OOTS #1238 - The Discussion Thread

[Quizatzhaderac]

I don't think chimeras can become vampires.

If a snail can do it, a chimera can.

Beholders are way past "monstrous" or "uncivilized" so either she had to do some real work with Sunny, perhaps even some kind of mind wipe to get past the genetic memory issue,.....

Ignoring the distaste/debate with the evil races trope, Serini has been shown to be willing and able to wipe people's memories.

It's fair to assume the totally not a beholder here works different or something like that but the strip is clearly presenting this as close enough to a beholder with all that implies, at the very least I stand by how impressive it is that Serinri managed this.

If's fair to expect some similarities, but it's not fair to expect each specific similarity.

When any author worth their salt includes an expy of another character as anything but a bit character, they change some things to suit the story. They typically also change some unimportant things just to make the character their own.

For example, consider Superman and the expy character Omniman. Omnimans' strength, invulnerability, flight, and secret identity basically all work like superman's. But Omniman doesn't have superman's miscellaneous powers (heat vision, frost breath, ability to act/react super quickly) for no essential reason, but probably because the author didn't like those aspects of superman.

But then there's also some changes essential to the story being told; changes that undermine the very concept of superman. Because ultimately Invincible is a very different story than the typical superman story. (I use "typical" here to mean, every single one I'm aware of either first or second hand.)

I don't want to get too deep into the psychology of imaginary creatures here. But Lords of Madness seems to indicate that Beholders are biologically predisposed to a solitary existence. So making friends with one ought to be harder than making friends with an innately-sociable lifeform.

As for the presumed scenario of Sereni meeting Sunny when Sunny was very young. Well, according to Lords of Madness, again, very nearly the first experience a newborn Beholder has with other creatures is to witness its mother eating most of its siblings. The young Beholder then flees the nest in terror.

That doesn't build a strong foundation for trusting future would-be caretakers. It also isn't a recipe for growing up with a sunny disposition.

Biologically, that's a very stupid creature design. For comparison, nature made some scorpions glow in the dark so they could see in the dark and didn't give Pandas the ability to properly digest the only thing they can eat.

A solitary creature wouldn't have language, as the entire point of language is to deal with other people.

And the whole eating your young thing is widely inefficient except under some specific conditions which don't apply here and form rules wouldn't really let us get into.

But then again, the book is called "Lords of Madness", so I supposed a shocking life cycle is appropriate even if it doesn't make sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

There needs to be an "Order of the Stick Forums Drinking Game". Take a shot every time someone makes special note on the comic defying the "official lore" of certain D&D creatures re: their personalities and alignments, which shows they've kind of missed a central theme of this strip.

My liver would fail. Sorry, in this case no game is better than a bad game.

If a snail can do it, a chimera can.Ignoring the distaste/debate with the evil races trope,

Rather than trot out the tired trope twaddle, read up on the original Beholder as created by Terry Kuntz.

Eye Tyrants... a great globe of about 3' diameter...these monsters are avaricious. They are neutral in nature, although they tend to be chaotic

As this monster has morphed through various editions, they became classified as both Aberrations and in some cases (xanathar) insane. This makes them, to me, fit into an alignment classification (where it matters) on the third axis: the bacon-necktie axis. (see TV Tropes as necessary).

Spoiler: pithy saying

Show

Ye who walk with the Path of Bacon shall be with dinner blessed. Yet ye who follow the Way of Necktie shall be for dinner dressed

As with most things from the far planes and aberrations in general, they don't fit nicely into any particular pigeon hole, which then means to me that they can have pretty much any morality or any moral compass, and beyond that can switch and swap for their own alien, and likely inscrutable, reasons.

A beholder can make friends with whomever they like, for as long as they like. Serini having a beholder ally makes, to me, perfect sense. She's imported all kinds of monsters from the D&D/OoTS/Fantasy catalogue to defend the gate; befriending a few of them along the way as they wait, decades, for the expected attempts on the gate makes good sense for a gregarious halfling rogue.

Her expressed attitude of "preserve the gate no matter what it costs" leads to a huge menu of flexible options. A beholder ally is but one. A mimic ally seems to be another. I expect there to be yet others revealed before this book is completed.

[CorruptUser]

Laser-Snails and Sentient Pizza are never mentioned in the Monster Manual. Goblins are not medium-sized either. And "Dashing Swordsman" is not an official prestige class.

Remember, D&D is about having fun. Nothing prevents your DM from making up magical artifacts with strange effects, or creatures and races that don't exist in the MM, or entirely new prestige classes. If Rob says the OotS campaign has a home-brewed race of friendly Beholders, then they exist.

[hungrycrow]

Dnd beholders are so hateful that they probably would kill themselves off as a race fairly quickly.

In OotSworld, most 'evil' creatures have free will, so omnicidal beholders wouldn't really fit.

[Doug Lampert]

Dnd beholders are so hateful that they probably would kill themselves off as a race fairly quickly.

In OotSworld, most 'evil' creatures have free will, so omnicidal beholders wouldn't really fit.

In 3.0 and 3.5 D&D the alignment rules clearly state that ANYTHING with an alignment is capable of moral choice and has free will. (Carefully does not look at the alignment of unintelligent undead in 3.5 as opposed to 3.0, because the actual rules text is the same and indicates that ANYTHING with an alignment has the choice to behave differently and change alignment if it wants to.)

[hungrycrow]

In 3.0 and 3.5 D&D the alignment rules clearly state that ANYTHING with an alignment is capable of moral choice and has free will. (Carefully does not look at the alignment of unintelligent undead in 3.5 as opposed to 3.0, because the actual rules text is the same and indicates that ANYTHING with an alignment has the choice to behave differently and change alignment if it wants to.)

Sure, theoretically. But beholders are described as so prideful, xenophobic, and paranoid that the first thing a parent and child do is try to murder each other. That doesn't leave much room for rational consideration of morality.

[Ionathus]

The original beholders were three feet across? Geez. Here they've always loomed large in my mind thanks to Baldur's Gate, easily 10'-15' in diameter, great big things that could swallow you whole if they didn't stare you to death first.

[Vikenlugaid]

Any of the one-off gods from the Godsmoot who have established baseline personalities and motivation for getting involved in the gate conflict.

Who? I dont remember any god appearing in one page. Heimdall, Loki, Hel and the frost giant appeared in more than one, and not other god was seen at all.

[hroþila]

Who? I dont remember any god appearing in one page. Heimdall, Loki, Hel and the frost giant appeared in more than one, and not other god was seen at all.

It's easy to conflate the gods and their high priests would be my guess.

[RatElemental]

Who? I dont remember any god appearing in one page. Heimdall, Loki, Hel and the frost giant appeared in more than one, and not other god was seen at all.

Actually Surtur has had exactly one appearance on screen.

[danielxcutter]

Sure, theoretically. But beholders are described as so prideful, xenophobic, and paranoid that the first thing a parent and child do is try to murder each other. That doesn't leave much room for rational consideration of morality.

Aside from the incredibly unfortunate implications, I think it’s safe to assume Rich doesn’t give half a crap about the “official” lore.

[Fyraltari]

Who? I dont remember any god appearing in one page. Heimdall, Loki, Hel and the frost giant appeared in more than one, and not other god was seen at all.

I think speaking through somebody else can reasonnably both be called an appearance and not an appeaeance. Likewise these are edge cases.

[danielxcutter]

I’m like 99% sure that Sunny is the character Rich mentioned.

[Fyraltari]

I’m like 99% sure that Sunny is the character Rich mentioned.

That rather depends on whether that was the same beholder in Dorukan's dungeon. I'm not giving up on horned-mask bugbear yet. Even though I am much less confident about it than before.

[danielxcutter]

That rather depends on wether that was thebsame beholder in Dorukan's dungeon. I'm not giving up on horned-mask bugbear yet. Even though I am mich less confident about it than before.

I don't suppose you have much confidence in your autocorrect either?

[Fyraltari]

I don't suppose you have much confidence in your autocorrect either?

Of course not! Have you seen my The Clone Wars thread? It's a mess!

Honestly though, on computer my autocorrect is set to French and I don't know how to switch it for specific websites and on phone it just suggests words when I am on the internet.

[Ron Miel]

I’m like 99% sure that Sunny is the character Rich mentioned.

And I am 99% sure that it isn't.