OOTS #990 - The Discussion Thread

[Seward]

I really doubt such high-level wands were available in Tinkertown.

Not only that, 6d6 on a lich or 6d8 on a vampire in a game where the protagonists are about level 15 is a sneeze.

Belkar's going to be doing 21-27 points of damage per swing. Roy'll be doing 2-3x that with each of his swings (but he gets fewer swings). Haley, who is considered fairly ineffective against anything she can't sneak attack at that level is doing 1d8+1d6+5+strength (if any) = 14 per shot BEFORE sneak attack, which means against most enemies she only needs 2 shots to hit to exceed the damage of her wand (and with the boots of haste, she's getting 5 attacks). If Haley really wants to be effective against a lich, she doesn't buy a wand of searing light. She peeks at the monster manual, discovers a lich has DR 15/blunt and magic and goes and gets some blunt arrows (only 2x the cost of a normal arrow, and very easy to find in a place like Tinkertown). She already has silver arrows but might not know they're needed on a vampire (silver and magic). Maybe V should get around to putting some points into Kn Religion.

Wands really aren't very useful in D&D as attack mechanisms. They're too expensive - by the time you can afford them you already do more damage by throwing rocks at people. They're fine as a backup for when you can't hurt the enemy at all (and wand of magic missiles, the one she chose, works on damn near everything....just not golems, people with broach of shielding or a "shield" spell up). Then there's the matter of cost. A CL6 wand of searing ray costs 22,500gp. A wand of magic missiles, caster level 9 (shooting 5d4+4 damage that doesn't miss and has range of 190' instead of only 40') costs half that (11250). A wand of obscuring mist only costs 750gp. Haley spent wisely, although I assume her wand of fly isn't fully charged, or it'll cost that 18,750gp, which is pricey for a niche item, even at L15.

[Bulldog Psion]

Since his... Really? ... Really, Roy? You're just now up to where you were over FIVE HUNDRED strips ago!? You've spent more than half the life of this entire comic trying to play catch up and just now caught up!? ...Our fearless leader, everyone.

Good lord. Roy, if anyone else in this parade had the guts to lead, you'd be demoted to the role of Ballast.

I didn't realize that the ability to lead had anything to do with being the highest level party member. It's the ability to analyze situations, see both the big picture and the details, and make a quick, effective decision when necessary.

IMO, a level 1 individual could successfully lead a 20th level party were they a good leader. The only issue would be their survivability relative to the threats the party is facing. In Roy's case, though, being a level or two behind wouldn't be all that significant in that regard.

So, I don't see why he's "ballast."

[Gift Jeraff]

I think the penultimate panel is supposed to be a mood-setting end-of-scene zoom-out that gets humorously ruined by Roy and V's game-y ranting.

[Peelee]

Spoiler: To paraphrase - "A single panel shows the Mechane in a negative light."

Show

Something it seems to me people have been overlooking in this strip is how it could change how we perceive Julio and the crew of the Mechane. Generally they have been portrayed in a positive light (Julio aiding Elan the first time, Julio aiding the Order escape Tarquin, Julio's talking to T about J regularly rescuing T's wives, etc.) but the comments made by the crew in the first panel remind us that these people are pirates. Now I know that pop-culture has heavily romanticized pirates as of late, but the Job description really does boil down to violently relieving people of their rightfully earned belongings, and sometimes killing people outright. It's how they got by on a day to day basis. Not particularly heroic...

Spoiler: To paraphrase - "A single panel cannot show the Mechane in a negative light."

Show

Well, while it may not have been a good thing, and if things had gone differently it could have been very bad, but I was thinking about more of how it's portrayed. They spend less than a strip on the Mechane vs. Azure City thing, it's only mentioned latter once (also someone "buzzed the walls" implies to me that no one got killed, he's not angry enough), and before the strip is even over our focus is back on rescuing Haley. It's not given the emotional weight until you look back and think about it again. That's not the Giant showing J in a negative light, it's a light aside moment.

Which is it? Both instances are single panels (stealing from rich, beautiful women vs. stealing from rich merchants), with the attention instantly shifted away. Are you sure that your personal feelings aren't clouding your opinion? It's all fun and games if he sleeps with them before he robs them, but the fat merchant ships are worse because they won't going to be wined and dined?

I don't see any soldiers on fire. I do see that all 3 of them were clipped by the Alchemist's Fire explosions, but none of them appeared to even be seriously harmed by that (Rich has typically drawn damage lines on targets being exploded).

Heck, even that ballista shot missed wildly, though a fair point is raised about missed shots entering the city.

Ah. I thought the soldier on the left was directly hit by the grenade, but apparently it's behind him?

[theNater]

Belkar is actually not using his gut, he is fairly logical in his concerns about Durkon's claim to still be the same old Durkon.

Logic is act of deriving conclusions from premises. This is not what Belkar is doing. He already has a conclusion(that Durkula is not Durkon) and is attempting to find premises that fit. This is most obvious in #953 and #954, where Belkar changes the condition that will prove it's not Durkon.

The fact that he happens to be correct in his conclusion has the side-effect that he sometimes stumbles across correct premises, but occasionally saying correct things is a far cry from being logical.

[skim172]

You know, whether by luck or skill, Belkar has a pretty good track record when it comes to detecting a covert enemy. Durkula, Malack, Nale when he was disguised as Elan, even back to YipYip or whatever his name was back with the original Linear Guild. Perhaps that attitude of default aggression and distrust has its benefits.

Not bad for someone with such an atrocious Spot ability.

[skim172]

Logic is act of deriving conclusions from premises. This is not what Belkar is doing. He already has a conclusion(that Durkula is not Durkon) and is attempting to find premises that fit.

Technically, thats the definition for deductive logic. Belkar finding premises to fit a hypothesis is inductive logic - and is in itself not entirely invalid.

He's still probably not really pursuing a logical course in this endeavor, but Belkar has experiences that none of the others have themselves observed - the actual death of Durkon, the subsequent turning of Durkula, and the later hostility of Durkula when face to face. For all the bickering and pranking Belkar and Durkon may have pulled on each other, Durkon would never have mind-controlled someone into committing suicide. Belkar is working off of a wide body of evidence than the others - which unfortunately does not help him at all in making his case.

Although, if I was V, I'd be making some kind of contingency plan to deal with an evil Durkon in case Belkar was right. That seems the logical safe course of action.

[Jay R]

Durkon would not dominate Belkar and have him jump off the ship. That isn't Belkar's "gut"; it's his eyes.

[Keltest]

Durkon would not dominate Belkar and have him jump off the ship. That isn't Belkar's "gut"; it's his eyes.

Perhaps not, however "Durkon" has not hidden the fact that he is now evil, even if he doesn't exactly advertise it.

[skim172]

Perhaps not, however "Durkon" has not hidden the fact that he is now evil, even if he doesn't exactly advertise it.

The party doesn't know that Durkon dominated Belkar into attempted suicide. They believe he did it himself, in order to fool them into believing him.

Which ... does require a bit of cognitive gymnastics, but on the other hand, if my best friend became a vampire - but like, a nice vampire - and the only person who thought he was evil was Charlie Manson, I probably would be inclined to believe my best friend.

[Keltest]

The party doesn't know that Durkon dominated Belkar into attempted suicide. They believe he did it himself, in order to fool them into believing him.

Which ... does require a bit of cognitive gymnastics, but on the other hand, if my best friend became a vampire - but like, a nice vampire - and the only person who thought he was evil was Charlie Manson, I probably would be inclined to believe my best friend.

As V pointed out, trying to kill Belkar is hardly an unprecedented action even for good characters. Its hardly proof that Durkon has been taken over by a malevolent entity.

[Jay R]

As V pointed out, trying to kill Belkar is hardly an unprecedented action even for good characters. Its hardly proof that Durkon has been taken over by a malevolent entity.

Trying to kill a party member is indeed an unprecedented action by Durkon. In OtOotPCs, he ...

Spoiler

Show

... was even trying to defend party members who wanted him dead, and were sending him into a trap.

[Keltest]

Trying to kill a party member is indeed an unprecedented action by Durkon. In OtOotPCs, he ...

Spoiler

Show

... was even trying to defend party members who wanted him dead, and were sending him into a trap.

Which would indeed be alarming, except for the fact that Durkon has just become a creature that is known to be evil. Some changes are to be expected, and given how much Belkar was pushing him, its hardly something the Order would be shocked at.

Case in point, V's reaction when Belkar told him about it.

[Psyren]

Trying to kill a party member is indeed an unprecedented action by Durkon. In OtOotPCs, he ...

Spoiler

Show

... was even trying to defend party members who wanted him dead, and were sending him into a trap.

The problem though is that they know Durkon is evil now. He hasn't even denied it. But he has fooled Roy into thinking he is a "helpful/benign" (relatively) sort of evil, like Belkar. And before his convo with Hel at the end of the last book, he had half the forum convinced too.

Technically, he's only been behind since he was resurrected in #665 (that's when he lost the level), so (barely) under a third of the comic at this time.

As he died during the Battle of Azure City, he got no XP from it while the others all did. Therefore he was behind since the moment of his death, and then lost a level when being raised on top of that.

[rodneyAnonymous]

The fact that he happens to be correct in his conclusion has the side-effect that he sometimes stumbles across correct premises, but occasionally saying correct things is a far cry from being logical.

Even a broken squirrel finds nuts twice a day.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

The problem though is that they know Durkon is evil now. He hasn't even denied it. But he has fooled Roy into thinking he is a "helpful/benign" (relatively) sort of evil, like Belkar. And before his convo with Hel at the end of the last book, he had half the forum convinced too.



As he died during the Battle of Azure City, he got no XP from it while the others all did. Therefore he was behind since the moment of his death, and then lost a level when being raised on top of that.

Belkar will be behind the others as well - as per http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0515.html, he could only gain combat XP from the Undead in Azure City, and he immediately lost the level he gained.

[Grey Watcher]

Belkar will be behind the others as well - as per http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0515.html, he could only gain combat XP from the Undead in Azure City, and he immediately lost the level he gained.

Well, technically, he didn't lose it on panel there: the way negative levels work is that you first acquire them, they're just a set of penalties at first; 24 hours after initially acquiring them, you have to make a Constitution (?) save. If you succeed, the negative level goes away with no lasting effects. If you fail, then you lose the level for real. Of course, I agree with Rich's decision that funny trumps pedantry, but if you want to be technical, we don't actually know if Belkar lost that level for real.

[littlebum2002]

I just realized that the girl in the pink hair is carrying a box of diamond dust for the Resurrection spell.

[Quild]

I just realized that the girl in the pink hair is carrying a box of diamond dust for the Resurrection spell.

I think it's something else entirely.

[Bulldog Psion]

I think it's something else entirely.

I agree. One is carrying hoses, and another is carrying some extremely long box wrenches. This suggests strongly that the small hopper pictured contains something else related to airship repairs, either tools or components.

It might be gears, coal, a crumpled up chain, a bucket of bolts -- but I seriously, seriously doubt it's anything to do with diamond dust.

Why would the sky pirates give their diamond dust to resurrect Durk anyway? He's not their friend, and they're out to make money, not lose a huge amount resurrecting some random dwarf.

[littlebum2002]

I agree. One is carrying hoses, and another is carrying some extremely long box wrenches. This suggests strongly that the small hopper pictured contains something else related to airship repairs, either tools or components.

It might be gears, coal, a crumpled up chain, a bucket of bolts -- but I seriously, seriously doubt it's anything to do with diamond dust.

Why would the sky pirates give their diamond dust to resurrect Durk anyway? He's not their friend, and they're out to make money, not lose a huge amount resurrecting some random dwarf.

I thought they looked oddly similar to the ones we've seen before. And no, I don't think they belong to the crew, I think the Order bought them and the crew is just loading them in the stock room or whatever.

[theNater]

Technically, thats the definition for deductive logic. Belkar finding premises to fit a hypothesis is inductive logic - and is in itself not entirely invalid.

Inductive logic is not a term I am familiar with. I know that inductive reasoning is generalizing from examples(not formally valid except in very specialized cases), but that's clearly not what you're describing here. It sounds like you're talking about a deductive chain that runs along the lines of "an two-premise argument with premise A and conclusion C is valid, therefore the other premise must be premise B", which would indeed be valid. But since no one in the party has evidence that Durkula isn't Durkon, using that kind of reasoning to prove that Durkula isn't Durkon is just going to lead to circles.

He's still probably not really pursuing a logical course in this endeavor, but Belkar has experiences that none of the others have themselves observed - the actual death of Durkon, the subsequent turning of Durkula, and the later hostility of Durkula when face to face. For all the bickering and pranking Belkar and Durkon may have pulled on each other, Durkon would never have mind-controlled someone into committing suicide. Belkar is working off of a wide body of evidence than the others - which unfortunately does not help him at all in making his case.

He's absolutely not pursuing a logical course of action. Look at #953 and #954 again. Belkar will say or believe anything that seems to support his desired conclusion. It's paranoid conspiracy theorist ranting, all of it.

Note also that jumping overboard is unlikely to be lethal to Belkar. High level D&D characters can easily survive things that would kill real people outright.

Although, if I was V, I'd be making some kind of contingency plan to deal with an evil Durkon in case Belkar was right. That seems the logical safe course of action.

Sure, that's reasonably prudent.

Even a broken squirrel finds nuts twice a day.

Look, I don't know what you've heard, but that squirrel was like that when I got there.

[Lissou]

Inductive logic is not a term I am familiar with. I know that inductive reasoning is generalizing from examples(not formally valid except in very specialized cases), but that's clearly not what you're describing here.

You're right, I believe they made a mistake in describing inductive vs deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can absolutely start from a conclusion (a theory, for instance) or it can start from a fact. Either way, deductive reasoning starts from something general and use it for something less general. Inductive starts from a single thing and generalises it.

So for instance, if we said "Durkon is now a vampire, and he now has his soul trapped with another soul controlling his body, therefore vampires work this way", that's inductive reasoning: we start from the observation of a single being and induct that the whole group works the same way. Vampires may or may not all work this way. We induce that they do (until proven otherwise).

Deductive reasoning would be saying things like "In D&D, vampires are evil, therefore Durkon is now evil". It may still be wrong if the premise is, but if the premise is right, then so will the deduction be.

[Bulldog Psion]

I thought they looked oddly similar to the ones we've seen before. And no, I don't think they belong to the crew, I think the Order bought them and the crew is just loading them in the stock room or whatever.

Increasing the zoom to 500% makes it look like a bucket full of a chaotic pile of small pieces of something. Sorry, but to me at least, it still looks very different from the one big, neat diamond the first time around.

[Shining Wrath]

You're right, I believe they made a mistake in describing inductive vs deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can absolutely start from a conclusion (a theory, for instance) or it can start from a fact. Either way, deductive reasoning starts from something general and use it for something less general. Inductive starts from a single thing and generalises it.

So for instance, if we said "Durkon is now a vampire, and he now has his soul trapped with another soul controlling his body, therefore vampires work this way", that's inductive reasoning: we start from the observation of a single being and induct that the whole group works the same way. Vampires may or may not all work this way. We induce that they do (until proven otherwise).

Deductive reasoning would be saying things like "In D&D, vampires are evil, therefore Durkon is now evil". It may still be wrong if the premise is, but if the premise is right, then so will the deduction be.

We can solve the vampire issue by Appeal to Authority: the Giant says all vampires work this way, therefore they do, for he knows.

Although I think it was St. Augustine who said Appeal to Authority was the weakest form of argument

[Lissou]

We can solve the vampire issue by Appeal to Authority: the Giant says all vampires work this way, therefore they do, for he knows.

Well, yes, in this case there is a Word of God answer. But before the Giant clarified, the people who reached the conclusion "vampires work this way" were using indictive reasoning. In many contexts, nobody will show up to let you know if you're right or not :P

EDIT: Nobody who actually does know, that is.

[dancrilis]

Logic is act of deriving conclusions from premises. This is not what Belkar is doing. He already has a conclusion(that Durkula is not Durkon) and is attempting to find premises that fit. This is most obvious in #953 and #954, where Belkar changes the condition that will prove it's not Durkon.

The fact that he happens to be correct in his conclusion has the side-effect that he sometimes stumbles across correct premises, but occasionally saying correct things is a far cry from being logical.

You are mixing up two different elements.
1. Belkar deciding that Durkon is not Durkon.
2. Belkar trying to prove that Durkon is not Durkon.

1. Belkar experienced Durkon try to eat him and was around when he was not speaking with an accent - and concluded that this was at odds with his experience with Durkon and therefore Durkon was no longer himself, this is logical.
2. Belkar claimed that Vampire Durkon would be unable to control a storm and that this would act as proof of him not being Durkon (it would not have), and further tried to use that fact that since Vampire Durkon had the right spell prepared he must not be Durkon, these are illogical.

For example:
1. A stranger you talks about how they want to kill someone and than stabs that person to death in front of you - you conclude the stranger is a murderer, this is logical. You might be wrong - but your conclusion is reached logically.
2. You decide to show everyone that they are a murderer by pushing them down the stairs and planning to video tape it when they come after you, this is illogical. You might succeed - but it would not be because of following a logical course of action.

Belkar's decision that Durkon is not the same old Durkon followed logic (whether you want to dispute the logic used or not is fine there are holes in it that Belkar seems unaware of - but lack of consideration of variables variables creates an oversight it does not mean that one is illogical).

[Rogar Demonblud]

Inductive logic is what Sherlock Holmes uses almost exclusively. I understand from friends who took Intro to Logic that he produces more than a few boners on a level of "This sheep I see is black, therefore every sheep everywhere is black."

The correct assessment is "This sheep is black on this side I'm looking at", which doesn't assume facts not in evidence.

[theNater]

1. Belkar experienced Durkon try to eat him and was around when he was not speaking with an accent - and concluded that this was at odds with his experience with Durkon and therefore Durkon was no longer himself, this is logical.

If this was Belkar's process, it would be subject to new information. Instead, he rejects new information that disputes his conclusion. That fact reveals that this is not Belkar's reasoning, it is merely a rationalization.

Alternatively, if his actual process was essentially "I don't want the person who died saving me and the creature that nearly killed me to be the same being. Therefore, they aren't," then everything fits. The rationalizations, the rejection of dissenting facts, the anger at people who disagree with him; they all point to someone whose attachment to this conclusion is based on emotion, not logic.

[skim172]

Inductive logic is not a term I am familiar with. I know that inductive reasoning is generalizing from examples(not formally valid except in very specialized cases), but that's clearly not what you're describing here. It sounds like you're talking about a deductive chain that runs along the lines of "an two-premise argument with premise A and conclusion C is valid, therefore the other premise must be premise B", which would indeed be valid. But since no one in the party has evidence that Durkula isn't Durkon, using that kind of reasoning to prove that Durkula isn't Durkon is just going to lead to circles.

It's been a while since I've had to study logic, but yes, it's technically called "inductive reasoning". And in simple terms, inductive reasoning is arriving a probable explanation based on observed premises. Given that "if A is true" then "B, C, D are true", then induction is if "B, C, D are true" then "A is true."

If "all swans are white", then "Swans 1, 2, and 3 are white".
Induction: "Swans 1, 2, and 3 are white", therefore "all swans are white".

Thus, induction has the possibility of arriving at an incorrect hypothesis. And you're right, inductive reasoning is more commonly linked to the observation of data leading to a generalized hypothesis.

The weakness of inductive reasoning is that in constructing the hypothesis, the reasoner is subject to their own biases.

In Belkar's case, I would say he is practicing inductive reasoning - but not very well. He's not being objective, and he's highlighting the premises that support the hypothesis he wishes to arrive at - so-called "confirmation bias".

So, If "the vampire is not Durkon" then "he would suck my blood, try to kill me, and be a jerk."
Induction, "He sucks my blood, tries to kill me, and jerk = true" then "the vampire is not Durkon."

Perhaps you could say it's closer to abductive reasoning, but I never really got the finer distinctions between induction and abduction anyway. /shrug

Note also that jumping overboard is unlikely to be lethal to Belkar. High level D&D characters can easily survive things that would kill real people outright.

: ... Not always.