New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 524
  1. - Top - End - #241
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Mar 2021

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bunsen_h View Post
    That would still work for changing within the Chaotic-to-Lawful spectrum within Good.

    I'm imagining a little "chat" between the Chief Druid and Tree-Hugger Bob. "Bob, I see you've been hugging lots of bears and bunnies. That's nice. I like to see that. But when it comes to people, you've been way too Good. Some might even say Lawful. So what you're gonna do is, you're going to go into the city and, I dunno, throw paint on old ladies wearing fur coats and stuff. Then you come back here and we'll do the Atonement thing. You got that, Bob? You got 48 hours, or BAM, no more druid powers."
    "Now I will cast Redemption on you to restore you to Lawfulness."

    "Isn't it a little... judgmental to decide that Lawful gets the Redemptive branch? Doesn't that imply Chaos is Evil, and the reverse would be Temptation? But it's not, it's an entirely different axi-"

    "I'm beginning to doubt your sincere desire to set aside your Chaotic ways."

  2. - Top - End - #242
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    Fourth, given how little she knows of Belkar why would she assume Thor wouldn't be okay with it?
    It is possible that halflings are regarded as foul creatures - if we examine the ones we have Hank (a member of a thieves guild), Belkar (convicted of manslaughter), Serini (a paladin capturer who associates with monsters), and the high priests of Balder and Loki, who ostracise members of their own communities based on physical characteristics (Belkar being small, Serini looking a bit trollish - which might be a the influnce of the cult of Balder I suppose).

    Under that it is possible that people are dubious about halflings in general - we know that the gladiators had stories about what other halflings had done to people - and so Minrah would not think Thor would be ok with it.

    Of course much more likely Belkar and Minrah have no romantic connection.

  3. - Top - End - #243
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    First, ewwwwwwww.

    Third, ewwwwwww.

    Fifth, ew, ew, ew.
    You think Belkar has cooties?
    Yes, I am slightly egomaniac. Why didn't you ask?

    Free haiku !
    Alas, poor Cookie
    The world needs more platypi
    I wish you could be


    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari
    Also this isn’t D&D, flaming the troll doesn’t help either.

  4. - Top - End - #244
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    It is possible that halflings are regarded as foul creatures - if we examine the ones we have Hank (a member of a thieves guild), Belkar (convicted of manslaughter), Serini (a paladin capturer who associates with monsters), and the high priests of Balder and Loki, who ostracise members of their own communities based on physical characteristics (Belkar being small, Serini looking a bit trollish - which might be a the influnce of the cult of Balder I suppose).

    Under that it is possible that people are dubious about halflings in general - we know that the gladiators had stories about what other halflings had done to people - and so Minrah would not think Thor would be ok with it.
    Given that halfling lands have names like Gentleville, Cuddlytown and Happy River, it would be extremely disquieting if the majority of them were foul creatures instead of extraordinarily decent persons.
    There must be some sense of order - personal, political or dramatic - and if no one else is going to bring it to this world, I will.

    Silent member of Zz'dtri's #698 Scrying Sensor Explanation Club.

  5. - Top - End - #245
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Florida
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    Is ot though? Because this looks like a perverse incentive: "feel free to act as montruous as you feel like, as long as you act a little contrite later in life you can get to paradise easy-peasy!"
    Well in the case of fantasy, afterlife judgement depends heavily on the ability to perfectly tell if the supplicant is sincere or not. If one manages to live their life according to that plan the judge could evaluate it as one atomic whole action and not a change of behavior.

    My evaluation of Belkar is that he is neither completely sincere or insincere his repentance. What I would most like to see as his afterlife would be to be sentenced to serve redemptive labor alongside Miko.

    In the real world, I wouldn't say someone like Belkar deserves to be treated with equality to someone who was always good. But some small rewards are in order, like treating him as if he was a member of society while the issue of his crimes aren't directly relevant.

  6. - Top - End - #246
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Havran View Post
    Given that halfling lands have names like Gentleville, Cuddlytown and Happy River, it would be extremely disquieting if the majority of them were foul creatures instead of extraordinarily decent persons.
    There are no halfling lands (panel 6).

  7. - Top - End - #247
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Mar 2021

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    There are no halfling lands (panel 6).
    "There are no halfling lands here," (emphasis added). I take that to mean there are none on the continent.

  8. - Top - End - #248
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    There are no halfling lands (panel 6).
    No halfling lands here [on the Western continent]. Implying there are halfling lands elsewhere.
    edit : slingshoter'ed.
    Last edited by Cazero; 2021-03-30 at 02:45 PM.
    Yes, I am slightly egomaniac. Why didn't you ask?

    Free haiku !
    Alas, poor Cookie
    The world needs more platypi
    I wish you could be


    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari
    Also this isn’t D&D, flaming the troll doesn’t help either.

  9. - Top - End - #249
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Coyote View Post
    "There are no halfling lands here," (emphasis added). I take that to mean there are none on the continent.
    That is fair - not how I read it but might be a more logical reading.

  10. - Top - End - #250
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Metastachydium's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Havran View Post
    Given that halfling lands have names like Gentleville, Cuddlytown and Happy River, it would be extremely disquieting if the majority of them were foul creatures instead of extraordinarily decent persons.
    At any rate, they are supposed to be jolly. (Also, apparently they don't normally keep stabbing people again and again.)

  11. - Top - End - #251
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    That is fair - not how I read it but might be a more logical reading.
    Halfling lands are in the Northern continent, and can be seen on the map in Book 6.
    There must be some sense of order - personal, political or dramatic - and if no one else is going to bring it to this world, I will.

    Silent member of Zz'dtri's #698 Scrying Sensor Explanation Club.

  12. - Top - End - #252
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Metastachydium View Post
    At any rate, they are supposed to be jolly. (Also, apparently they don't normally keep stabbing people again and again.)
    Belkar always seems pretty happy when he’s doing that, though.

  13. - Top - End - #253
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Jun 2005

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Goblin_Priest View Post
    I won't disagree with you that just about everyone considers themselves reasonable, and thus there are challenges inherent to defining what a "reasonable person" is, but I don't think that voids the concept of all purpose.
    I think that vague standards of behavior serve a pretty clear purpose: They make it easy to substitute whatever particular standard of behavior you want as you see fit. If the elite say things like "You must be held to account for violating the principles of right behavior known to all enlightened minds", but don't specify what those principles are, then the "unenlightened" can pretty easily see what it is that they need to do to stay out of trouble: Don't piss off the "enlightened ones"!

    Quote Originally Posted by Goblin_Priest View Post
    Inherently, as in, "in and of itself". As in, "a fundamental and immutable aspect of". Speech, for example, can sometimes be wrong, without being inherently wrong. Some words, in the same way, can yield offense, without offense being a fundamental aspect of that word. Because there's a difference between a "word whose purpose is to offend", and a "word that some person happens to dislike". Like, if you start naming "cyan" in the colors of the rainbow, I'll be upset, even though the word "cyan" is not inherently upsetting.
    The connotations of words are entirely contextual. The denotations of words are entirely contextual. "Fish" is a word for a type of aquatic animal and not, say, a type of celestial body because that's how the word "fish" is used and understood. Or, more accurately, what a word is for is how that word is used and understood; I don't intend to claim that "meaning" is some other thing that results from that.

    Do you think that a word's meaning is separate from how it's used and/or understood? Do you think that there are sequences of syllables or letters cannot be used and/or understood except in a particular way? (E.g. that "fish" somehow could only ever have referred to a type of aquatic animal due to some literally intrinsic property of the word itself; that how "fish" sounds inevitably results in a particular meaning?)

    Hmm. In retrospect, it seems like I implicitly assumed that a word's denotations are obviously at least as intrinsic as its connotations. That's probably misguided. Indeed, it seems to me that frequently the definitions of specific terms are disputed because of the connotations that those terms carry even as definitions change. (The subtext of some such discussions seems to be "On which basis should we be applying these stereotypes?". In which case, uh, yikes, maybe it's best to try not to stereotype instead?)

    Calling something "offensive" or "upsetting" seems like a poor attempt to indicate anything other than that someone is offended or upset by it. At the very least, those words hardly seem well-understood to clearly mean anything else. Do you dispute that assessment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goblin_Priest View Post
    It looks to me like you are assuming I can't express properly, and then assuming I am implying things that my words have not, based on the incorrect definitions of said words you assume I have.
    "I (do not) think that" indicates a guess on my part, just as "It looks to me like" indicates a guess on your part. A guess is not really an assumption. It's, uh, milder.

    Regardless, revising my opinion in light of recent evidence, it now seems to me that you weren't using "inherently" incorrectly, but instead really do somehow think that some obviously non-inherent features are inherent. (Note the "seems to me", once again acknowledging that this is a guess, with the accompanying implication that I am not fully certain.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Goblin_Priest View Post
    I didn't promote censorship anywhere.
    Nor did I. Nor did I claim that you did. But when someone opines that speech should not be censored for a specific reason, rather than that speech should never be censored ever, considering the possibility that that individual is at least somewhat open to the possibility of some censorship makes a lot more sense than assuming that that individual is categorically opposed to all censorship. And, certainly, if you had wanted me to assume that of you, it would have been very easy for you to say "I am categorically opposed to all censorship".

    But whether censorship can ever be justified is a pretty huge issue, because the number of things that could be considered justifications is immense, and the number of things that could be regarded as benefits of fully unrestricted speech is also immense. And, regardless, real-world politics is real-world politics. So I focused, as you did, on why certain hypothetical standards of censorship would rather obviously be bad. Attributing any greater position to either of us takes us outside of that usefully narrowed area of discussion. So let's not do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goblin_Priest View Post
    I did say some things could be wrong, but not all things that are wrong should be disallowed.
    Why did you bring up censorship in the first place, then? Seems like a bit of a red herring, honestly.

    In retrospect, obviously-bad censorship is probably not much more useful than "reasonableness" to this discussion, and I probably would have done better to once again take the position that assessing things in those terms only unduly complicates this discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goblin_Priest View Post
    Here you ignore my arguments about reasonably foreseeable consequences.
    Huh?! That was in response to "for the consequences of his actions were unforeseeable". That implies that what matters is whether the consequences of one's actions are foreseeable. At which point, how does any of this business about "reasonable" or "inherently offensive" matter?

    To simplify your thoughts on the matter, and to use the example on hand:

    Quote Originally Posted by Goblin_Priest View Post
    Elan makes comments which would not be offensive to an ordinary reasonable person.
    V is not reasonable, and takes offense.
    Elan did not and could not know V would react in such an unreasonable way.
    Elan's comments were there neither not wrong nor offensive, even if V took offense at them.
    Thus, Elan doesn't owe V an apology, though that doesn't preclude him from displaying empathy ("I'm sorry I upset you").

    Now, if Elan was to say the same things again today.

    Elan could and should know that V would likely react in such an unreasonable way.
    Elan would be willfully causing offense, and thus what he says would be wrong, even if it would still not be inherently offensive.
    Thus, Elan could be expected to owe V an apology.
    I am of the opinion that to the extent that the struck through stuff adds to the discussion, what it adds is mostly bad. A few examples:

    1) The idea that "an unreasonable person" should be blamed for not "knowing" that which is "obvious" to "a reasonable person". First off, I wonder whether you really think that we should be concerned with whether the consequences of actions were foreseeable by some possibly-nonexistent third party rather than by those who committed those actions. Secondly, even if theoretically idealized, "a reasonable person" in practice is often taken to be someone with typical sensibilities. (Your explicit use of "ordinary" is fairly telling.) Which, WOW. Like, being below-average in some area especially warrants disdain, even if you're doing your best and you're above-average generally? If anything, the most common flaws seem to me most worthy of criticism, as they're bigger problems in practice simply from being more common.

    2) The idea that we should care about the hypothetical impact on "a reasonable person" more than we should care about the actual impact on actual persons. "Reasonable persons" may be a subset of actual persons, but in that case, once again, what we're looking at in practice is probably pretty much "normal people", or at least heavily informed by norms. Which, again, wow. So many terrible implications! "Common preferences are more worthy of respect simply for being more common", "Any preference contrary to the norm is a personal defect", "Common preferences are never bad, or if they are their badness is excused by their normality", etc.

    The characteristics of ordinary people may generally be more readily knowable, but (a) one may still fail to understand something about ordinary people despite one's best efforts, (b) one may well understand something unusual about an extraordinary person, and (c) whether something is good isn't the same as whether it's normal. But mostly, if what we really care about is whether an effect was foreseeable, then nothing about "reasonable", "ordinary", or "inherently offensive" adds anything positive to our standards. They're sufficiently vague and/or tangential that they're not even useful for explicating our standards. Their value is negative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goblin_Priest View Post
    Because the first time he said those things, he couldn't have been expected to know the offense it would cause.
    It seems like Vaarsuvius did expect Elan to know the offense it would cause.
    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    Abstract positioning, either fully "position doesn't matter" or "zones" or whatever, is fine. If the rules reflect that. Exact positioning, with a visual representation, is fine. But "exact positioning theoretically exists, and the rules interact with it, but it only exists in the GM's head and is communicated to the players a bit at a time" sucks for anything even a little complex. And I say this from a GM POV.

  14. - Top - End - #254
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by MultitudeMan View Post
    I know this is a tangent from the current discussion, but does anyone else wonder if the Giant is speaking through Elan, to some extent, in panel 9? He's on record as saying he feels bad about this strip, and the Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity plotline, but I don't know that he's acknowledged this in the strip itself.

    OOTS did start as just a dungeon crawl making fun of D&D tropes and bizarre rules-derived situations, but I think we all agree it's become much more than that now. Perhaps Rich feels he has had some character development himself in the process?
    There was a strip last book where Haley mentioned that dungeon-diving with a bare midriff "seemed like a good idea at the time." The Girdle plotline is trickier since Roy found the experience unbearable at the time as well, so it's hard to see the characters revisiting it in a different emotional context, although that might happen yet.

  15. - Top - End - #255
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Actions have consequences. Belkar is lying in a bed of his own making. He has to earn being treated differently, and he hasn't yet.
    That's how I see it, and since his original plan was / is to fake it, it will take a significant sea change to earn trust. This is where Minrah's influence may be pivotal to him making real change.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Havran View Post
    Given that halfling lands have names like Gentleville, Cuddlytown and Happy River, it would be extremely disquieting if the majority of them were foul creatures instead of extraordinarily decent persons.
    Might be a good time to play in the Dark Sun setting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metastachydium View Post
    (Also, apparently they don't normally keep stabbing people again and again.)
    Which makes you wonder how the heck they survived.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Havran View Post
    Halfling lands are in the Northern continent, and can be seen on the map in Book 6.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  16. - Top - End - #256
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    bunsen_h's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Which makes you wonder how the heck they survived.
    Yeah, foolishly wasting energy like that. There's no point to it; it's counterproductive and counter-survival. Once someone/something is dead, and you know it and know they're going to stay that way, you should stop stabbing them.

    EDIT:
    Though what if there really is a Stabbytown?
    Last edited by bunsen_h; 2021-03-30 at 05:18 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #257
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    I think there's a good chance that Belkar's at least going to avoid going to a Lower Plane, or at least one of the crappier ones. Maybe Limbo or Pandemonium. Arcadia or Ysgard is probably a bit hard, though.
    Ysgard is CN/CG so I can see him going there especially with the whole resurrection at dawn after fighting all day.
    'Utúlie'n aurë! Aiya Eldalië ar Atanatári, utúlie'n aurë! “The day has come! Behold, people of the Eldar and Fathers of Men, the day has come!" And all those who heard his great voice echo in the hills answered, crying:'Auta i lómë!" The night is passing!"

  18. - Top - End - #258
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    arimareiji's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Coyote View Post
    Personally I do buy Belkar's character development, I just don't think he can make it to actual heaven (a Good afterlife) under his own steam. He's got a wide, wide possibility of points on the Neutral spectrum to chug his way past first, and frankly, he doesn't have the time.
    Spoiler: collapsed for space, but available for reference
    Show

    Thinking about this idea though... if it was going to happen, I suppose it actually could be a commentary on the need for humility, asking for help, living in a society, etc

    I checked Minrah's alignment on the wiki before I made the post because I thought she was NG at first, but the wiki said LG and I didn't look too closely... citation needed, it seems. And that would be a very good explanation for that line with Thor. And if it's being used as a metaphor, it would make more sense that Belkar keeps his place as Chaotic since there's no... important life lesson to be learned about having to embrace Lawfulness because all of your cleric friends are Lawful.

    Don't think there's any particular sign that Minrah is in love with Belkar though... or him with her. I think his sidechat with her was pretty comparable to learning about "extreme apologies" from Durkon. It does seem significant that he keeps having these chats with clerics, but to me, more for the sake of those characters showing off what clerics are about (like O-chul being an exemplary paladin). (In fact, if the story does go that route, then the framing would probably make an Atonement in part about how it's the responsibility and gift of clerics to be able to cast it.)

    Belkar's dream in the pyramid wasn't really a paradise as such though. He didn't die first in his own experience, so it wasn't his in-dream afterlife. And we know that Roy's afterlife didn't particularly closely resemble what he saw in the pyramid. It does demonstrate that he can be content while not stabbing anybody, but that's all I can think of.
    Neither do I, and I doubt the Giant does either (but I have no way to know). I think for most people there's a wide gap between "Who we wish we could be" and "Who our actions say we are", with Belkar's being wider than most. And afterlife destinations seem to depend more on the latter than the former.
    Spoiler: also collapsed for space
    Show

    I'd be interested if anyone knows of any evidence for Minrah being Lawful, other than "Afawk dwarven society is extremely Lawful". I think we've seen decent evidence of her being more concerned with doing what she thinks is for the best, than doing things because society expects you to. And if indeed she got the false impression* "Thor will disapprove of you being Chaotic", Thor just shot it down in flames. (Which I'd think would make her even less inclined to trust the absolute rightness of doing what society says.)
    * - I don't know about the Stickverse, but the references I've found seem to indicate D&D Thor is Chaotic.

    I don't think we've seen any evidence yet for love per se... but I think there's more evidence they're interested in each other as people, than there was for Roy and Celia before they became a couple. (To be fair, that's kindofa low bar iirc.)

    Honestly, if I have any preference here other than <whatever best fits the story the Giant wants to tell>, it would be for any budding love to remain unspoken subtext. But I think it's realistically possible that the Giant is laying the foundations for it to bloom, if it's an element of the story he wants to tell and he thinks it's worth the flak. (Very big composite "if" there.)

    I think you're referring to 1151, and Durkon's homily definitely connects with Belkar. His response is flippant, but you have to till fallow ground before you can sow. And the title certainly suggests it helped him take a baby step. But at least to me, it feels more like repartee than it does a sincere heart-to-heart like 1194.

    Wrt Belkar's solo illusory paradise in the pyramid, my apologies if it gave the impression of "This proves he would go to CG heaven" or "He really did go to CG heaven". Neither was my intent. As you said, the weirdly-conglomerated illusory paradise everyone else got, bore little resemblance to Roy's LG heaven (or any of them, I'd imagine, unless there's one for pure Chaos). And given how recent his epiphany was, and how deeply stained his soul is, the devas would have laughed themselves sick at the possibility of Belkar getting in. (Probably still would, but that's another row to hoe.)

    But if that's honestly his heart's truest desire (although it may be buried under tons of toxic waste), not "whores stabbing whores who stab whores" as Roy put it, that says a lot about the direction he could take. To me the uncomfortable look Belkar gets, suggests that something in his head registered "Uhhh... it's not true, but nothing I've done gives him any reason to believe me". (I'm also wondering what purpose the Giant had in giving him a separate illusory paradise, so that we get an unambiguous view of what Belkar wishes he could be worthy of.)

    A last note: If nothing else, I suspect 1194's last row / first panel is Minrah unknowingly foreshadowing how she'll feel about Belkar after his death, compared to the rest of the party**.
    ** - And most of the audience, who like the party have been along for the entire ride to see how Death's Li'l Helper earned his nickname.

  19. - Top - End - #259
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by arimareiji View Post
    Spoiler: also collapsed for space
    Show

    I'd be interested if anyone knows of any evidence for Minrah being Lawful, other than "Afawk dwarven society is extremely Lawful".
    She goes to the same afterlife as Durkon and the afterlives are alignment sorted in general - terms and conditions apply (i.e Hel's domain), but we have no clear* reason from the text to suspect terms and conditions being used in that case to shift her to a different alignment.

    *personal belief is that the followers of a god in good standing go to that gods domain regardless of alignment, and bypass the interview process that Roy had to go through.

    Spoiler
    Show

    Wrt Belkar's solo illusory paradise in the pyramid, my apologies if it gave the impression of "This proves he would go to CG heaven" or "He really did go to CG heaven". Neither was my intent. As you said, the weirdly-conglomerated illusory paradise everyone else got, bore little resemblance to Roy's LG heaven (or any of them, I'd imagine, unless there's one for pure Chaos). And given how recent his epiphany was, and how deeply stained his soul is, the devas would have laughed themselves sick at the possibility of Belkar getting in. (Probably still would, but that's another row to hoe.)
    I don't think it was a solo adventure - Mr. Scruffy was there, you can see the spell on his eyes on panel 3 and 5 and in panel 12 of that strip he is looking at him when he say definately just my dream in a manner that to me indicates he knew he was trapped in a joint dream with his cat (who would have wanted belly rubs from Shojo and fish treats from Belkar).

  20. - Top - End - #260
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2010

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    She goes to the same afterlife as Durkon and the afterlives are alignment sorted in general - terms and conditions apply (i.e Hel's domain), but we have no clear* reason from the text to suspect terms and conditions being used in that case to shift her to a different alignment.

    *personal belief is that the followers of a god in good standing go to that gods domain regardless of alignment, and bypass the interview process that Roy had to go through.
    But they're dwarves. They have that whole "honorable death = Valhalla, dishonorable death = Hel" thing superseding the alignment system.
    (This signature intentionally left blank)

  21. - Top - End - #261
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Anitar View Post
    But they're dwarves. They have that whole "honorable death = Valhalla, dishonorable death = Hel" thing superseding the alignment system.
    Do you have a source - because panel 11 disagrees with you.

  22. - Top - End - #262
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Quizatzhaderac View Post
    Well in the case of fantasy, afterlife judgement depends heavily on the ability to perfectly tell if the supplicant is sincere or not. If one manages to live their life according to that plan the judge could evaluate it as one atomic whole action and not a change of behavior.

    My evaluation of Belkar is that he is neither completely sincere or insincere his repentance. What I would most like to see as his afterlife would be to be sentenced to serve redemptive labor alongside Miko.

    In the real world, I wouldn't say someone like Belkar deserves to be treated with equality to someone who was always good. But some small rewards are in order, like treating him as if he was a member of society while the issue of his crimes aren't directly relevant.
    To me, there's a world of difference between acknowledging real growth and change are possible and should be encouraged, and a system that would say that someone like Belkar has "earned" (however you want to phrase it) because in the last few months of a lifetime of sociopathy and wanton cruelty he passively started to transition to being less awful.

    That being said, I would say that Belkar is entirely sincere at this point; it didn't start out that way but it's become true. That should neither be ignored, nor treated as if it makes up for everything. I think both of those extremes come up far too often with this discussion (though the latter more than the former, because people like Belkar as a character and thus want him to have a good ending).
    Last edited by Rrmcklin; 2021-03-30 at 06:38 PM.
    I'd just like to point out that saying that something unsupported is the case unless someone else can prove that it is not is an utter failure of logic. - Kish

  23. - Top - End - #263
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    Do you have a source - because panel 11 disagrees with you.
    Aye. Honorable death = wherever you would have gone anyway (including Hel's domain), dishonorable death = Hel.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  24. - Top - End - #264
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2010

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    Do you have a source - because panel 11 disagrees with you.
    Hilgya expects that any honorable death will send her to Valhalla, which hopefully has a lounge. And she clearly doesn't have the same alignment as Durkon, who was sent to Valhalla onscreen (regardless of your stance on her morality, she's definitely Chaotic).
    (This signature intentionally left blank)

  25. - Top - End - #265
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Ruck's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    Do you have a source - because panel 11 disagrees with you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Aye. Honorable death = wherever you would have gone anyway (including Hel's domain), dishonorable death = Hel.
    That said, I'm unclear how panel 11 disagrees of the difference between 11 and 12, apparently.

    It seems most likely to me that Minrah and Durkon went to Valhalla because they worship Thor and that's where he hangs out, rather than anything more specific to their alignment.
    Last edited by Ruck; 2021-03-30 at 06:44 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #266
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Jun 2005

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    *personal belief is that the followers of a god in good standing go to that gods domain regardless of alignment, and bypass the interview process that Roy had to go through.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anitar View Post
    Hilgya expects that any honorable death will send her to Valhalla, which hopefully has a lounge. And she clearly doesn't have the same alignment as Durkon, who was sent to Valhalla onscreen (regardless of your stance on her morality, she's definitely Chaotic).
    It seems pretty probable to me that clerics who upheld their deities' standards, if not followers in general, go to those deities after death. Internal hierarchies aside, clerics are pretty close to being their gods' direct underlings.
    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    Abstract positioning, either fully "position doesn't matter" or "zones" or whatever, is fine. If the rules reflect that. Exact positioning, with a visual representation, is fine. But "exact positioning theoretically exists, and the rules interact with it, but it only exists in the GM's head and is communicated to the players a bit at a time" sucks for anything even a little complex. And I say this from a GM POV.

  27. - Top - End - #267
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Devils_Advocate View Post
    It seems pretty probable to me that clerics who upheld their deities' standards, if not followers in general, go to those deities after death. Internal hierarchies aside, clerics are pretty close to being their gods' direct underlings.
    I would say that this is pretty well established, considering that mortals partially (you could even say largely) exist to sustain the gods.
    I like heated water, not heated arguments.

  28. - Top - End - #268
    Orc in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Yeah, Valhalla doesn't seem to be alignment locked, but I imagine most people there are Lawful Good cause that's just how most dwarves are raised. That being said, I imagine most bloodthirsty dwarven bad guys would wind up there considering that dying in combat seems to be pretty objectively honorable.

  29. - Top - End - #269
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PontificatusRex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    State of Uncertainty
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ebarde View Post
    Yeah, Valhalla doesn't seem to be alignment locked, but I imagine most people there are Lawful Good cause that's just how most dwarves are raised. That being said, I imagine most bloodthirsty dwarven bad guys would wind up there considering that dying in combat seems to be pretty objectively honorable.
    It is kind of funny that all these Lawful Good dwarves are going to what's supposed to be the Chaotic Good/Neutral plane for their afterlife. Thor seems to be living up to his traditional Chaotic Good alignment with his eagerness to ignore rules and general attitude, even though he seems to be the favored diety of all those lawful dwarves. And wiki be danged, I think it's obvious Minrah is also chaotic good, not lawful. Everything about her personality indicates someone who values her individuality and personal choices over collective expectations and rules.

    As for Belkar, I think he would probably enjoy Pandemonium quite a lot. No ethical expectations, just complete "Do whatever the hell you can get away with (and by the way, people will be doing the same to you)."
    Last edited by PontificatusRex; 2021-03-30 at 10:11 PM.
    Some people think that Chaotic Neutral is the alignment of the insane, but the enlightened know that Chaotic Neutral is the only alignment without illusions of sanity.

  30. - Top - End - #270
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PontificatusRex View Post
    It is kind of funny that all these Lawful Good dwarves are going to what's supposed to be the Chaotic Good/Neutral plane for their afterlife. Thor seems to be living up to his traditional Chaotic Good alignment with his eagerness to ignore rules and general attitude. And wiki be danged, I think it's obvious Minrah is also chaotic good, not lawful. Everything about her personality indicates someone who values her individuality and personal choices over collective expectations and rules.

    As for Belkar, I think he would probably enjoy Pandemonium quite a lot. No ethical expectations, just complete "Do whatever the hell you can get away with (and by the way, people will be doing the same to you)."
    I don't really have a comment about Minrah, specifically, but I think there's an issue with the idea that a Lawful person can't value the former or has to at the expense of the latter. I don't think the comic has shown itself to believe that's necessarily the case, even if it's definitely possible.
    I'd just like to point out that saying that something unsupported is the case unless someone else can prove that it is not is an utter failure of logic. - Kish

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •