OOTS #957 - The Discussion Thread

[Jaxzan Proditor]

... then he could pit his intellect against that of an equally intelligent alternate Elan. While Vaarsuvius observes a vow of silence, Hayley a vow of poverty, Durkon a vow of alcoholic abstinence and Roy his luxuriant head of hair.

That would be a funny AU Order of the Stick.

Well, I dunno about "early" for Roy, but I don't have any of the prequel books to know the context of that comment, other than it sounds like Roy is shaving his head.

I believe that context is that Eugene is bald, not of his own choice presumably, and is commenting on Roy's decision to shave his own head rather than wait for himself to go bald.

[Keltest]

That would be a funny AU Order of the Stick.



I believe that context is that Eugene is bald, not of his own choice presumably, and is commenting on Roy's decision to shave his own head rather than wait for himself to go bald.

yeah, that makes sense.

[Ikuryo]

I've seen several comments describing ordering someone to hold their hand in a fire or killing themselves as self-destructive actions that a dominated person could ignore under the selfdestruction clause and using that to show that jumping overboard would not be allowed. The act of jumping overboard does not carry any risk of taking damage. The resulting fall is an unrelated matter. If he had ordered him to jump into the ocean or something similar to that it would be a different matter.

The act of jumping over the side of the ship does not cause any direct harm to the person doing so, the consequence of the action has no direct bearing on if the order would be folowed or not. Ordering someone to fight someone/thing else will not kill them, whatever they are attacking might take offense and attack them back which could result in their death but the act of attacking in and of itself will not cause direct harm to the one dominated. The one they attack might also just go defensive and cause them no harm, is all dependant of factors besides the order.

The fact that the Belkster has a ring of jumping +20 and found it fun to clear the railing by several feet just made the scene much more amusing.

[rodneyAnonymous]

That is exactly the opposite of my reasoning: in almost all situations, regardless of the surroundings or other context, "jump overboard" is a self-destructive order. Even in a conventional ship where the deck is only a few meters above the water. Extremely extenuating circumstances (like if the subject can fly under their own power, or the ship is not moving and the landing is on a pile of pillows and the subject knows it, or something) are necessary to make it not self-destructive. Even if it's only a minor inconvenience and Belkar aimed for the ballista tip when he jumped, that is all downside and no upside. He'd be doing something risky ("self-destructive") for no apparent reason.

Not trying to convince you I'm right (that is demonstrably futile), but pointing out that similar logic can be used to make the opposite point. (The fact that he says "Wheeeeee!" as he jumps is especially damaging to my case. Maybe the perceived upside is "fun".) There isn't really a Right Answer, it depends on the DM.

PS: The resulting fall is not an unrelated matter. If you want to completely ignore causality, then the logical conclusion is that any order is okay. ("It wasn't pulling the trigger that killed him, it was the bullet", or "It wasn't the hanging that killed her, it was lack of oxygen to her brain.") Of course the probable nearly-immediate consequences of the action should be considered. (I mean what is likely to happen in the future, not what actually happened in the past... unlikely things happen all the time, just because it is possible to get a bad beat doesn't mean you should throw strategy out the window.)

[Ikuryo]

So you would also have not allowed him to order Belkar to jump backward 10', because he would end up off the ship as if he jumped overboard. Disallowing any action that could result in injury of the one controled kind of limits its usefulness. If you had someone dominated and you ordered them to not move with a boulder rolling toward them could they ignore your order? They are going to end up dead or injured if they followed your order after all.

Your examples also fails to prove your point as they come under the "kill yourself" action, unless they are doing it to someone else of course.

Also, I'm not sure where the (demonstrably futile) line came from, that was only my second post on these forums. Were you the one using the flame example? I had just read 17 pages of comments and remembered that as one of the examples and found it to be a poor analogy.

My previous post was not directed at you, unless you are the only one that has such a narrow stance about if the order was valid or not.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Woah, woah, exactly. Sheesh.

I meant it is demonstrably futile to convince anyone their interpretation is wrong, and that rule is evidently open to a wide variety of interpretations. Other people have demonstrated to me that it would be futile to try to change your mind. The "futile" was about your mind but the "demonstrably" was not. Your post seems to say "this is right and that is wrong", though, and it is simply not possible to define objective right and objective wrong in this case. It depends on the DM. That's all I'm saying.

And, yeah, I was the one who gave the candle flame example. It was not intended to be an analogy at all, but a literal example of an obviously self-destructive dominate person command. You think it is weak, I think it is strong. The odds of either of us (or anyone else who has an opinion about it) changing their mind are very low.

I do think it's inconsistent to draw a line between attacking an armed enemy ("the order is 'attack'; the probable consequence is not relevant") and eating a gun ("the order is not relevant; the probable consequence is 'kill yourself'"). I say the logical conclusion (and reductio ad absurdum) of the first interpretation is that any order is okay depending how it's phrased, but I am going to spend zero energy trying to convince anyone I'm right. (If you or anyone else cares, I think neither interpretation is correct, and both the order itself and the probable consequences are relevant.)

[Peelee]

"It wasn't the hanging that killed her, it was lack of oxygen to her brain.

Technically, it was the neck instantaneously breaking by the force of the fall being suddenly stopped by the rope around the neck, so it really was the hanging that killed her.

Yes, I know that this required the person's height and weight be calculated in to accurately determine the proper length of the rope, and oftentimes (usually due to malnutrition while in prison changing the recorded weight) this was done incorrectly, resulting in the neck not breaking and actual strangulation. However, in a hypothetical hanging, we should assume it's done properly.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Unless they used a strangulation knot instead of a noose.

[Lombard]

The act of jumping over the side of the ship does not cause any direct harm to the person doing so, the consequence of the action has no direct bearing on if the order would be folowed or not. Ordering someone to fight someone/thing else will not kill them, whatever they are attacking might take offense and attack them back which could result in their death but the act of attacking in and of itself will not cause direct harm to the one dominated. The one they attack might also just go defensive and cause them no harm, is all dependant of factors besides the order.

I have sufficient faith in The Giant that I feel very confident that this sort of thing will not be an explanation. Something finessy or houseruled perhaps. But not something that tells me that jumping off a skyscraper is not a self-destructive act because there's no direct line that can be drawn between that act and the effects of gravity.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I have sufficient faith in The Giant that I feel very confident that this sort of thing will not be an explanation. Something finessy or houseruled perhaps. But not something that tells me that jumping off a skyscraper is not a self-destructive act because there's no direct line that can be drawn between that act and the effects of gravity.

Falls don't kill people; gravity kills people!

[Emperordaniel]

Falls don't kill people; gravity kills people!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...llThatKillsYou

[Keltest]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...llThatKillsYou

I spent a good half hour following links thanks to you

although I guess it did distract me from the giant spider that tried to eat my sister...

[Jaxzan Proditor]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...llThatKillsYou

That's also a good point. I should add "and sudden stops" to my to my saying.

[rodneyAnonymous]

It's just the sudden stop :) Forces besides gravity might be making you move in a given direction, it's just that often the force happens to be gravity.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

It's just the sudden stop :) Forces besides gravity might be making you move in a given direction, it's just that often the force happens to be gravity.

I still blame gravity for causing me to fall in the first place. When it comes to other directions, I can replace gravity with other forces.