OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

[KorvinStarmast]

The basic guideline for 3rd Edition is no combat build is worth the effort once optimization raises its head. Honestly, there are days when I wonder if the only optimal choice is a basic druid build.

Funnily enough, nobody in the Order is a druid.

[zimmerwald1915]

Funnily enough, nobody in the Order is a druid.

We still have special abilities that are more powerful than Haley's entire class.

[Mightymosy]

None to infinity.

What it takes is Durkon's word.




And that looks like it.




You do read these Forums right?




That makes sense, or as Durkon being cognoscent and respectfulof V's already married with children status (I'm inclined to believe that Durkon doesn't know about the divorce).




You mean this

one

and this

one?

The second may indicate an interest in Vaarsuvius as well.

I'd go by actions, still.
Or do you also believe that Tarquin is bringing order to the Western continent? Because, you know, he SAID SO.
Incidentally, can you imagine how certain people here would verbally attack you if you were not on the good side of the argument? Characterising a character based on a choice of words they did or didn't take - Oh my! :-)

[Goblin_Priest]

I'd go by actions, still.
Or do you also believe that Tarquin is bringing order to the Western continent? Because, you know, he SAID SO.
Incidentally, can you imagine how certain people here would verbally attack you if you were not on the good side of the argument? Characterising a character based on a choice of words they did or didn't take - Oh my! :-)

Wait, what? I thought we all agreed that Tarquin was the best thing to ever occur to the western continent?

[Pablo360]

Sure, there are feats to improve one's critting, both for crit range and confirmation.

But as stated already, anything less than a nat 20 is not a guaranteed hit. And for non-full BAB classes, as well as the iterative attacks on full BAB classes, even if the crit range is down to 15, rolling a 15 may not be high enough to confirm a crit, if even to threaten it at all, even with all those feats. Feats which non-fighters can't typically afford much.

This is why I like 5e, where the rules for crits are “if you get a 20 on an attack roll you crit, if you crit you hit”.

[hamishspence]

I'd go by actions, still.
Or do you also believe that Tarquin is bringing order to the Western continent? Because, you know, he SAID SO.

We do have Word of Giant that the Western Continent is more Lawful once Tarquin's done his work. But quality and duration of life on the Western Continent has also decreased:

Shojo was handed a Lawful system and made it more Chaotic than it was before, so that only his own personal scheming was holding it together.

Then, look at Tarquin. Does the rule of law have more of a hold in the Western Continent today than it did before he and his allies came to power, or less? Clearly, more. Before Tarquin, small tribes and city-states warred with each other constantly, resulting in no civilized settled territories that would last more than a few years. To the point that people didn't even expect them to last anymore. Tarquin unified dozens of these small tribes into three coherent states, such that they have greater stability. If Tarquin died unceremoniously tomorrow, the whole thing might well keep on functioning indefinitely because the people barely even know he's involved beyond being a really good military leader. Tarquin was handed a Chaotic system and made it more Lawful than before.

Stability is not always Good; instability is not inherently Evil. Shojo's instability increased the quality of life for his citizens, at least while he was alive; Tarquin's stability decreases the quality (and duration) of life for his people. Conversely, Ian Starshine would, if able, bring more Chaos into the Western continent (and thus improve everyone's fate), while Kubota would have brought more Law to Azure City (and made everyone miserable).

[Seward]

Funnily enough, nobody in the Order is a druid.

Actually one of the protips for playing in the level 15ish range is that

1. A well designed archer could kill one opponent per round as long as he had line of sight

2. The most efficient way to kill anything was to drop a well designed melee build next to an enemy. Dimension Door and similar spells were much more effective than burning spell slots on direct damage.

The CoD or Wizard "tier 1" characters were rated as such more for their out of combat shenanigans and abilities to set up combats in ways that allowed said blender-fighter to kill one enemy a turn while preventing the other enemies from taking actions.

yes, if all you had was a party of arcane or divine characters, they can burn a bunch of spell slots and simulate being a fighter for a while, against some opponents (druids in big animal form had issues with DR but could win eventually). Or you could prep (or have as spells known for sorcerer types) direct damage and burn a bunch of spell slots in V-style nova actions. But it was easier and more efficient to have a physical weapon type in the party and set them up to succeed.

Now I'm not saying I didn't have fun in some level 16 all-arcane parties (one of my favorite characters was a TK-oriented sorceress) or see divine-heavy parties do well. But basically if you're doing a random pick-up party or a group where everybody is playing whatever they feel like, Conan's old adage about a knife in the rib cramping anybody's style still holds true.

The OOTS is kind of bad at this, but their tier 1 prep casters don't use their powers all that well either. I laughed when Greg said "ok, forget what I know, treat them like any other high level party----everyone dispel". A normal L15 party will have hour-level spells on everybody running all day, 10 minute and at L15 even 1 minute spells running from the second they left Thor's temple and round-level spells going before the "kick down the door" moment. Including yes, something like the chaotic giraffes to trigger traps and wards if you have space for it and any reason to suspect such obstacles. The thing is though, the fighter-types will tend to have even more buffs cast on them than the caster-types, because they are a better platform for such buffs and/or have some weakneesses to cover (like, stay, not getting mind-controlled. Relying on a caster level 1 wand for that is...asking for exactly what happened)

[2D8HP]

I'd go by actions, still.
Or do you also believe that Tarquin is bringing order to the Western continent? Because, you know, he SAID SO....

Good point but, unlike Tarquin, Durkon's word is good.

...Incidentally, can you imagine how certain people here would verbally attack you if you were not on the good side of the argument? Characterising a character based on a choice of words they did or didn't take - Oh my! :-)

I can imagine!

[Mightymosy]

We do have Word of Giant that the Western Continent is more Lawful once Tarquin's done his work. But quality and duration of life on the Western Continent has also decreased:

Point for you, no question, but that leaves me wondering how the Giant defines the word "lawful". Sounds terrible to me (but then again, I never fully understood the law-vs-chaos concept pf D&D anyway, so there it goes, I guess... )

[Kish]

If you're implying a contradiction between "Lawful" and "Terrible," don't. The axes are separate. Lawful Evil is just as evil as Chaotic Evil.

[Mightymosy]

I know that it's supposed to work like that, but find the concept a little strange. Or the implementation. Whenever I read about alignments of characters about Good vs Evil, I think I understand what it's about, and can decide to pick a side, for better or worse.
When people talk about Law vs Chaos of characters, I often think both sides have a point, and am completely lost how it's supposed to be right, in the sense of how it is meant.

I mean, if Tarquin's tyranny is supposed to be lawful for the continent, because now there's more laws than before, okay.....I guess????
But see, for example, what he did to Enor&Ganji, the thing with getting them arrested and handing them the note - to me that seems chaotic, because that's now how laws work, right? I know - from what people have written here - that lawful evil is supposed to twist laws in a way that suits them. But what is chaotic then?
I don't have much stake in that kind of discussion - my position is that I am unfamiliar with this D&D description axis, I find it weird, and maybe that's because I'm just too stupid.

[Ruck]

To respond to your specific example, a Chaotic Evil dictator might have just summarily executed Enor and Gannji. Tarquin chooses to use the legal system-- which he has arranged and organized, to keep in mind-- to send them to their presumptive deaths.

One thing to keep in mind, more broadly, is that being Lawful isn't just about preferring rules, it's about preferring things be ordered and systemic and structured. Really, with Tarquin, look at how he deals with Elan, especially once he starts breaking down-- his rage is that Elan isn't doing being a hero the right way, by the story structure Tarquin believes is the correct one. He's obsessed with structure, with having a system for how things are done.

[Kish]

When people talk about Law vs Chaos of characters, I often think both sides have a point, and am completely lost how it's supposed to be right, in the sense of how it is meant.

Working as intended. If one was supposed to be right, they'd be good and evil--not lawful and chaotic.

[Yirggzmb]

Whenever I read about alignments of characters about Good vs Evil, I think I understand what it's about, and can decide to pick a side, for better or worse.
When people talk about Law vs Chaos of characters, I often think both sides have a point, and am completely lost how it's supposed to be right, in the sense of how it is meant.

Law vs Chaos is more like Order vs Chaos. Neither is inherently better than the other, but most people probably have a preference.

As an extremely simplified example, imagine the surface of a desk.

The Good vs Evil axis could be the items upon the desk. A really evil desk might be covered in weapons and torture implements. A really good desk might be covered in first aid supplies and charitable donations. We'll imagine nuetral is, like, office supplies or something.

The Law/Order vs Chaos axis would then be how the items are arranged on the desk. A strong law/order aligned desk would have everything arranged according to a strict system. Everything has a place and everything in its place. The owner would definitely notice if you nudged something over a bit. A strong chaos aligned desk would have things just placed wherever the owner feels like. No system - just what's convenient right then. The owner of the desk can always find what they're looking for, so neither is better than the other. They're just different way of thinking.

Tarquin is a hyper organized desk covered in weapons and such.

[Laze]

As an extremely simplified example, imagine the surface of a desk.

The Good vs Evil axis could be the items upon the desk.

Hey, that's pretty much the best explanation of the DnD alignment I ever saw. Kudos for that!

[KorvinStarmast]

Law vs Chaos is more like Order vs Chaos. Neither is inherently better than the other, but most people probably have a preference.

As an extremely simplified example, imagine the surface of a desk.

The Good vs Evil axis could be the items upon the desk. A really evil desk might be covered in weapons and torture implements. A really good desk might be covered in first aid supplies and charitable donations. We'll imagine nuetral is, like, office supplies or something.

The Law/Order vs Chaos axis would then be how the items are arranged on the desk. A strong law/order aligned desk would have everything arranged according to a strict system. Everything has a place and everything in its place. The owner would definitely notice if you nudged something over a bit. A strong chaos aligned desk would have things just placed wherever the owner feels like. No system - just what's convenient right then. The owner of the desk can always find what they're looking for, so neither is better than the other. They're just different way of thinking.

Tarquin is a hyper organized desk covered in weapons and such.

interesting attempt at a model, but weapons are not by themselves evil, otherwise how do we arrive at holy swords for lawful good paladins, etc? But the effort at an illustration is appreciated.

My desk is chaotic messy ...

[The_Weirdo]

If you're implying a contradiction between "Lawful" and "Terrible," don't. The axes are separate. Lawful Evil is just as evil as Chaotic Evil.

Actually more. Lawful Evil is usually able to cause much more damage, by far. A hardened criminal's death toll is usually in the tens or hundreds if the guy runs a criminal empire (still Chaotic). A Lawful Evil dictator's death toll is usually in the tens of thousands or much, much more...

Chaotic Evil people won't usually have many henchmen - and then those henchmen might well leave if they find things too distasteful, being Chaotic themselves.

Lawful Evil people, however, will very often have thousands upon thousands of horrible murderers that are actually quite normal, kindly Lawful Neutral people that just come in to work everyday and have a job to do.

[zimmerwald1915]

But see, for example, what he did to Enor&Ganji, the thing with getting them arrested and handing them the note - to me that seems chaotic, because that's now how laws work, right?

Er. . .

[Yirggzmb]

interesting attempt at a model, but weapons are not by themselves evil, otherwise how do we arrive at holy swords for lawful good paladins, etc? But the effort at an illustration is appreciated.

My desk is chaotic messy ...

Yeah, it's not perfect. Just trying to super simplify and I can't really think of much that's unambiguously one or the other.

[zimmerwald1915]

Zim, apologies for reaching you through here, but your inbox is full...

Sorry 'bout that. Made some room.

[Rrmcklin]

Actually more. Lawful Evil is usually able to cause much more damage, by far. A hardened criminal's death toll is usually in the tens or hundreds if the guy runs a criminal empire (still Chaotic). A Lawful Evil dictator's death toll is usually in the tens of thousands or much, much more...

Chaotic Evil people won't usually have many henchmen - and then those henchmen might well leave if they find things too distasteful, being Chaotic themselves.

Lawful Evil people, however, will very often have thousands upon thousands of horrible murderers that are actually quite normal, kindly Lawful Neutral people that just come in to work everyday and have a job to do.

You shouldn't presume that your own personal inclinations and biases describe all Chaotic people.

[Paleomancer]

I know that it's supposed to work like that, but find the concept a little strange. Or the implementation. Whenever I read about alignments of characters about Good vs Evil, I think I understand what it's about, and can decide to pick a side, for better or worse.
When people talk about Law vs Chaos of characters, I often think both sides have a point, and am completely lost how it's supposed to be right, in the sense of how it is meant.

I mean, if Tarquin's tyranny is supposed to be lawful for the continent, because now there's more laws than before, okay.....I guess????
But see, for example, what he did to Enor&Ganji, the thing with getting them arrested and handing them the note - to me that seems chaotic, because that's now how laws work, right? I know - from what people have written here - that lawful evil is supposed to twist laws in a way that suits them. But what is chaotic then?
I don't have much stake in that kind of discussion - my position is that I am unfamiliar with this D&D description axis, I find it weird, and maybe that's because I'm just too stupid.

To be fair, the D&D alignment system is quite ambiguously defined and inconsistently implemented, so I don't blame you and you certainly aren't stupid. Real life moral and ethical systems vary immensely, and D&D frequently falters on trying to reconcile moral relativism (the observation that in RL different groups/individuals can have quite disparate moral and ethical standards, for any number of reasons) and moral absolutism (there is only good & evil/law & chaos/blue & orange, and morality is so "real" you can observe how much of each a living person is). What the "right" interpretation of those rules should be, can vary significiantly by setting and even gamemaster. The problems that result from this is why, among other things, alleged "lawful good" paladins (Miko) and alleged "chaotic neutral" serial killers (Belkar) are tropes in D&D pop culture and in this very comic.

That being said, while Good (of a kind) is usually portrayed as right and Evil (of a kind) is usually wrong (certain convoluted settings aside... I'm looking at you, Dragonlance), Law and Chaos tend to merely be different flavours in the various setting, which you observe above. This wasn't always the case; the fantasy literature upon which D&D is based often has a Lawful = Good/Light/Creation and Chaotic = Evil/Darkness/Destruction. Usually, the two are essentially acceptable alternatives for your characters, so your idea that they each have a point is indeed correct for most D&D settings, and one can argue you need both for a functional society or community.

[Ironsmith]

Actually more. Lawful Evil is usually able to cause much more damage, by far. A hardened criminal's death toll is usually in the tens or hundreds if the guy runs a criminal empire (still Chaotic). A Lawful Evil dictator's death toll is usually in the tens of thousands or much, much more...

Chaotic Evil people won't usually have many henchmen - and then those henchmen might well leave if they find things too distasteful, being Chaotic themselves.

Lawful Evil people, however, will very often have thousands upon thousands of horrible murderers that are actually quite normal, kindly Lawful Neutral people that just come in to work everyday and have a job to do.

Personally, I see Chaotic Evil as less "hardened criminal" and more "complete and utter psychopath" (as evidenced by our two canonically CE characters, Xykon and Belkar). As an archetypal example, I see that being the domain of the likes of The Joker (Dark Knight's Joker especially, since he was totally devoted to the "chaotic" part) and Hannibal Lector. While a LE dictator might be ultimately responsible for the deaths of thousands of people (and the utter misery of hundreds of thousands more), a CE psycho will have a much higher personal death count; as in, they'll have chopped up more corpses than a LE dictator would have ever seen.

Personally, as for which one is worst, I'd go with NE. They're fully capable (and more often than not, totally will) of organizing a system that works in their favor and nobody else's, similar to the LE dictators, but are also willing and able to buck the system whenever it suits them and get their own hands dirty. Worst of both worlds, see.

[The_Weirdo]

You shouldn't presume that your own personal inclinations and biases describe all Chaotic people.

I'm describing Chaotic Evil vs. Lawful Evil and saying why I believe one is less harmful in total than the other. Nothing less, nothing more.

Personally, I see Chaotic Evil as less "hardened criminal" and more "complete and utter psychopath" (as evidenced by our two canonically CE characters, Xykon and Belkar). As an archetypal example, I see that being the domain of the likes of The Joker (Dark Knight's Joker especially, since he was totally devoted to the "chaotic" part) and Hannibal Lector. While a LE dictator might be ultimately responsible for the deaths of thousands of people (and the utter misery of hundreds of thousands more), a CE psycho will have a much higher personal death count; as in, they'll have chopped up more corpses than a LE dictator would have ever seen.

Personally, as for which one is worst, I'd go with NE. They're fully capable (and more often than not, totally will) of organizing a system that works in their favor and nobody else's, similar to the LE dictators, but are also willing and able to buck the system whenever it suits them and get their own hands dirty. Worst of both worlds, see.

Agreed on the Chaotic, though the death count being just personal still doesn't mean the LE doesn't have a much higher death count.

And true, the NE can build structures and don't care about the rules, but the LE types have the "advantage" of creating a stricture that outlives them. You can take that to the bank coming from me...

[Ironsmith]

Agreed on the Chaotic, though the death count being just personal still doesn't mean the LE doesn't have a much higher death count.

Oh, no, of course not, but the thing that really makes them both more livable and more dangerous is the stability. If you're confronted in a dark alleyway by a CE character and a LE one, the CE one is far more likely to kill you (and probably draw it out... we're not talking knife in the back, we're going with the flayed-alive, doused-in-acid, chopped up into tiny pieces sort of treatment). The LE character will extort you for protection money, have you followed home, blackmail you for more money, and keep squeezing the life out of you slowly- but at the same time, they know they're more likely to get more if they let you keep living and working, so they don't actually harm you directly... yet.

[Seward]

I'm describing Chaotic Evil vs. Lawful Evil and saying why I believe one is less harmful in total than the other. Nothing less, nothing more.

Ok....to some extent I agree, it's easier to set up a LE organization than a CE one, and because organizations can do more damage than individuals, your median LE boss bad guy will do more damage than your average CE boss bad guy.

OTOH, LE is less likey to do 'end of the world/universe' type plots. When the occasional CE guy gets the power to "burn it all down" for some personal advantage, they're less likely to hesitate because they want something to rule over.

I think on balance it all averages out. More petty crime and existential threats from CE, a more balanced spread with more inbetween from LE.

[Mightymosy]

Working as intended. If one was supposed to be right, they'd be good and evil--not lawful and chaotic.

Maybe I wasn't clear with what I said. I meant that if people discussed whether a character is lawful or chaotic, I often see both sides being right - I don't mean whether the character is right or not. Do you say that it is intended that one doesn't know whether a character is lawful or chaotic?

[Kish]

Maybe I wasn't clear with what I said. I meant that if people discussed whether a character is lawful or chaotic, I often see both sides being right - I don't mean whether the character is right or not. Do you say that it is intended that one doesn't know whether a character is lawful or chaotic?

No. If I understand what you're saying now to be that when someone says "Tarquin is lawful; he's all about enforcing what he considers proper order" and someone else says, "Tarquin is chaotic; he promotes constant war, just like the devils of the Nine Hells," you find both sides compelling, no, you have an issue I have no comment on.

[Elanasaurus]

The Nine Hells are a Lawful place.

EDIT: Ohhh, I get it now.

[The_Weirdo]

You can't spell "Lawful" without "awful".