Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 669
  1. - Top - End - #121
    Titan in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr._Demento View Post
    Generally, evil actions are actions that lack empathy: Murder, theft, indifference, etc. Thus, a truly evil being would lack any empathy (this isn't quite true, but holds for this argument). This idea works well with the OotSverse, as Xykon, the Lich who doesn't care a whit for anyone but himself, is the BBEG. However, a society composed entirely of truly evil beings wouldn't survive (care for young, provision of food, and infighting all being major issues), there has to be some bond of common empathy for a society to form.
    This seems to me to be falling into the old trap of assuming that Evil beings can't have friendships or emotional attachments, which is not the case. It's furthermore ignoring that even the most rigidly Evil society would realise that caring for your young is kind of important to the continuation of your race, which is a much deeper and more primal urge than any kind of alignment. (Heck, most animals instinctively care for their children, without any need for empathy).

  2. - Top - End - #122
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by factotum View Post
    This seems to me to be falling into the old trap of assuming that Evil beings can't have friendships or emotional attachments, which is not the case. It's furthermore ignoring that even the most rigidly Evil society would realise that caring for your young is kind of important to the continuation of your race, which is a much deeper and more primal urge than any kind of alignment. (Heck, most animals instinctively care for their children, without any need for empathy).
    Truly Evil beings can't care. There are, as with most things, many shades of evil, and I wanted to wipe away the extremes form the get go. I would argue that even a large group of mostly evil beings could form a society (although I have doubts as to how stable it could ever be).

    I would also argue that some animals have empathy (and others, well, they fall under that exception I didn't want to bother getting into (But essentially involves levels of intelligence and selfishness)).

  3. - Top - End - #123
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
    But there's the problem; if Redcloak and company are, indeed, completely evil, as the D&D rules generally require them to be
    The D&D rules have never required goblins to be completely evil. They just require most of them on balance to be sufficiently evil to count as Evil for the purposes of detect evil, protection from evil and similar magics.

  4. - Top - End - #124
    Banned
     
    Math_Mage's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by factotum View Post
    This seems to me to be falling into the old trap of assuming that Evil beings can't have friendships or emotional attachments, which is not the case. It's furthermore ignoring that even the most rigidly Evil society would realise that caring for your young is kind of important to the continuation of your race, which is a much deeper and more primal urge than any kind of alignment. (Heck, most animals instinctively care for their children, without any need for empathy).
    I think you overstate the case Dr._Demento is making. He is not saying that an Evil being cannot have friendship or emotional attachment; rather, he is saying that it's reasonable to say a MORE Evil being will have LESS friendship and/or emotional attachments.

    Also, many of the most evil beings (denizens of the Lower Planes) don't need to care for their young or ensure the continuation of their race. So that restraint is removed.

  5. - Top - End - #125
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Nerd_Paladin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

    So, complaining that I am failing to uphold it is the best compliment you could give me.
    I dunno; the world of D&D and high fantasy operates in a way that just doesn't resemble the real world. The real world has no dark gods, no corrupting mystical powers, no fiends and archfiends that influence the nature or makeup of the universe and its people (not in a literal sense, anyway).

    I can accept, for example, that red and green and blue dragons are inherently evil in a way that doesn't quite make sense, because the game tells us that they are the creations/children/pawns of Tiamat, a goddess of Pure Evil, basically Dragon Satan. Plainly, we cannot say this about any living creature in the real world, so the "argument" of D&D would only last in the real world for about as long as it would take us to verify the non-existence of Dragon Satan. So, honestly, it's never bothered me in the way it does you, nor, evidently, has it ever bothered the designers that way.

    I understand that if we look at fantasy gaming as analogous to real world racial or international conflicts that the overtones of the game then become incredibly disturbing. But I've never felt that such an analogy was sound because, well, LOOK at the game; it's absurd, intentionally and even comically absurd. Of course, D&D is, by design, many things to many people. Your experiences and perspective on it are obviously very different from mine. I guess I'm lucky not to have played in some of the games you have.

  6. - Top - End - #126
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
    Well, I guess that's where we have a fundamental disagreement (I imagine you wont' lose any sleep on that point); I think D&D works very well on the level of simple morality, but I think greater complexity tends to just sort of screw the whole thing up and I'm not sure the system was designed to handle that. More complex stories lend themselves better to other formats. That's how I see it, anyway.
    I could say that this goes to the contrast between people who run D&D as a tactical wargame with simple morality vs people who are interested in roleplaying and dealing with more complex issues other than see goblin, kill goblin.

    You have to know your audience and match it to the game you want, if all you want is a tactical game with simple morality, then you can't be in or run a game for people interested in roleplaying.
    In the same way, if you want to run a complex storyline in a world with depth, you can't allow in to the group people who want a tactical game with simple morality.

    Like any novel or story, this comic has more complex stories that the simplistic tactical game with the simple morality you like.
    The issue here isn't that there's any sort of failed characterization, the issue is that your tastes don't match those of any writer, reader, or player of more complex fiction.

  7. - Top - End - #127
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In the Interwebz
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    I don't see a problem at all with Redcloak having a REASON for being evil. Having a reason is not him being a lawful good goblin.

    If the comic was purely written from the perspective of the characters (As it started) then Redcloaks motivations would never have been revealed. He would simply be Xy's plucky side-kick. Maybe Nerd Paladin would prefer it that way, and you do have the option of skipping the panels that are not a PC's story and join them in the adventure. You will be denying yourself some clever writing, and I won't be doing that...it would fix the issues you have with following the villain's side.


    "I laugh at life, it's antics make for me a giddy game. Where only foolish fellows take themselves with solemn aim.

  8. - Top - End - #128
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Nerd_Paladin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by VinRaven View Post
    I could say that this goes to the contrast between people who run D&D as a tactical wargame with simple morality vs people who are interested in roleplaying and dealing with more complex issues other than see goblin, kill goblin.
    I would say it's more along the lines of, "See goblin invade my homeland/ambush my caravan/raise demons/sacrifice prisoners to its gods" etc. As I've stated repeatedly, I interpret alignment as a label on actions, not their incitement.

    You have to know your audience and match it to the game you want, if all you want is a tactical game with simple morality, then you can't be in or run a game for people interested in roleplaying.
    I don't see why a more simple moral perspective precludes storytelling and roleplaying; as I've already pointed out, many great stories did not worry themselves about great moral issues (not these ones, anyway).

    Like any novel or story, this comic has more complex stories that the simplistic tactical game with the simple morality you like.
    The issue here isn't that there's any sort of failed characterization, the issue is that your tastes don't match those of any writer, reader, or player of more complex fiction.
    I'd say there's two issues, first being not that I dislike more complex fiction but that I think this game is a bad fit for it (again, the game seems designed in such a way as to suggest the folks behind it agree, particularly its most recent incarnation), and then the second being how does the game relate to the comic, and how successful (in my opinion) that implementation is.

  9. - Top - End - #129
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Giddon View Post
    since this is Rich's story he may have chosen to start RC neutral per say, and then have SoD show how he really turned evil.
    Since Redcloak is shown as being initiated as a priest of an Evil god on the first page of SoD, that seems unlikely.

  10. - Top - End - #130
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    That doesn't bar him from having been Lawful Neutral at the start of SoD- LE deities allow LN clerics of them. Though there is admittedly no evidence either way.

    And LN clerics of LE deities still "ping a paladin's Evil Radar".

    If the Dark one is NE with the special trait of being able to grant the Law domain, as opposed to LE, this might be trickier.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  11. - Top - End - #131
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by FujinAkari View Post
    Miko fell because the Gods considered her action not to be good (or to be a gross violation, technically.)
    By the rules any evil act is sufficient to cause failure. It is the only part of the code that does not require there to be a gross violation.

    Paladins are not required by the rules to worship any god, though there may be some world specific rule for the OotS world.

  12. - Top - End - #132
    Giant in the Playground Administrator
     
    The Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
    I dunno; the world of D&D and high fantasy operates in a way that just doesn't resemble the real world. The real world has no dark gods, no corrupting mystical powers, no fiends and archfiends that influence the nature or makeup of the universe and its people (not in a literal sense, anyway).

    I can accept, for example, that red and green and blue dragons are inherently evil in a way that doesn't quite make sense, because the game tells us that they are the creations/children/pawns of Tiamat, a goddess of Pure Evil, basically Dragon Satan. Plainly, we cannot say this about any living creature in the real world, so the "argument" of D&D would only last in the real world for about as long as it would take us to verify the non-existence of Dragon Satan. So, honestly, it's never bothered me in the way it does you, nor, evidently, has it ever bothered the designers that way.
    This is treading very close to real-world religion already, but suffice to say that if you have a means of verifying the non-existence of any given deity in the real world, there are a few billion people who might want to give it a spin.

    But beyond that, no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it. Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism. So if I can make even one person think about how we treat people of other races (or religions, or creeds, or what have you) by using the analogy of Redcloak, then it will have been time well spent on my part.
    Rich Burlew


    Also available: Good Deeds Gone Unpunished, a collection of five new stories about your favorite Azure City characters, from Ookoodook (paper copies) or Gumroad (digital PDFs).

  13. - Top - End - #133
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
    I don't see why a more simple moral perspective precludes storytelling and roleplaying; as I've already pointed out, many great stories did not worry themselves about great moral issues (not these ones, anyway).
    The difference between a tactical game with simple morals and roleplaying is just that, if you're not worrying and dealing with moral issues you aren't roleplaying, you're simply pushing a miniature figure on a playing board.

    Both types of games can be fun, but they are two different games, and you need to be aware of the group you're running/playing in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
    I'd say there's two issues, first being not that I dislike more complex fiction but that I think this game is a bad fit for it (again, the game seems designed in such a way as to suggest the folks behind it agree, particularly its most recent incarnation), and then the second being how does the game relate to the comic, and how successful (in my opinion) that implementation is.
    No, tactical gaming vs roleplaying goes to group's taste and style, it is not dependent on the actual game rules design, though naturally certain elements of rules will be better at helping instead of hindering roleplay, just like certain elements of rules will be better at helping instead of hindering tactical gaming.

    In D&D this dichotomy goes back to the creators, with Gygax being into tactical gaming, and Arneson being a roleplayer into complex world creation and story.

    It goes without saying that you can find numerous first person accounts from DMs and fellow players on how Gygax was a terrible roleplayer and ran tactical games, while Arneson was a great roleplayer who ran games in complex worlds, different strokes and all.

  14. - Top - End - #134
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    I CARE.
    Mr. Burlew, I always strongly suspected you were someone deserving the highest level of respect, and I have been waiting for you to give pure, solid, blunt, and utterly undeniable 100% proof that I was right.

    I have found it, and I am proud to call you one of my highest... what's the word I'm looking for. Idol? Hero? Role-model?

    You are awesome.

  15. - Top - End - #135
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
    Honestly, I think that glosses over the point. Mr. Burlew insists that the important thing in the story is that the Paladins did an injustice to Redcloak, but what the gods think of those Paladin's behavior would tell us an awful lot about whether it really was an injustice. Although his point about preserving the narrative is well taken.
    The important thing is that Redcloak regards it as an injustice.
    The paladins surely did not.
    The paladins are more likely to be right, but that is not important to the story.

  16. - Top - End - #136
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by pjackson View Post
    The paladins are more likely to be right, but that is not important to the story.
    I don't know- what did
    Spoiler
    Show
    Redcloak's little sister
    do to "deserve killing"?

    Whenever someone who has not done something to deserve killing is intentionally killed, that's arguably an injustice.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2012-02-14 at 07:53 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  17. - Top - End - #137
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
    a D&D world doesn't have tribes of plucky goblins who mind their own business until accosted.
    Some D&D worlds might not have such villages.
    But there is no reason why a D&D world might not have such villages.
    They do not contradict the rules in anyway.

  18. - Top - End - #138
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Nerd_Paladin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    This is treading very close to real-world religion already, but suffice to say that if you have a means of verifying the non-existence of any given deity in the real world, there are a few billion people who might want to give it a spin.
    Okay, yes, you cannot conclusively prove a negative. Still, in fantasy gaming we have concrete influence of inherently evil mystical entities that colors our interpretations. That makes a big difference.

    But beyond that, no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it.
    Well, there's the fact that the setting has dragons, and then there's the fact that the setting has Tiamat; the former is simply a material difference between the real world and the game, but the latter is a fundamental, metaphysical difference. Tiamat, and similar entities/concepts/forces, is what defines and, to an extent, rationalizes the morality of the game world. I mean, how do we know that gnolls are predisposed to be wicked creatures? Because of the influence of Yeenoghu. Why do these concepts not bleed over into the real world? The absence of any verifiable influence of Yeenoghu (if you catch my drift; it rather late here...).

    Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism.
    I've always rejected the notion of fantasy as escapism, or at least, that it's any more so that any other form of fiction. D&D, however, probably is, in my estimation. It's entertainment, not high art. The game is a poor vessel, in my view, for anything more profound than that. Perhaps there is a fantasy tabletop game that gives us a venue for advancing big ideas about life, a game that may qualify as high art, but I don't think D&D is that game. It is, however, a fun way to spend time with your friends; there's value in that, too.

    So if I can make even one person think about how we treat people of other races (or religions, or creeds, or what have you) by using the analogy of Redcloak, then it will have been time well spent on my part.
    I guess I can't very well argue with that.
    Last edited by Nerd_Paladin; 2012-02-14 at 08:00 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #139
    Giant in the Playground Administrator
     
    The Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
    D&D, however, probably is, in my estimation. It's entertainment, not high art. The game is a poor vessel, in my view, for anything more profound than that.
    I am not playing a game.

    I am writing a story that happens to use some of the same terminology and/or base assumptions as a specific game in order to frame the issues that I want to talk about in a way that is easily accessible. Some of those issues are about that game and how it is played and some of those issues are about the real world and how we relate to it. I mix the two freely.

    Therefore, whether or not the game lends itself to this sort of introspection has no bearing on whether or not this sort of introspection belongs in my work of fiction, even if I also discuss that game. In the same way as the rules of the game of basketball do not lend themselves to a discussion of heroin abuse, but the book The Basketball Diaries still talks about both.

    EDIT: I should write "Ce n'est pas un jeu des cachots et des dragons" under every comic from now on.
    Rich Burlew


    Also available: Good Deeds Gone Unpunished, a collection of five new stories about your favorite Azure City characters, from Ookoodook (paper copies) or Gumroad (digital PDFs).

  20. - Top - End - #140
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    CoffeeIncluded's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andious View Post
    Mr. Burlew, I always strongly suspected you were someone deserving the highest level of respect, and I have been waiting for you to give pure, solid, blunt, and utterly undeniable 100% proof that I was right.

    I have found it, and I am proud to call you one of my highest... what's the word I'm looking for. Idol? Hero? Role-model?

    You are awesome.
    Pretty much seconded here.

  21. - Top - End - #141
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    I don't know- what did
    Spoiler
    Show
    Redcloak's little sister
    do to "deserve killing"?

    Whenever someone who has not done something to deserve killing is intentionally killed, that's arguably an injustice.
    Spoiler
    Show
    She attended a religious ceremony for an evil god - Redcloak's initiation. Just the very end is shown, but it is likely that some form of active participation would have been required from the audience.

    Besides that there may have been something else that caused detect evil to ping which was not shown.

  22. - Top - End - #142
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by pjackson View Post
    Spoiler
    Show
    She attended a religious ceremony for an evil god - Redcloak's initiation. Just the very end is shown, but it is likely that some form of active participation would have been required from the audience.

    Besides that there may have been something else that caused detect evil to ping which was not shown.
    That is a pretty big assumption you spoilerd, I find nothing in the comic that gives the impression his little sister has committed any evil action.

    If you are going to defend the paladin's actions, I go with the same justification as Carpet Bombing or Kill Every Firstborn Son.

  23. - Top - End - #143
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    No, it's not. Again:
    They must be some other paladins, not shown anywhere in the comic.

    We are told that the Sapphire Guard is small. concerned with guarding the gate, and seeks out threats to the gate to destroy them. Their reaction to finding a wearer of the crimson mantle (both times) confirms that they correctly regard such a being as such a threat.

  24. - Top - End - #144
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr._Demento View Post
    That is a pretty big assumption you spoilerd, I find nothing in the comic that gives the impression his little sister has committed any evil action.
    No, it is a small assumption. Willingly attending a ceremony for an Evil religion would normally be considered an evil act. Anyway, where in the comic is there evidence that she has not committed such an act.

  25. - Top - End - #145
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    But not necessarily an evil act that "warrants execution"

    Spoiler
    Show
    - quite apart from the fact that, as a child, she may have no choice about attending.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  26. - Top - End - #146
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by pjackson View Post
    No, it is a small assumption. Willingly attending a ceremony for an Evil religion would normally be considered an evil act. Anyway, where in the comic is there evidence that she has not committed such an act.
    I was talking about the active participation part. There is no indication that there is any more active participation than a high school graduation ceremony.

    Also,
    Spoiler
    Show
    a child is scarcely responsible for what ceremonies they are brought to by their families (although I am sure if you asked she would have claimed to be a devout follower of the Dark One, but even then, worshiping an evil god does not make you evil)
    Last edited by Dr._Demento; 2012-02-14 at 08:47 AM.

  27. - Top - End - #147
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Santiago, chile
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    But it's not a D&D world; a D&D world doesn't have tribes of plucky goblins who mind their own business until accosted. See original comment.
    This bothers me, because the whole point of D&D rules, is just to give a common, easily accessible, starting point for a group of people (or storywriters), not to be a rigid set in stone guideline that has to dictate every bit off fluff and crunch alike. The beauty of D&D is that it gives the liberty to the DM, or storyteller in this case, to borrow a couple of guidelines that allow people to quickly grasp the mechanics of the story, and from there on, the DM can create whatever world, with whatever characterizations and flavors he sees fit. The only thing those modifications require to become inherent to the story/game mechanics, is the acceptance of the players, or audience, and in the case of the OotS that translates to reading or not reading the comic.

  28. - Top - End - #148
    Giant in the Playground Administrator
     
    The Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by pjackson View Post
    Anyway, where in the comic is there evidence that she has not committed such an act.
    She had not committed an Evil act.

    And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.
    Rich Burlew


    Also available: Good Deeds Gone Unpunished, a collection of five new stories about your favorite Azure City characters, from Ookoodook (paper copies) or Gumroad (digital PDFs).

  29. - Top - End - #149
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2006

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Like I said a few pages back, OP, your morality works fine for D&D the game. For D&D: Storytime Edition, it falls flat. Which is basically what the Giant told you in his EDIT: (next to) last post. As soon as you can make the division in your mind between D&D as a game and D&D as a tool for storytelling (and there's a couple of hundred books done under various D&D licences) you'll be at ease, I think. It seems to be the fundamental stumbling block you keep tripping over.


    EDITED: Giant posted while I was posting, making his last post no longer his last post.
    Last edited by FlawedParadigm; 2012-02-14 at 09:01 AM.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Messenger View Post
    I really would rather Tarquin finally just went all George R. R. Martin on Nale.
    That's right - George R. R. Martin; a writer so ruthless, his name is a verb akin to Samuel L. Jackson. Valar morghulis.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    The only thing worse than the usual irrelevant rules pedantry is incorrect irrelevant rules pedantry.

  30. - Top - End - #150
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.
    But she's green! That's damning evidence right there!

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

Posting Permissions

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