OOTS #1262 - The Discussion Thread

[Provengreil]

Your mileage may vary on whether her showing up in the first place counts as an asspull, but it's not at all uncommon for older dragons to be mid-to-high level spellcasters. And she didn't really have a "counter build" so much as one specific spell (anti-magic field), which she may well have gone out of her way to obtain after learning that her target was a wizard.

It's not even all that unusual of a trick, actually. If for any reason a caster finds himself beefier than average and capable of casting such a spell, it becomes a pretty strong trump card against all but the most prepared of solo casters and worth knowing. See also, most gish builds that reach a high caster level.

[Peelee]

Yeah, a comic tells a story in a different way than a game does, and that's probably for the better because these would not really slide easily at most tables.

But you still insist on comparing it to aDM railroading players. You constantly say you know it's not a game but then talk about it as if it's a game. You say it's like a DM railroading players, you say it wouldn't fly at most tables, you keep making game references. I really think that you still see it in game terms, because of that. Most stories would make poor games. And that doesn't matter because they're not games. This isn't a game. Constantly putting things in the frame of it being a game (eg "this wouldn't fly at most tables, the DM is doing an asspull") is going to make things seem frustrating because it's not a game and shouldn't be seen in the framing of a game.

Also, what you call "asspulls" every other story calls "obstacles for the protagonists to overcome". They're no more "ass pulls" than, for example, the Death Star blowing up Alderaan and ruining the mission Luke and Obi-Wan were on. It's just how the story plays out.

[danielxcutter]

MunchKING said it better than I could've: everything that happened to V was V's fault, end of sentence. Sure the IFCC lied by omission about being taken out of 3 short lengths of time, but who enters a soul-leasing deal with fiends expecting to not be screwed over? V knew the risk: they just didn't care, because the power was too important. And what about V's family? V's Familicide? The narrative is quite explicitly clear that those consequences rest solely upon V's brow. They made a deal with fiends for power even though there was another option, they killed thousands of black dragon relatives even though they knew dragons interbreed with humans, and they kept the power because they wanted it more than they wanted their family.

Had I seen the entire arc play out in an actual-play podcast, I would nod and go "yeah, makes sense." What's more, I would be blown away by the player's commitment to their character's flawed decision-making, and the DM's ability to lay groundwork for extreme actions to have extreme consequences. V committed genocide without a second thought, and you're claiming the consequences of that action would feel like a "gotcha" at a table, because V couldn't have known that possibility even though V didn't even pause to consider what innocents they might be killing. Calling it the act of a capricious DM is excusing V's lust for power and ego. And what's more, it's missing the entire point of V's DStP arc.

As a story in a comic, it is a perfectly executed arc.

It is not something I think would be wise to drop on your players without at least putting in much thought though. I have heard way too many DM(and admittedly player) horror stories to not be skeptical about the difficulty of execution at minimum.

Low hanging fruit given that V lampshades this in-comic, but I'll bite. As others have stated, the advanced pit fiend did little more than slow down and distract the heroes while making for an entertaining fight. A bunch of ninjas could probably have done the same.

Something that wasn’t as ridiculous might have worked better honestly, that thing was probably higher CR than anything the Order faced besides the ABD and Xykon himself.

I'm not sure why you consider the entire guild of murdering outlaws that Haley left on bad terms to be a contrivance. Haley told Celia very clearly not to go to Greysky, and because Haley & Celia's dynamic was well-documented as combative and strained (because Haley was not a strong leader, again, character stuff), Celia ignored her. They were put in a bad situation due to Celia's stubbornness and Haley's inability to 1. open up and explain the risks and 2. understand leadership well enough to instill trust in her companions. This is all extremely in-character for both of them. I don't see the contrivance.

The guild itself is fine; she had no trouble mowing down most of them. It’s mostly just Bozzok and Crystal… and also to a minor extent, Pete selling them out.

Mostly just those two jackasses tbh.

I will grant you that Celia's repeated misunderstandings throughout her Grubwiggler meeting strain credibility. It's not my favorite kind of humor, but it makes sense from a comedy and storytelling standpoint and it gave an excuse to draw some cool Frankenstein-style monsters. However, it's not like she wasn't in trouble the second she walked into Greysky City. She could've just as easily been mugged on the street by Grubwiggler or one of his minions, or had to abandon the cart for some reason. It's not like the Grubwiggler thing was some sudden shift or "gotcha" - it was a logical conclusion to a very bad decision.

Yeah but flesh golems are pretty much immune to everything Haley, Belkar, and Celia could do; the first two would barely scratch them and Celia’s spells would be less than useless.

Putting aside that Celia's whole schtick is "mortal lives are more important than treasure"...What problem does this actually introduce? As far as I can tell, Haley doesn't even lose any money - she skips town before paying up.

Only because she figured out a way to give them the slip.

Your complaint is that V killed a black dragon and the dragon's family (which was already implied to exist by dialogue at the time) eventually came calling? I don't find it unbelievable that a black dragon would seek vengeance for this. They're a long-lived and extremely powerful species known for holding centuries-long grudges. Even then, the ABD specifically calls out that she was much, much less likely to attack unless V separated themselves from the rest of the group. V was told not to do this by the rest of the group. V's ego led them to take this risk.

You claim these events are contrivances but I don't see it. I see entirely believable consequences that follow directly from the main characters' actions and mistakes.

The ABD herself not necessarily, but the alternate plan the IFCC gave V would still involve them losing a level. Which y’know, is still kinda BS - lose your family, lose a level, or take a fiend pact and get bitten in the hind by it.

Hmm, if you're implying that this mistake was a Freudian slip, then it implies you're basically constantly thinking about goblin theocracy. Which is totally reasonable, tbh.

I mean one was a fairly major area for like two books so…

[Dame_Mechanus]

Also, what you call "asspulls" every other story calls "obstacles for the protagonists to overcome". They're no more "ass pulls" than, for example, the Death Star blowing up Alderaan and ruining the mission Luke and Obi-Wan were on. It's just how the story plays out.

Not even just obstacles, but literally the points of the story. Like, what if there hadn't been an ancient black dragon trying to get revenge on Vaarsuvius? Then we wouldn't have huge chunks of the plot happening as a result, there would be no reason for Xykon to stay in Azure City and then Gobbotopia as long as he did, O-Chul wouldn't still be a character, and so forth. These aren't contrivances that happened because of an author desperately trying to come up with something to happen this week; these are elements that are frequently set up far in advance and result in the story we're enjoying in the first place.

Heck, it works in both directions. Why would V have a scroll of Passwall on them? That seems like a convenient contrivance... until you remember that V was reminded that sometimes you need spells you didn't happen to prepare on a given day. That specific spell, even.

[Provengreil]

Not even just obstacles, but literally the points of the story. Like, what if there hadn't been an ancient black dragon trying to get revenge on Vaarsuvius? Then we wouldn't have huge chunks of the plot happening as a result, there would be no reason for Xykon to stay in Azure City and then Gobbotopia as long as he did, O-Chul wouldn't still be a character, and so forth. These aren't contrivances that happened because of an author desperately trying to come up with something to happen this week; these are elements that are frequently set up far in advance and result in the story we're enjoying in the first place.

Heck, it works in both directions. Why would V have a scroll of Passwall on them? That seems like a convenient contrivance... until you remember that V was reminded that sometimes you need spells you didn't happen to prepare on a given day. That specific spell, even.

You say that....

[KorvinStarmast]

But you still insist on comparing it to a DM railroading players.

So did the author.

[Shining Wrath]

He has allies martial, psionic, and most puissantly magical,
He demonstrates command of subjects doctrinal and national,
As well as divine mastery of magic most demonstrable.

He's also very versed in the matters of theology
And once-forbidden knowledge that was hidden rather thoroughly;
He seeks a form of power for his people quite congruously
Though once his brother rather advocated for apostasy.

His actions of great notice are most often diplomatical,
He is the very model of a goblin theocratical!

Oh, well done.

[Dame_Mechanus]

So did the author.

Wait, Roy is the author of Order of the Stick? Gods, what an egomaniac, but I guess that explains why in this version of the story Roy gets a totally hot air elemental girlfriend who's super into him and a magical ancestral sword.

(Actually Belkar's version of the story would be kind of hilarious because it would just be a whole lot of things in which people are talking and he's not paying attention interspersed with violence.)

[Ruck]

You say that....

Yes, and it was "flatly ludicrous to have prepared one," hence why V didn't bother the next time but did have a scroll.

So did the author.

Wait, Roy is the author of Order of the Stick?

Indeed, let's see what the author has to say:

But as I've said before, "Ceci n'est pas une partie de Donjons et Dragons."

He has allies martial, psionic, and most puissantly magical,
He demonstrates command of subjects doctrinal and national,
As well as divine mastery of magic most demonstrable.

He's also very versed in the matters of theology
And once-forbidden knowledge that was hidden rather thoroughly;
He seeks a form of power for his people quite congruously
Though once his brother rather advocated for apostasy.

His actions of great notice are most often diplomatical,
He is the very model of a goblin theocratical!

Spoiler

Show

[Riftwolf]

I like that, after Oonas sniper-accurate critique, Redcloak tries to make a "Also, you're wrong" comment only to get put back in his place.
And I'm pretty sure Redcloak hasn't even realised the bridge has long been dolphin'd, and he's been repainting "Best for Goblins" over the "I'm right" village signposts for years.

[skim172]

I feel like I need to re-evaluate several of my life decisions now.

Ah, sounds like someone just discovered that bridge-eating dolphins are fictional.

Go! Cross all the rivers, chasms, and spans you desire with no fear! The world's bridges are your oyster!

[Dame_Mechanus]

Yes, and it was "flatly ludicrous to have prepared one," hence why V didn't bother the next time but did have a scroll.

Perhaps even multiple scrolls, since V has apparently started to take a few important lessons about power to heart.

Sometimes power isn't about the spells you prepared but the spells you prepared to not prepare.

"Sometimes I miss when you didn't bother explaining stuff to me."

[Nomen]

I like that, after Oonas sniper-accurate critique, Redcloak tries to make a "Also, you're wrong" comment only to get put back in his place.
And I'm pretty sure Redcloak hasn't even realised the bridge has long been dolphin'd, and he's been repainting "Best for Goblins" over the "I'm right" village signposts for years.

The thing about the right all along village is that it inherently paints over the sign in most situations.

[Provengreil]

The thing about the right all along village is that it inherently paints over the sign in most situations.

That kinda makes me wonder if Oona's description that it'd be the rocks and trees telling him he's right has a meaning we haven't quite reached here, or if it's as irrelevant as her method of bridge destruction being a dolphin. It's pretty obvious her main point is correct but some of the specifics can get a little lost in her style of speech and chosen metaphor.

[Jasdoif]

I for one would absolutely believe that she believes Redcloak is going to betray the goblin people if it comes down to the wire and is still cheerfully working with him anyway.

She would certainly have less incentive to keep Redcloak from having to make that choice, if she thought he would side with them. Or she could "just" be ethical and opposed to letting quandaries arise through her own inaction. Perhaps both.

[Vikenlugaid]

The Order didn't actually want Team Evil to pursue them. But given that Team Evil was pursuing them and was likely to encounter monsters and fight them, that was to the Order's advantage.

The point is: if there were humans/dwarves/elfs/halflings in that dungeon, Would Roy have acted the same way? Letting team evil kill those guys and only attacking after that? I don't think so.



Another thing: why are people saying that Redcloak is nitpicking Oona's metaphor? I mean, like Redcloak was'nt nitpicking everything he sees in his life. He is a nerd, he always do that, is not as he was'nt understanding the real meaning of that metaphor, in fact, before nitpicking it, he logically argumented against it.

The ABD herself not necessarily, but the alternate plan the IFCC gave V would still involve them losing a level. Which y’know, is still kinda BS - lose your family, lose a level, or take a fiend pact and get bitten in the hind by it.

... Or, you know, don't leave your team and go alone to a desert island and waste spells like crazy. If this comic was a game, that scene would be just consecuences of a bunch of terrible player's decisions.

If we are comparing this with a game, the very worst thing the DM did was Miko destroying the gate (or Hinjo not telling O'chul about the ghost martyrs), I mean, by far far far, every bad thing that happened in DstP isn't even close to that. And in second position I would say the whole high priest of Hel plot, I still don't see DstP too hars in that way.

[hroþila]

That alternate plan wasn't even viable, and the archfiends acknowledged as much. It existed merely to make V realize that they didn't actually want any solution that didn't involve their wielding ultimate arcane power. It was never a sadistic choice between losing a level & their family and selling their soul.

[Larsaan]

The point is: if there were humans/dwarves/elfs/halflings in that dungeon, Would Roy have acted the same way? Letting team evil kill those guys and only attacking after that? I don't think so.

Up until this page there was no indication that the dungeons housed sapient creatures, so there's no reason why the Order would even consider the possibility. The two monster types that were mentioned in the flashback, purple worms and rocs, are both basically just really big animals.

If anything, this raises some serious questions about exactly what kind of operation Serini is running here, what kind of system she has for replenishing the dungeons, and whether the monsters are volunteers or captives. It also puts the fact that the bugbears have been harvesting the place for probably decades into a very different light. Do the dungeon monsters sit around dreading the day the bugbears come for them?

[Dame_Mechanus]

The point is: if there were humans/dwarves/elfs/halflings in that dungeon, Would Roy have acted the same way? Letting team evil kill those guys and only attacking after that? I don't think so.

Saying "but if this situation were vastly different, would everyone react the same way" reminds me of a quote a friend used to like.

On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

If the situation had been different, then yes, different decisions would probably have been made, because it would be a different situation altogether. The Order made their decisions based on the information they had available at the time, and as the deva assigned to Roy explained, the literal forces of Law and Good judge people based on their effort and intentions.

Heck, it's been a recurring theme in the comic for years now. Roy was not the person who killed those monsters. Redcloak and Oona were. (Depending on what your definition of "personhood" is in this context, Greyview may also qualify.) If they were sapient creatures, the responsibility lies on the shoulders of those who chose to take those actions, not on someone who had no intention of causing it and then failed to basically intervene to save beings he wasn't aware of in the first place.

[Nomen]

That kinda makes me wonder if Oona's description that it'd be the rocks and trees telling him he's right has a meaning we haven't quite reached here, or if it's as irrelevant as her method of bridge destruction being a dolphin. It's pretty obvious her main point is correct but some of the specifics can get a little lost in her style of speech and chosen metaphor.

My take on the rocks and trees is they are not people. Nobody else actually lives there. Not sure if its because they are all dead or because nobody actually agrees with him.

[danielxcutter]

I mean talking rocks and trees aren't exactly impossible in a D&D setting. I still think that part's not relevant to the metaphor.

[Peelee]

Saying "but if this situation were vastly different, would everyone react the same way" reminds me of a quote a friend used to like.

I wasn't aware that we were previously friends. And I still like that quote.

Also I loved going to Babbage's back in the day. EB Games was good but Babbage's had that je ne sais quoi.

[danielxcutter]

I still wonder where the new monsters are coming from, though. If there were like mostly constructs and undead and whatnot I'd assume that they just regenerate or respawn or whatever on their own but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[carrion pigeons]

Redcloak isn't living in two villages. He's living in one village that has a different name from the one he thinks it has. Doing-the-Very-Best-For-Goblins isn't where he lives, that's just what he thinks it's called. He actually lives in Punish-the-Oppressors-Including-Everyone.

Redcloak is definitely suffering from the sunk cost fallacy but that isn't the real problem. The problem is he can't tell the difference between [getting the best outcome for himself and the goblins], and [getting the worst outcome for everyone else]. He honestly believes that ruining everyone else is equivalent to uplifting the goblins, and all his mental shortcuts are built on that fallacy.

[danielxcutter]

I think the comic is trying to say very hard that he does actually give a crap about goblins as a whole, just that's not the only thing and possibly not the biggest one either.

[carrion pigeons]

I think the comic is trying to say very hard that he does actually give a crap about goblins as a whole, just that's not the only thing and possibly not the biggest one either.

Fair, but him deciding to sacrifice his pride to help the goblins doesn't really complete his character arc, because he doesn't believe he has any pride in the first place. What he needs to learn isn't that his ego can be sacrificed, but rather that his vengeance can be sacrificed.

[TheNecrocomicon]

I still wonder where the new monsters are coming from, though. If there were like mostly constructs and undead and whatnot I'd assume that they just regenerate or respawn or whatever on their own but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I believe one of the theories is that something like a deepspawn could be producing them on a regular basis.

He honestly believes that ruining everyone else is equivalent to uplifting the goblins, and all his mental shortcuts are built on that fallacy.

This. And Redcloak's shown no signs whatsoever of giving that viewpoint up, or of even drifting towards something else. He just keeps doubling down on his warped cruelty instead. Frankly, I don't think someone as genocidal as him deserves redemption; let him self-destruct himself. Maybe, just maybe, he'll give up the required amount of quiddity before he dies a deserved death and goes to permanently meet the Dark One.

[Ruck]

Also I loved going to Babbage's back in the day. EB Games was good but Babbage's had that je ne sais quoi.

Did they rebrand at some point? I still think of them as Electronics Boutique, but I feel like there's a reasonable chance they started branding the stores as EB Games at some point.

[Jasdoif]

I think the comic is trying to say very hard that he does actually give a crap about goblins as a whole, just that's not the only thing and possibly not the biggest one either.

I am reasonably confident he cares about goblins as a whole, in much the same way as Tarquin cares about Nale.

[Peelee]

Did they rebrand at some point? I still think of them as Electronics Boutique, but I feel like there's a reasonable chance they started branding the stores as EB Games at some point.

I remember both Electronics Boutique and EB Games before it all became Gamestop.