVecna]

i changed phoenix and that guys scores, by the way

It's been edited. My intention for future scores changes in this regard is to re-check the scores after a round of disputes go by.

[Tiri]

Can't wait for the disputes. I haven't submitted any myself but I always find them interesting to read.

[The_Iron_Lord]

I'd suggest Creation Gone Horribly Wrong! I can envision many different ways to interpret this theme, and it is a staple of villains too :)

Ooooh...that sounds really cool...

Mwahahaha...

[daremetoidareyo]

I'd like to see an awful lawful (lawful neutral) Round.

[Ywvbevlin]

Can I ask if judges MUST respond to dispute?

[Thurbane]

Can I ask if judges MUST respond to dispute?

"Must" is a fairly strong way to word it, but it's generally considered good form to reply to disputes.

[Vaz]

Can I ask if judges MUST respond to dispute?

You sign up for being a judge, you should be aware that an appeal process is there, and it's your responsibility to actually respond to those events. You're free not to, we can't literally come and force you to respond to the appeals, but just because the entrant questions your rulings, doesn't mean you have to change them either.

Thurbane is being generous when he say's it's good form. I argued against sideliners thinking that they have something worthwhile to say when they're unwilling to give up their time to judge, and critique someone elses judging without doing so themselves. That's unfair on the judges. However, a judge has to be aware that they may not always be completely correct with some of their judgings, and should be prepared to address the concerns that a contestant has with their score.

I'm not going to lie, though, that unless in the discussion that comes forward, a judge shows further misunderstanding of the rules to which you're referring, there shouldn't be a continuation of the appeal. You should only have a single appeal for your scores, and after that, any further misunderstanding is as a result of the appeal process not being completely explicit in laying out everything it does. This includes proper sourcing, and ELI5'ing for the obscure tricks you're pulling. And in regards to this competition, where you have explicit requirements like fire subtype and an at will fire damage, do me a favour and tell me where you get that from. Please source properly, and by that, I mean a list of non-core books/Wizards Archive Articles used to make your build, with each bit of content taken from it listed alongside.

The judge has the responsibility to ensure that things are kept fair, and the appeal process allows that. This is a social situation, and you wouldn't dictate to your social circle/gaming group "This build is not powerful enough, this build is inelegant, this build doesn't do what I asked you to, this build is unoriginal and boring af" and then have someone try to discourse with you, and then ignore them.

They are real people on the other side of the screen. Everyone should respect that.

[Tiri]

What a well-written and stirring defense of the judging and dispute systems, Vaz. I would clap for you if you could hear it.

How's your judging coming along?

[Inevitability]

Ooze round sounds fun, but lawful round does too. Villainous doesn't necessarily mean evil, does it?


Also, I'm not too sure how to react to the judging. When each aspect of my build is getting a single line of text, it's very hard for me to find something to respond to. I don't know what the judge's reasons for giving my build these specific scores are, so for any meaningful criticism I'd first need to know why I was given them.

[Muggins]

Also, I'm not too sure how to react to the judging. When each aspect of my build is getting a single line of text, it's very hard for me to find something to respond to. I don't know what the judge's reasons for giving my build these specific scores are, so for any meaningful criticism I'd first need to know why I was given them.

While I'm all for only having one round of disputes - I've judged before, so I know the pain and the lengths that some may go to - I feel there are some circumstances in which extra rounds are justified. In this case, if Ywvbevlin feels like responding to disputes, I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to spend one round clarifying and a second round "disputing" (if there's something to dispute).

As long as it doesn't become a five-round long process of "yes it does work, no it doesn't," I don't see why one should have to sacrifice their chance to dispute just because a judge failed to elaborate on an issue they had with the build.

[Tiri]

As long as it doesn't become a five-round long process of "yes it does work, no it doesn't," I don't see why one should have to sacrifice their chance to dispute just because a judge failed to elaborate on an issue they had with the build.

Well, in the case of rules interpretation disputes, it's probably best that the Chairman give a ruling and have everyone stick to that.

[D&DPrinceTandem]

For the next Competition if i may make a suggestion
Justified evil, i go to hell and back. ideally the character has something traumatic happen in his life and he is out for revenge

[LordOfCain]

I would like oozes and creation gone wrong.

[Jormengand]

I would like not oozes, because I really don't want to have to waste build resources doing nothing but trying to give the damned thing an intelligence score, and I don't really like the concept anyway. An ooze isn't a villain: it's a big dumb block of goop that you fight once and soon wish you hadn't.

[danielxcutter]

I would like not oozes, because I really don't want to have to waste build resources doing nothing but trying to give the damned thing an intelligence score, and I don't really like the concept anyway. An ooze isn't a villain: it's a big dumb block of goop that you fight once and soon wish you hadn't.

Agreed; even if you just say that it's awakened, there's not much to do with a living block of Jello.

[Strigon]

Seconding not oozes. I mean, I'm sure some people here could do some really cool stuff with them, but they'd probably be in the minority.
Creation going horribly wrong is pretty cool, but I have to wonder exactly what the requirements would be.

[Vaz]

No oozes, please. There are 2 PrC's, and the rest are mindless. They're bad guys at best, neutral opponents at worst. Villain is pushing it.

[LordOfCain]

No oozes, please. There are 2 PrC's, and the rest are mindless. They're bad guys at best, neutral opponents at worst. Villain is pushing it.

Sentry ooze could work.

[Korahir]

Creation gone wrong sounds interesting. I completely agree on the Ooze dislikes. Earth themed villain could be interesting as in must be able to manipulate earth and stone. I'd avoid the earth subtype though.

[Tiri]

I don't think we should have two elementally-themed rounds in a row.

[Ezekiul]

What about some weird alternative themes like sound? Have a silence theme for a villain the makes no noise and is out to silence the rest of the world. Or a loud theme bring the boom to as many ears as they can reach.

Sound may be to broad of a category though, but just a thought for a variation.

[Tiri]

What about some weird alternative themes like sound? Have a silence theme for a villain the makes no noise and is out to silence the rest of the world. Or a loud theme bring the boom to as many ears as they can reach.

Sound may be to broad of a category though, but just a thought for a variation.

Well, the broader the theme, the better, really. Of course, there will invariably be mechanical restrictions, but generally there will be a varied turnout anyway.

I'm curious as to what you mean by 'alternative themes'.

[Ezekiul]

Well, the broader the theme, the better, really. Of course, there will invariably be mechanical restrictions, but generally there will be a varied turnout anyway.

I'm curious as to what you mean by 'alternative themes'.

Maybe alternative wasn't the best word to use.

Maybe just less cliche themes, but a sound villain is a little cliche too.

[Strigon]

Maybe alternative wasn't the best word to use.

Maybe just less cliche themes, but a sound villain is a little cliche too.

If we do sound, I have what might be my best idea ever.

[GrayDeath]

How bout an "unexoected" Villain Theme?
Fluff, Classes, etc usually very much not Villain Material used for ....bad (if not EVIL) ends?


Otherwise the Creation gone horribly wrong works too (even if that would be better regarding moddability with pathfinders ARG Rules^^).


Also: wow, didnt expect that many entries.

[Vaz]

Maybe alternative wasn't the best word to use.

Maybe just less cliche themes, but a sound villain is a little cliche too.

"Less cliche" becomes a Cliche all of its own.

[Tiri]

How bout an "unexoected" Villain Theme?
Fluff, Classes, etc usually very much not Villain Material used for ....bad (if not EVIL) ends?

The problem with that is that classes that would be unusual for a villain usually have alignment restrictions that prevent them being used as villains anyway.

[GrayDeath]

That depends on the Definition of Villain.
Of course if this includes "Must be Evil" then....well, out of luck. Yet with the right way of looking a things (or heck, not knowing what bad things happen because of it) even a Paladin can be a great Villain.
After all:

"The Greatest Evil is not comitted by a Devil, or a Demon. It is comitted by a Saint."