Class and Level Geekery IX: the thread levels up again!

[rgrekejin]

I just believe that the discussion should be held away from this thread, which is useful only as long as its conclusions are as ironclad as possible.

*sigh* Fair enough.

[LuPuWei]

I would argue that that comic is showing the opposite of what you say it does. Roy's conflicted about the need to kill sentient beings to keep himself alive, but he's clearly willing to do so. Being "conflicted" about doing evil doesn't make the things you do any less evil. Otherwise, you could make a good argument for Redcloak being neutral.

That's a fair point. The way I see it, morality exists in two ways in the OotSverse, simultaneously: mechanical and meta. Mechanical Morality is that which labels an act or character Good or Evil based on conditions stipulated by D&D. Meta Morality are those very subjective conditions that makes a character appear good or evil to us as the readers or to Rich as the author (whos thoughts I will not presume to know). Both of these seem to work towards a character earning a Good or Evil label in the OotSverse.

So, for example, Redcloak is very much Evil in the OotSverse going by his most of his actions throughout the online comic and the SoD. However, (SoD Spoiler:)

Spoiler

Show

Redcloack was already mechanically evil even before the SoD by virtue of being a Goblin (or so I'm lead to believe- I don't know whether goblins are 'always evil' or 'mostly evil' in D&D) as were all of the other Goblins in his tribe, including Righteye. However, meta morally, things were more ambiguous, and while Redcloak has murdered sufficient innocents to earn the meta moral label Evil, was RightEye meta morally evil? Even at the end of his life? Would we label him Evil on the geekery thread? And what of the Paladins that massacred their village? Mechanically good, but meta morally some of them were evil- slaughtering children indiscrimintately...

. At any rate, the trouble with determining an unstated alignment based on meta moral reasoning is that it is subjective and leads to the kind of morality debates discouraged on this forum. And for the record, not everyone on the forum thinks redcloak is evil.

Anyway, my point is then, that we can only really analyse alignments based on statements or mechanical facts, and only then if we know whether Rich has accepted a given D&D mechanic as being acceptable in the OotSverse- and we can only know this through prior example. We do not know yet whether Rich intends play 'always evil' races as 'always evil' and can only find out as the plot progresses. Now whether we consider it evil to kill another sentient being when one's only manner of sustenance is killing other sentient beings is a meta moral debate as is whether or not it is action or intent that defines evil, so trying to prove a character evil on this basis ebcomes a morality arguement which, again, is discouraged.

Also, take into account that what we're looking at is "what Haley and Belkar think vampires might act like", rather than "what vampires actually act like".

Correct, but characters in the comic being as genre savvy as they are, it still proves a non-stereotypical vampire is not inconcievable.

[Kish]

It's a Vampire: the Masquerade/Requiem joke.

("Think of all the d10s he'd need to buy...")

And no, Redcloak and his brother were not "mechanically evil" without concern for their actions, unless you contend that Vaarsuvius was at some point Chaotic Good.

[LuPuWei]

And no, Redcloak and his brother were not "mechanically evil" without concern for their actions, unless you contend that Vaarsuvius was at some point Chaotic Good.

How do we know this?

Edit: At any rate, then goblins are a bad example. How about Miko? Doesn't being a paladin require a character to be LG? However, nothing we've seen of Miko's actions informs us of her morality definitively (hence all the debate). So pre-fall Miko's morality is debatable on a meta moral level, but mechanically, she has to be LG. Therefore end of discussion on prefall Miko's official alignment.

Similarly for any character, since any action is open to debate on whether it is alignment-defining on a meta moral level, the only things that can define an alignment short of it being stated is a D&D mechanic- and then only if the mechanic is an demonstratably accepted part of the OotSverse.

[Kish]

...Uh.

...I don't...

Look, either "Usually X alignment" means "characters of that species are 'mechanically' X alignment regardless of their actions" or it doesn't. It makes no sense to argue that it means that for goblins but not elves. Redcloak's brother was a Usually Neutral Evil species; Vaarsuvius is a Usually Chaotic Good species. Vaarsuvius is "Mechanically Chaotic Good." Or Redcloak's brother was not "Mechanically Neutral Evil." Pick one.

Edit in response to your edit: So you're arguing that no one's alignment should be listed in the absence of either mechanical proof (vulnerability to Holy Word demonstrates nongood, for example) or Word of Rich?

[LuPuWei]

Edit in response to your edit: So you're arguing that no one's alignment should be listed in the absence of either mechanical proof (vulnerability to Holy Word demonstrates nongood, for example) or Word of Rich?

Pretty much.

[SpacemanSpif]

I don't need to approach this with all of the assiduity of a scientific study. Good and evil are clearly defined within the context of this comic. Characters delude themselves from time-to-time, and their motives may be pure, but their actions have always defined them.

Redcloak is evil because, despite wanting to improve the lives of goblins, he goes about it by murdering innocents to further his plans.

Belkar is evil because, despite doing much good in the course of adventuring with the order, when left to his own devices he kills indiscriminately.

Malack is evil because he's the head Cleric of an evil empire, has partnered with a vicious, bloodthirsty dictator for 35 years, and has now demonstrated the propensity to kill out of loyalty to said dictator.

Also there's the whole part where he's converting a living creature into an undead monstrosity, presumably against its will. That kinda defines an evil act as far as I know.

My second hypothesis is proven by taking everything I just said and looking at how so many of you are ignoring it because you don't want to believe you'd root for a bad guy.

This is a bit late, but is there any mechanical reason why evil acts automatically make someone evil, but good acts do not automatically make someone good? I'm not sure there are any examples from the comic that prove this to not be the case in this universe, but I'm stumped as to why it would be so one sided.

I would be more inclined to think that any character could occasionally act uncharacteristically, particularly if the act in question aligns with the character on another axis (say, a lawful evil character doing something that is slightly good, but very lawful), and certainly that a neutral character might act evil or good depending on the circumstances without falling definitively to either side.

One might argue that Malack's evil actions and associations are too great in magnitude for him to credibly remain neutral, but that must be a judgement call still.

[EatAtEmrakuls]

This is a bit late, but is there any mechanical reason why evil acts automatically make someone evil, but good acts do not automatically make someone good? I'm not sure there are any examples from the comic that prove this to not be the case in this universe, but I'm stumped as to why it would be so one sided.

I would be more inclined to think that any character could occasionally act uncharacteristically, particularly if the act in question aligns with the character on another axis (say, a lawful evil character doing something that is slightly good, but very lawful), and certainly that a neutral character might act evil or good depending on the circumstances without falling definitively to either side.

One might argue that Malack's evil actions and associations are too great in magnitude for him to credibly remain neutral, but that must be a judgement call still.

Of course good acts make someone good. But it's about patterns of behavior and consistency, as well as magnitude.

Malack using restoration on Vaarsuvius to cure his strength damage? A good act sure. One that matters in the grand scheme of things? Not really.

[EnragedFilia]

Pretty much.

I would like to suggest amending that criterion to include a moderately believable statement by the character in question, such as Julia's claim of "I go both ways". In addition, I would contend that absent actual evidence to the contrary (again, either mechanical evidence or an outright statement) the one-step rule for the alignment of a cleric of a deity probably applies in this setting. Therefore, if Nergal's alignment is ever specified definitively, that alone would narrow down Malack's possible alignments until and unless the one-step rule is demonstrated to not apply.

[SpacemanSpif]

Of course good acts make someone good. But it's about patterns of behavior and consistency, as well as magnitude.

Malack using restoration on Vaarsuvius to cure his strength damage? A good act sure. One that matters in the grand scheme of things? Not really.

But if that were the case, surely Belkar's large role in saving the entire world would outweigh all of his evil, right? Certainly, he's saving more innocents than he could ever kill. (Belkar has been shown to be mechanically evil. Which would seem to indicate that "the grand scheme of things" isn't the determinant factor.)

And surely, there is room in the alignment system for a character that would be truly neutral with regard to good and evil, without simply abstaining from good or evil acts?

[Dark Matter]

Belkar *wants* to be Evil, everything else is in the service to that desire. He didn't save Hinjo to save Hinjo, he did it so he could later murder innocents.

As for Malack...

His Evil deeds are HUGE, constant, and have taken place over decades (creation of the empires, support of T, running countries in the empires, etc). He's show no sign of regret, or remorse, or redemption. He's a Vampire. He's running around creating undead.

His Good deeds are pretty small (friendship with D) and might even be Neutral (friendly and Charismatic aren't "Good").

This is like Belkar before the word of the Giant.

[JackRackham]

Would it be the worst thing in the world to have a subsection in the character entries for this thread for 'probable' stats, levels, etc or even 'possible'? For example, given some of the beatings Belkar has taken, he probably has a positive CON modifier. I think Malack is 'probably' evil. Anyway, just a thought.

On a related note, this probably doesn't belong on his character sheet just yet, and may have been discussed, but I would interpret Malack's comment about meeting a Cleric of equal standing (Durkon) to imply that there is a (rough) equivalency in their respective cleric levels.

The only (circumstantial) evidence against this is the fact that he hasn't cast higher than 6th level spells, but we've really only seen him use a circumstantially appropriate spell (blade barrier) a good damage-causing spell (Clerica don't get awesome direct-damage spells every level an he was obviously acting out of anger), the encounter outside the pyramid, where the point was simply to drive the order further into the pyramid, and his recent fight with Belkar - and if you can solve a fight with a 2nd level spell, and further combat is likely, you do it.

[Math_Mage]

If Tarquin wasn't around to fill the role, Malack would be the poster child for Affably Evil. Just sayin'.

Would it be the worst thing in the world to have a subsection in the character entries for this thread for 'probable' stats, levels, etc or even 'possible'? For example, given some of the beatings Belkar has taken, he probably has a positive CON modifier. I think Malack is 'probably' evil. Anyway, just a thought.

On a related note, this probably doesn't belong on his character sheet just yet, and may have been discussed, but I would interpret Malack's comment about meeting a Cleric of equal standing (Durkon) to imply that there is a (rough) equivalency in their respective cleric levels.

The only (circumstantial) evidence against this is the fact that he hasn't cast higher than 6th level spells, but we've really only seen him use a circumstantially appropriate spell (blade barrier) a good damage-causing spell (Clerica don't get awesome direct-damage spells every level an he was obviously acting out of anger), the encounter outside the pyramid, where the point was simply to drive the order further into the pyramid, and his recent fight with Belkar - and if you can solve a fight with a 2nd level spell, and further combat is likely, you do it.

I would turn that around and say there is only one vague statement, subject to many interpretations, providing evidence that Malack is higher than 11th level. This doesn't mean I actually think he is 11th level, of course.

[Living Oxymoron]

I don't know if someone has already pointed it out, but could you take a look on this?

Sabine is holding Durkon over the air, since his feet are not touching the ground. Once Durkon is a dwarf (generally heavy) wearing a plate armor, could it help to define (or to measure) her Strength score?

[JackRackham]

If Tarquin wasn't around to fill the role, Malack would be the poster child for Affably Evil. Just sayin'.



I would turn that around and say there is only one vague statement, subject to many interpretations, providing evidence that Malack is higher than 11th level. This doesn't mean I actually think he is 11th level, of course.

You wouldn't be wrong, either. But, as he's high priest of Nergal and Durkon is not high priest of Thor, I can't imagine what else he might mean. Besides which, an 11th level Cleric, even a vampire, even a vampire lord, wouldn't be much use to Tarquin's party.

[Math_Mage]

I don't know if someone has already pointed it out, but could you take a look on this?

Sabine is holding Durkon over the air, since his feet are not touching the ground. Once Durkon is a dwarf (generally heavy) wearing a plate armor, could it help to define (or to measure) her Strength score?

You've touched on a sore spot; determining Strength scores by airborne lifting capacity was the subject of a bitter debate in a previous incarnation of this thread, and last I checked we'd collectively agreed to never speak of it again. Or something.

You wouldn't be wrong, either. But, as he's high priest of Nergal and Durkon is not high priest of Thor, I can't imagine what else he might mean. Besides which, an 11th level Cleric, even a vampire, even a vampire lord, wouldn't be much use to Tarquin's party.

He's the high priest of the Empire of Blood, unless I missed a line somewhere. Not necessarily the same thing. If I had to guess, I would say that Malack concluded that they were clerics of equal standing through information gathered during his lengthy conversation with Durkon. Or, he may have decided that Durkon was the senior priest of Thor on the continent, and thus functionally equivalent to him.

Again, I don't think Malack is 11th level. But the full extent of his powers will be revealed in due course, and in the meantime common sense won't get us more than a dim and hazy estimate of his level in any case, so it's better to just let the solid evidence give us a minimum. Evidence like the line we're discussing doesn't have to be helpful now to be helpful eventually.

[ti'esar]

So you're arguing that no one's alignment should be listed in the absence of either mechanical proof (vulnerability to Holy Word demonstrates nongood, for example) or Word of Rich?

Isn't this a standing rule of the thread as it is?

Edit: Yup, looks like:

Q: A character undertook this heinous/awesome/dutiful/impulsive/meh action. Does that mean they are now evil/good/lawful/chaotic/neutral?
No. As seen in a thousand forum threads, people have different ideas about alignment, and what defines and changes them. The alignments posted here, wherever possible, are taken from the character's own mouth, someone else in a position to know their alignment, or their use of a spell/feat/whatever which has an alignment restriction. Kindly refrain from speculating from how a character's action changes their alignment, since it's not really something you can reason out with facts and numbers.

I think Malack is probably LE, and argued as much before he was revealed to be a vampire. But I don't see why the standing and, IMO, sensible policy of this thread to avoid assumptions is suddenly being challenged.

[Kish]

I think Malack is probably LE, and argued as much before he was revealed to be a vampire. But I don't see why the standing and, IMO, sensible policy of this thread to avoid assumptions is suddenly being challenged.

I agree. Who wanted Malack listed as established Lawful Evil, anyway...?

[Techwarrior]

Takes 5 ft step around alignment debate.

I don't know if someone has already pointed it out, but could you take a look on this?

Sabine is holding Durkon over the air, since his feet are not touching the ground. Once Durkon is a dwarf (generally heavy) wearing a plate armor, could it help to define (or to measure) her Strength score?

Yes it does, I'm away from my Monster Manual, but for a Succubus to fly I believe she has to be carrying a Light Load or less, so her Str would have to be... I think in the neighborhood of 22ish? Dwarves weighing minimum of 134, full plate 50, warhammer 5, heavy steel shield 15. Total is 204.

Thus, she has to have a Str of... 24 according to my PHB. 23 if we drop the total by 4 pounds. (Great, so I know the minimum weight of a Dwarf, and can approximate the str of the creature all in my head.)

Now, if she can get away with her max load, that's a minimum of 16 (15 if we shave 4 lbs), if she can use her medium load, that takes us to 19 (18 if we shave those 4 off.)

[LightPhoenix]

Yes it does, I'm away from my Monster Manual, but for a Succubus to fly I believe she has to be carrying a Light Load or less, so her Str would have to be... I think in the neighborhood of 22ish? Dwarves weighing minimum of 134, full plate 50, warhammer 5, heavy steel shield 15. Total is 204.

In that case, isn't the comic where Sabine flies off with Nale and Thog from Azure City also indicative of her Strength as well (sorry, not home, don't know exact number)? I don't know for sure, but I imagine Nale and Thog together have to weigh more than Durkon alone.

[Kish]

Unless you wish to theorize that Vaarsuvius is naturally strong enough to carry Durkon in his full plate armor, there is no question that Rich is using some manner of house rule. There is a debate about whether that house rule is "the encumbrance rules don't apply while flying" or "the encumbrance rules don't apply in combat." And that debate has, in the past, been heated enough to get the thread locked temporarily, so be sure you know what kind of fire you're playing with here.

[Kurald Galain]

I would interpret Malack's comment about meeting a Cleric of equal standing (Durkon) to imply that there is a (rough) equivalency in their respective cleric levels.

Please link to the comment so that we can check if we agree with this implication.

You've touched on a sore spot; determining Strength scores by airborne lifting capacity was the subject of a bitter debate in a previous incarnation of this thread, and last I checked we'd collectively agreed to never speak of it again. Or something.

There is no ban on this topic, therefore Living Oxymoron and others are free to discuss it if they want. Of course, just because people are discussing something doesn't mean it will be added to the top post.

[Techwarrior]

Probably got missed again, amidst the Malack explosion.

Either has dex 15 or wears light or no armor, to use two-weapon pounce.

Belkar's dex is completely immaterial, unless he spent character feats on Greater Two Weapon Fighting. If we accept that he uses the two weapon fighting style, we can prove that he didn't change out of armor when he full-attacks here getting six attacks after using Two Weapon Pounce here.

Now, if he doesn't have the TWF combat style (I will be confused) at some point he should have done something other than TWF, and he has to have a Dex of 19. However, that's unlikely enough that we should dismiss it. We do have his Two Weapon Fighting feats listed as bonuses, indicating they're from his combat style. Therefore, he doesn't have to use any dex at all.

Also, I'm pretty sure that proves he normally wears light or no armor.

[Kurald Galain]

Probably got missed again, amidst the Malack explosion.

No, I did respond to this point earlier.

I'm not quite following your point. By my reading of the feat, Belkar either requires dex 15 to to take it normally, or requires light or no armor to take it as a ranger feature. We don't know which of the two he's using. Frankly, it's likely that Belkar has both high dex and no armor, but I don't think we have evidence for either.

[Techwarrior]

No, I did respond to this point earlier.

Ah, I had missed your response. My apologies.

The feat itself specificies that a Ranger with the Two Weapon Fighting combat style (like Belkar) can take the feat as a character feat without the Dexterity requisite, but to use it they must wear light or no armor.

My point is that we have no evidence to say anything at all about Belkar's Dexterity score from his use of that feat. We know that he used both Two Weapon Pounce and Greater Two Weapon Fighting in the same combat, so he could have taken it using his status as a Ranger and we wouldn't know the difference. This is why the first time when I mentioned it I asked if we had any other information about his dex.

[Living Oxymoron]

Takes 5 ft step around alignment debate.



Yes it does, I'm away from my Monster Manual, but for a Succubus to fly I believe she has to be carrying a Light Load or less, so her Str would have to be... I think in the neighborhood of 22ish? Dwarves weighing minimum of 134, full plate 50, warhammer 5, heavy steel shield 15. Total is 204.

Thus, she has to have a Str of... 24 according to my PHB. 23 if we drop the total by 4 pounds. (Great, so I know the minimum weight of a Dwarf, and can approximate the str of the creature all in my head.)

Now, if she can get away with her max load, that's a minimum of 16 (15 if we shave 4 lbs), if she can use her medium load, that takes us to 19 (18 if we shave those 4 off.)

Sorry, maybe I didn't express myself properly. She is lifting him, but she is standing on the ground, not flying. I attached the link in my original post in case you want to see the scene.

You've touched on a sore spot; determining Strength scores by airborne lifting capacity was the subject of a bitter debate in a previous incarnation of this thread, and last I checked we'd collectively agreed to never speak of it again. Or something.

Oh... I really didn't know that. Sorry for almost bring the discussion back.

[Math_Mage]

Please link to the comment so that we can check if we agree with this implication.

First panel.

There is no ban on this topic, therefore Living Oxymoron and others are free to discuss it if they want. Of course, just because people are discussing something doesn't mean it will be added to the top post.

There's no ban on a lot of things that we collectively agree not to speak of.

No, I did respond to this point earlier.

Right, but your given alternative is predicated on the assumptions that Belkar could reasonably have Archery specialization and just been hiding it this whole time, instead of having Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, which we know he has. Given that Belkar has shown no interest whatever in using any ranged weapon bigger than a pebble, can't we safely rule this out?

[Techwarrior]

Right, but your given alternative is predicated on the assumptions that Belkar could reasonably have Archery specialization and just been hiding it this whole time, instead of having Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, which we know he has. Given that Belkar has shown no interest whatever in using any ranged weapon bigger than a pebble, can't we safely rule this out?

This. Besides, Belkar's Two Weapon Fighting feats are listed as Bonus feats, indicating he has the style anyway.

[Kurald Galain]

The feat itself specificies that a Ranger with the Two Weapon Fighting combat style (like Belkar) can take the feat as a character feat without the Dexterity requisite, but to use it they must wear light or no armor.

Oh, so the point is that we know Belkar wears light or no armor because he uses GTWF, and therefore he automatically passes at least one of the prerequisites of TWP, with no evidence on the other. If that was your point then I agree.

Oh... I really didn't know that. Sorry for almost bring the discussion back.

Don't be; as I said, you are allowed to discuss this topic here. Just because there was disagrement on a topic a long time ago doesn't mean it's automatically off limits forever.

First panel.

Okay. I'm not convinced that "equal standing" means "equal level"; it could also mean e.g. rank in their respective churches. Is there perhaps more evidence on the topic?

[Techwarrior]

Oh, so the point is that we know Belkar wears light or no armor because he uses GTWF, and therefore he automatically passes at least one of the prerequisites of TWP, with no evidence on the other. If that was your point then I agree.

That's about the size of it. Thus, we know nothing about his Dex, as opposed to possibly 15.