So, what is the pont of the battle with Calder?

[gbaji]

Dancing round on a bridge. In this context, "sur" means "on top of". :)

Probably won't help that my bilingual bonus is Spanish, not French. Pont looked really familiar but I still had to Google it. I should have known, too -- I walked across the Pont de Louis about 4 months ago!

Which is amusing, since "sur" in Spanish means "south, southern, southwards" (context dependent of course). I would not be surprised if the two words do share some common etymology somewhere. My French is pretty much nonexistent, but assuming that "sur" is in reverence to the thing that one is on top of (gathered from the lyrics), there's an implied directionality there which could kinda fit.

Or not. Always find it interesting to encounter similar or even identical words in different languages that sometimes mean things absolutely different, but sometimes seem tantilizingly similar in some ways. Heck. Pont and Point are interesting as well.

[hroþila]

Which is amusing, since "sur" in Spanish means "south, southern, southwards" (context dependent of course). I would not be surprised if the two words do share some common etymology somewhere. My French is pretty much nonexistent, but assuming that "sur" is in reverence to the thing that one is on top of (gathered from the lyrics), there's an implied directionality there which could kinda fit.

Or not. Always find it interesting to encounter similar or even identical words in different languages that sometimes mean things absolutely different, but sometimes seem tantilizingly similar in some ways. Heck. Pont and Point are interesting as well.

Nah there's no connection. French sur comes from Latin super (which is distantly related to English over), while Spanish sur comes from French sud which in turn comes from Old English suþ (>Modern English south), a Germanic word that's distantly related to English sun

[gbaji]

Nah there's no connection. French sur comes from Latin super (which is distantly related to English over), while Spanish sur comes from French sud which in turn comes from Old English suþ (>Modern English south), a Germanic word that's distantly related to English sun

Huh. See. So close... yet so far...

For our next exercise, we'll examine the tangled and somewhat arbitrarily strange historical intersection of "lite" and "light".

[Tarkin]

That's a fascinating observation about the words "sur" and "sur"! It's definitely intriguing to encounter seemingly similar words across languages that hold different meanings. While their etymological paths may diverge, it's still a cool example of how languages evolve and sometimes retain echoes of their shared history.

[Fish]

I’ve got it. I know what the point is.

Belkar.

Calder will dominate Belkar; Belkar will have his protection from evil clasp, which shows his alignment has changed. Belkar will then have to ride the dinosaur back into the stasis circle, dragging Calder, whereupon the magic will be restored.

Belkar draws his last breath. No more birthday cake.

[Barlion]

I can't remember, does the order knows what V did to that dragon back in the Don't Split the Party book? In details, I mean.

Maybe V will confess now. Or Calder somehow knows and will reveal.

[Precure]

I can't remember, does the order knows what V did to that dragon back in the Don't Split the Party book? In details, I mean.

As far as we know only Roy know about it.

[Naysmith]

I can't remember, does the order knows what V did to that dragon back in the Don't Split the Party book? In details, I mean.

Maybe V will confess now. Or Calder somehow knows and will reveal.

I doubt that Calder could know, but I like the direction of this. In the lines of a reveal, I'm thinking: what if V tries to get the order to spare Calder and only Roy knows why?

[Space Sorceress]

I doubt that Calder could know, but I like the direction of this. In the lines of a reveal, I'm thinking: what if V tries to get the order to spare Calder and only Roy knows why?

Oooo, I didn't think of that! That'd be cool! I think! Probably!

As for other narrative purposes, I'd imagine the Order is likely to level up from this (Minrah perhaps twice?), and that might give them some cool new abilities to show off against Xykon and Redcloak - it'd be a perfectly reasonable form of "final arc power creep" like you see in anime and whatnot, lol.

[Zarhan]

The point of the battle is to demonstrate the Ama-Zing Feat of Head Injury Side Swapping. That way when Redcloak suddenly changes his eyepatch to other side in the final battle, it's been demonstrated earlier and the Order is prepared for it.

[Doug Lampert]

Oooo, I didn't think of that! That'd be cool! I think! Probably!

As for other narrative purposes, I'd imagine the Order is likely to level up from this (Minrah perhaps twice?), and that might give them some cool new abilities to show off against Xykon and Redcloak - it'd be a perfectly reasonable form of "final arc power creep" like you see in anime and whatnot, lol.

You can't gain empough XP to go up more than one level at a time. If you are level 10, you need 55,000 XP for 11, you would need 66,000 XP fo 12, but you can't go above 65,999 XP till you have reached level 11.

Doesn't matter how epic the challenge, by RAW, you only go up one level at most from any single encounter.

Note that XP and leveling up aren't covered fully in the SRD, you'll need to dig out your books to find this one.

[Peelee]

Bolding mine:

You can't gain empough XP to go up more than one level at a time. If you are level 10, you need 55,000 XP for 11, you would need 66,000 XP fo 12, but you can't go above 65,999 XP till you have reached level 11.

Doesn't matter how epic the challenge, by RAW, you only go up one level at most from any single encounter.

Note that XP and leveling up aren't covered fully in the SRD, you'll need to dig out your books to find this one.

I maintain, as I've said before, that Shelby heavily implies this is not the case in Stickworld.

[Doug Lampert]

Bolding mine:
I maintain, as I've said before, that Shelby heavily implies this is not the case in Stickworld.

I maintain that Shelby got a NAME when he killed that dragon, Shelby the Dragon Slayer, and that it was the awesum powerup from having a name like that that made him too dangerous to live. Level is almost irrelevant by comparison. And we do know that having a name powers up characters in tOotS.

[KorvinStarmast]

. And we do know that having a name powers up characters in tOotS.

What about the MaYtalLs?

[Peelee]

I maintain that Shelby got a NAME when he killed that dragon, Shelby the Dragon Slayer, and that it was the awesum powerup from having a name like that that made him too dangerous to live. Level is almost irrelevant by comparison. And we do know that having a name powers up characters in tOotS.

Source of names being powerups? I know names can save one from a mortal wound, but that's hardly a threat to Xykon and Redcloak.

[Witty Username]

Do we need more than, jokes, that are also funny?

[Doug Lampert]

Source of names being powerups? I know names can save one from a mortal wound, but that's hardly a threat to Xykon and Redcloak.

472 doesn't only show Daigo being saved by having a name, Elan also points out that not having names is why they can't defeat the hobgoblins if he leaves them behind. Yet, they both have names and so they defeat the hobgoblins and live. Clearly someone with a name can defeat overwhelming odds.

Consider that tOotS is overwhelmingly likely to win by defeating overwhelming odds, and EVERY ONE OF THEM has a name (albeit Elan and Minrah seem to lack a last name, but then they're the least capable members of the order, coincidence, I think NOT).

Meanwhile nameless goblin warriors die like flies, while Redcloak keeps going and going.

It's all in having a name, I'll bet you can't name a single powerful character in all of fiction who doesn't have a name. Come on, give me the name of even one character of real power who has no name. (Clint Eastwood's man with no name is of course named "Clint Eastwood's man with no name". Alternately, and more boringly, "Joe," "Manco," and "Blondie" depending on the movie.)

[Naysmith]

Consider that tOotS is overwhelmingly likely to win by defeating overwhelming odds, and EVERY ONE OF THEM has a name (albeit Elan and Minrah seem to lack a last name, but then they're the least capable members of the order, coincidence, I think NOT).

Minrah's last name is Shaleshoe. Vaarsuvius and Elan are the ones lacking a surname.

[Peelee]

472 doesn't only show Daigo being saved by having a name, Elan also points out that not having names is why they can't defeat the hobgoblins if he leaves them behind. Yet, they both have names and so they defeat the hobgoblins and live. Clearly someone with a name can defeat overwhelming odds.

Consider that tOotS is overwhelmingly likely to win by defeating overwhelming odds, and EVERY ONE OF THEM has a name (albeit Elan and Minrah seem to lack a last name, but then they're the least capable members of the order, coincidence, I think NOT).

Meanwhile nameless goblin warriors die like flies, while Redcloak keeps going and going.

It's all in having a name, I'll bet you can't name a single powerful character in all of fiction who doesn't have a name. Come on, give me the name of even one character of real power who has no name. (Clint Eastwood's man with no name is of course named "Clint Eastwood's man with no name". Alternately, and more boringly, "Joe," "Manco," and "Blondie" depending on the movie.)

X-Files' cigarette smoking man. Everyone on the island in The Island. As you said, Eastwood's man with no name is, simply, a man with no name. Claiming "well that's his name" is like saying "Goblin warrior #373 is that goblin's name so he was clearly more powerful". Also, we have seen named characters be completely sidelined in the comic, despite your claims.

Also, by your logic of "OotS will win because they have names", then Xykon will win because he has a name. Now we have a paradox. Also, Shelby should have defeated Xykon and Redcloak by virtue of having a name and it being overwhelming odds.

[Ruck]

Also, Shelby should have defeated Xykon and Redcloak by virtue of having a name and it being overwhelming odds.

A name and a title! Plus, it's his real, given name, as far as we know. "Xykon" was a self-styled appellation and "Redcloak" is what he told Xykon to call him to keep things simple.

Shelby the Dragonslayer vs. two guys with nicknames, in the face of overwhelming odds? It's a no-brainer; Xykon and Redcloak should surrender in advance.

[Kardwill]

Meanwhile nameless goblin warriors die like flies, while Redcloak keeps going and going.

Well yes, obviously, having a name in most fictions means you'll at least get your own death scene. Maybe the heroes will even angst about wether they have the right to murder you.
If you're a no-name extra? The Good Guys will gut you like a fish, and let your corpse fall offscreen.

[hroþila]

Me, I'm just happy whenever Shelby is mentioned. Forever in our hearts o7

Anyway, Xykon's actual words:

It's just that with all that XP you just earned there, you'll soon be overqualified for the position of Random Mook

XP earned. Nothing about names

[Kish]

Xykon's explanation for why he's killing one of his minions, unless said explanation is literally, "I'm a sadistic row of asterisks, LOL!" should always be taken with a keg of salt.

[hroþila]

I would say he's usually pretty upfront about his reasons for killing minions. But regardless, I'm taking his words with a shipload of salt and they still ring true in this particular case due to the context, Redcloak's reaction and/or lack thereof, the absence of the slightest hint that Shelby's name was the problem, and the fact that the strip would be much less funny otherwise

[Kish]

I would say he's usually pretty upfront about his reasons for killing minions. But regardless, I'm taking his words with a shipload of salt and they still ring true in this particular case due to the context, Redcloak's reaction and/or lack thereof, the absence of the slightest hint that Shelby's name was the problem, and the fact that the strip would be much less funny otherwise

I'm not saying "Xykon was lying: Shelby's name was the problem."

I'm saying "Xykon was lying: Shelby had no expectation of gaining any significant power there at all, but had just committed the fatal error of drawing Xykon's attention in any way, and even upstaged him by killing something he couldn't."

Redcloak, at that time, also casually and gratuitously killed hobgoblins; what reaction would he have had?

[Naysmith]

In light of how the Paladins seem to be about to get involved, and with how Serini said they weren't there to get Calder spared this time, I'm posting to push my theory that V is going to be a proponent for letting Calder run, and dealing with him later if he goes back to the cult thing.

[brian 333]

In light of how the Paladins seem to be about to get involved, and with how Serini said they weren't there to get Calder spared this time, I'm posting to push my theory that V is going to be a proponent for letting Calder run, and dealing with him later if he goes back to the cult thing.

I think if anything, the dragon episode taught V to be specific when targeting.

The reasons matter.
Innocent bystanders matter.
Unintended consequences matter.

"Calder is a dragon," does not equate to, "I murdered uncounted innocents." This is a false equivalency, especially to a logical mind.

Calder is a criminal who mind-controls people then uses them like gymnasium towels, not an innocent dragon-spawn going about his daily life.

V will act rationally. Calder cannot be allowed to be free because he is an unrepentant mind-thief. Letting him free will endanger others, many of whom have no defense against him, and all of whom he will use up and discard like theater popcorn buckets. Letting Calder go free will put uncounted elves and other people in physical and mental danger.

Is imprisonment better than a clean death? Is there a third choice? I don't know, but letting Calder go free is a more dangerous choice than either of the first two for everyone.

[Rynjin]

I'm going to make the bold, likely inaccurate prediction that this...might be it for Belkar. He jumps into save Bloodfeast and gets roasted for his trouble.

It would kinda be the ultimate culmination of his character, even more so than sacrificing himself to save one of the sapient members of the party. Belkar started out as a Ranger for purely mechanical reasons, and has always sucked at it. But along with his character growth from textbook, comical CE he's also started to do more and more Ranger-like things over time.

What would be a more fitting end to the character arc than dying selflessly to save an Animal Companion he put into danger? It even fits the recent reiteration we've had that the main character trait he never lost from the early days is his tendency to leap before he looks. He's probably gonna jump in out of pure reflex and impulse.

Maybe a last bit of snark ("Damn...rolled a 1.") and burnt to ashes; notably a form of death that is VERY hard to remedy in 3.5, as it prevents you from using normal Raise Dead.

[Naysmith]

I think if anything, the dragon episode taught V to be specific when targeting.

That was the battle with Xykon, to be precise with magic. Power = Power and all that.

The reasons matter.
Innocent bystanders matter.
Unintended consequences matter.

The entire point is what the reasons are. The point is that it would be merciful... while V used to be wrathful. (And prideful, but that's been broken.)

"Calder is a dragon," does not equate to, "I murdered uncounted innocents." This is a false equivalency, especially to a logical mind.

I'm not sure where that came from. Letting Calder run would just be letting anyone run. Calder being a Dragon is just thematic. It's like how V tried to make Laurin Shattersmith run by intimidating her via spells remaining. Considering that Laurin had caused so much pain and suffering with Tarquin's plan, did she deserve that chance either?

Calder is a criminal who mind-controls people then uses them like gymnasium towels, not an innocent dragon-spawn going about his daily life.

First, a nitpick: much like the bandits in Wooden Forest, there's probably more places where there aren't laws in the first place. Re: Mind Control... he spent how long in a torturous prison? But stopping further mind control would be the point of making sure to say that they'll keep an eye on him after.

V will act rationally. Calder cannot be allowed to be free because he is an unrepentant mind-thief. Letting him free will endanger others, many of whom have no defense against him, and all of whom he will use up and discard like theater popcorn buckets. Letting Calder go free will put uncounted elves and other people in physical and mental danger.

Per the metaphysics shown in Roy's judgment, that's on Calder's soul and no one else's. There's no Paladin associating with him, no commanding officer. If he chooses the mind control again, then he can be stopped again. And my general drift was meant to include a "we'll keep an eye on him" rider so they can stomp down hard if he goes back to his old ways... and make sure he knows they're watching.

Is imprisonment better than a clean death? Is there a third choice? I don't know, but letting Calder go free is a more dangerous choice than either of the first two for everyone.

Dangerous, but it's the one that gives him a chance at changing his ways at all. The golden ending, which will probably NOT happen, but has that tiny chance.

________________

Ultimately, I think it comes down to being part of V's redemption arc:
V was prideful (against the Black Dragons, not considering they could be peaceful), and begging (for Calder to be spared) would be a sign of humility.
V was wrathful (against the Ancient Black Dragon, not accepting a surrender), and sparing an enemy (Calder) would be a sign of changing to mercy.
Calder will likely go out and cause trouble again, but in the here and now, he's merely a threat to V and allies. Once neutralized there... well, he did spend ~50 years in a tailor-made hell for a prison.
And if V can't be merciful to someone for evils committed... then how can V hope for mercy themself?

[brian 333]

That was the battle with Xykon, to be precise with magic. Power = Power and all that.

Not what I was referencing. I was referencing V's freakout in the pyramid when he realized the magnitude of his crime.

The entire point is what the reasons are. The point is that it would be merciful... while V used to be wrathful. (And prideful, but that's been broken.)

Why would V be merciful to Calder? So he can make the exact opposite mistake he made with YABD? To give undeserved mercy in the hope that it lessens the crime of withholding it when it was deserved?

I'm not sure where that came from. Letting Calder run would just be letting anyone run. Calder being a Dragon is just thematic. It's like how V tried to make Laurin Shattersmith run by intimidating her via spells remaining. Considering that Laurin had caused so much pain and suffering with Tarquin's plan, did she deserve that chance either?

This came from the idea that Calder would in any way or to any degree abide by any surrender agreement. Even if V "kept an eye on him," what could V do about it when he started a new mind controlled cult?

Ultimately, I think it comes down to being part of V's redemption arc:
V was prideful (against the Black Dragons, not considering they could be peaceful), and begging (for Calder to be spared) would be a sign of humility.
V was wrathful (against the Ancient Black Dragon, not accepting a surrender), and sparing an enemy (Calder) would be a sign of changing to mercy.
Calder will likely go out and cause trouble again, but in the here and now, he's merely a threat to V and allies. Once neutralized there... well, he did spend ~50 years in a tailor-made hell for a prison.
And if V can't be merciful to someone for evils committed... then how can V hope for mercy themself?

ABD and Calder have no equivalency save their shared dragon ancestry. V cannot find redemption by granting undeserved mercy to pay for previously not granting it where it was deserved.