The Index of the Giant's Comments V―On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index

[Gwynfrid]

"If you remove what the Giant said, it's only stuff someone else said" doesn't strike me as particularly strong argument in favor removal. Not only that, your characterization of the content of the quote is wrong. The quote not only cites the SRD, it also tells us that the Giant used that portion of the SRD in plotting out Durkula's spell usage after he turned. It's also worth noting that before the Giant posted on the topic, people were disagreeing about whether or not the SRD allowed Durkula to cast spells at that time.

While you have a point, I still think the quote answers a question that is now moot. The question is, why is Durkon able to cast evil spells. We now know it is the HPoH spirit pulling the strings, and Hel granting the spells; so this discussion is redundant with the comic. We could revert to the question, why can Durkon cast any spell at all without praying first; the quote, however, doesn't answer that question at all (the answer is in the SRD but not in the quote). We could move to a side subject addressed by the quote (do non-theistic clerics exist) but the answer to this question is also redundant with the comic.

So, inclusion of this quote is no longer justified. For the purpose of enhancing the Index through reducing clutter, I vote remove.

[Emanick]

Personally, I find Kalmegil's argument convincing. I vote for it to remain (since, like littlebum, I also still feel rather sad about last week).

[137beth]

I vote keep for the reasons mentioned, and since it is interesting when considering historical arguments on the forums.

[DataNinja]

I vote remain.

[Jasdoif]

Since we're on a new page, here's a reminder about the vote going on, to save anyone the trouble of going back a page:

CALLING FOR CONFIRMATION VOTE ON A QUOTE

The inclusion of the entry Vampire Durkon can Cast Spells has been challenged; on the basis that the implied explanation of "Vampire Durkon" being a deity-less cleric does not in fact apply, and the general existence of deity-less clerics has since been confirmed in the comic. This vote will determine whether it remains in the Index or not.

Since we've had confusion on this before, the vote will be for keep or remove, rather than yes or no.

• Please bold your vote, it'll make it easier for me to notice when I go through and count everything.
• The usual suggestion to avoid discussing quotes during the vote does not apply in this case.
• Per Rule F4, inclusion by vote requires a quote to have two more votes to keep than votes to remove.

Voting will be open until July 1st, 9PM EDT.

[Throknor]

Keep. Is apparently too short.

[Kish]

Now how about someone state how this quote doesn't fit squarely within the thread rules. Or better yet, stop rehashing all the decisions that have already been made. It's freaking exhausting to have people repeatedly pecking away at the index. Why are people spending their time looking to remove quotes about the comic from the index?

This is indeed compelling. And I would add that the question was "How is he casting spells? He should be fallen and spell-less!" not "how can he cast evil spells despite not being evil?" Keep.

[Keltest]

This is indeed compelling. And I would add that the question was "How is he casting spells? He should be fallen and spell-less!" not "how can he cast evil spells despite not being evil?" Keep.

I don't find it particularly compelling. Circumstances change. Quotes that were useful once aren't particularly any more. The usability of the index to find any specific quote goes down the more we have, so if we have a quote that doesn't tell us anything unique, why would we keep it just because it used to?

[Kalmegil]

I don't find it particularly compelling. Circumstances change. Quotes that were useful once aren't particularly any more. The usability of the index to find any specific quote goes down the more we have, so if we have a quote that doesn't tell us anything unique, why would we keep it just because it used to?

None of the so-called changed circumstances cited in support of removal are actually relevant to the usefulness of the quote. This quote does tell us something unique. The sources people cite as duplicative aren't actually definitive, as witnessed by the fact that the Giant's post was necessary in the first place.

[hroþila]

None of the so-called changed circumstances cited in support of removal are actually relevant to the usefulness of the quote. This quote does tell us something unique. The sources people cite as duplicative aren't actually definitive, as witnessed by the fact that the Giant's post was necessary in the first place.

That post is older than the revelation that Durkon worships Hel and older than the first appearance of non-deistic clerics in the comic. The circumstances have changed.

I vote Leave. I mean, Remove.

[Kalmegil]

That post is older than the revelation that Durkon worships Hel and older than the first appearance of non-deistic clerics in the comic. The circumstances have changed.

But neither of those pieces of information definitively answer the question. Both, combined with perceived ambiguity in the SRD, leave different theories open. The fact that the Giant endorses this interpretation is information absolutely unavailable to us without reference to the quote.

Let's imagine a conversation without this quote. Someone says, "How did Durkon cast spells on the day he turned." People point to the SRD, as well as Hel and non-theistic clerics in specific comics. People point out that this doesn't go to the question of Durkon casting spells that day. Absent the quote, the dispute is unresolvable. With the quote, we get the Giant's interpretation of the rule and a clear indication that this interpretation is in play in the world of the comic.

We don't cite that quote because it contains information about the SRD. We don't cite it because it proves one particular interpretation is correct. We cite it because it proves how the Giant interprets the SRD.

[SaintRidley]

Keep it.

Also, new quote, who dis?

O-Chul will definitely NOT be released this way. It's almost as long as On the Origins of PCs and will probably get a full book release of some sort (i.e. print and PDF).

[Keltest]

But neither of those pieces of information definitively answer the question. Both, combined with perceived ambiguity in the SRD, leave different theories open. The fact that the Giant endorses this interpretation is information absolutely unavailable to us without reference to the quote.

Let's imagine a conversation without this quote. Someone says, "How did Durkon cast spells on the day he turned." People point to the SRD, as well as Hel and non-theistic clerics in specific comics. People point out that this doesn't go to the question of Durkon casting spells that day. Absent the quote, the dispute is unresolvable. With the quote, we get the Giant's interpretation of the rule and a clear indication that this interpretation is in play in the world of the comic.

We don't cite that quote because it contains information about the SRD. We don't cite it because it proves one particular interpretation is correct. We cite it because it proves how the Giant interprets the SRD.

How did durkon cast spells? Hel became his goddess instead of Thor. There, conflict resolved. Durkon was never a non-theist cleric, and Rich deliberately worded the quote so as to not explicitly state he was.

[Peelee]

This is indeed compelling. And I would add that the question was "How is he casting spells? He should be fallen and spell-less!" not "how can he cast evil spells despite not being evil?" Keep.

You know what? I challenge.

Behold, every comment that referred to the vampire and his spellcasting ability before the Giant started forming his response:

Spoiler: Numerous

Show

Well. We can hopefully put to rest "Vampire Durkon must have lost his clerical abilities." And, though I didn't see anyone actually suggest this one, we can preemptively put to rest "Vampire Durkon, even while directly controlled by Malack, still functions as a good-aligned cleric" as well.

Two things:

1. Wow, I thought Durkon would have to re-dedicate himself to an evil god or cause before he got his spells back! I guess in this world, only Paladins have to suck on insanely harsh code rules.

2. If V *is* history's worst mass murderer, then Haerta must have never actually used Familiacide. Because even if she had also only used it once like V, I'm pretty sure her murder count from general "becoming an epic level necromancer" out takes dwarfs V's general murder count to date.

Which is good, I was pretty upset with the gross power of that spell and the fact that not one mention of the "unspeakably powerful godlike evil that once lived" had been mentioned in the comic. You don't just research and use a spell like that without it being remembered as a cataclysmic apocolyptic event. So confirmation it has never been used before helps make the versimilitude jive much more for me.

So does Nale have his sword or not?

And I was curious if Vampire Durkon was going to have a different magic colour.
Also, I accidentally started to type this post in a report post text box...and the post was from The Giant.

Hey, I just realized - since Durkon can cast spells already, and obviously ones that a Lawful Good priest of Thor wouldn't be able to - we're not getting a scene where he chooses a new god to worship. Ergo, no first priest of Hel. Aww...

Durkon probably still has whatever spells he was granted this morning. He probably will need to change deities to get more, though.

The author has artistic license to play fast and loose with D&D rules but vampire Durkon casting evil spells this soon is going too far. I doubt the story even needs a spellcasting vampire Durkon. Team Nale already has a divine and an arcane caster and Durkon no longer with OotS is itself a devastating blow.

So please, tell me where exactly someone says, "How is he casting spells? He should be fallen and spell-less!" Hell, only one comment even questioned the validity of the vampire's spellcasting ability, and it didn't read nearly what you claim it did.
What was replied to was as follows:

The author has artistic license to play fast and loose with D&D rules but vampire Durkon casting evil spells this soon is going too far. I doubt the story even needs a spellcasting vampire Durkon. Team Nale already has a divine and an arcane caster and Durkon no longer with OotS is itself a devastating blow.

I read that as "Durkon no longer follows a deity, and as such cannot cast spells yet." The Giant seems to have also read it as such, because that's the only thing he alludes to in his response. You seem to think there is a different question being asked, and while your interpretation is not invalid, it does go against what the Giant said in response. As such, your objection makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Regardless of original intent, the question as answered by the Giant was "why can the vampire cast spells?" This is answered in the quote, but is also answered in the SRD, and in the comic specifically (both by him being a cleric of Hel's, and also by having specifically non-theistic clerics who can cast spells). Both of which render the quote entirely redundant, as any similar question can be answered by pointing to the comic alone, and further supported by the SRD.

[Kalmegil]

How did durkon cast spells?

Did you intentionally leave off the second half of this question?

[Keltest]

Did you intentionally leave off the second half of this question?

No, but it isn't relevant. Rich's vamprisim obeys its own rules, of which this quote does not real with. The vampire is a separate entity, so it doesn't have to go through the RAW process of switching gods, if that's what youre concerned about.

[Kish]

So please, tell me where exactly someone says, "How is he casting spells? He should be fallen and spell-less!"
[...]
I read that as "Durkon no longer follows a deity, and as such cannot cast spells yet."

We apparently disagree on whether those two statements are functionally equivalent. (Maybe it's my using the word "fallen" for a single-classed cleric who can't cleric?) Anyway. Quotation marks don't always denote a direct quote, nor were they meant to in this case. Rich addressed "Durkon no longer follows a deity, and as such cannot cast spells yet." (And this time, I know someone said exactly that, so no one can object to the quotation marks. Though they still can object to the timeframe of someone saying that--bah, whatever. The point is, it addressed a question a lot of people had and there's no good reason to remove it. Let the record also state that I am not trying to convince Keltest unless I specifically indicate I am.)

[Kalmegil]

No, but it isn't relevant. Rich's vamprisim obeys its own rules, of which this quote does not real with. The vampire is a separate entity, so it doesn't have to go through the RAW process of switching gods, if that's what youre concerned about.

If you're not actually going to address my position, why quote my post in yours?

Also, this quote absolutely deals with Rich's own rules for vampirism. Specifically, he's telling us that this part of the SRD--as he interprets it in the post--is part of those rules.

As for Peelee's "challenge" (sorry, "challenge *eyeroll*), the usefulness of the quote isn't limited to the precise conversation that immediately preceded it, nor was that the only conversation that occurred about the topic.

Again, no one has addressed the fact that this quote contains specific information not available elsewhere: that the Giant is relying on those specific aspects of the SRD as part of his custom vampirism rules.

[Keltest]

If you're not actually going to address my position, why quote my post in yours?

Also, this quote absolutely deals with Rich's own rules for vampirism. Specifically, he's telling us that this part of the SRD--as he interprets it in the post--is part of those rules.

As for Peelee's "challenge" (sorry, "challenge *eyeroll*), the usefulness of the quote isn't limited to the precise conversation that immediately preceded it, nor was that the only conversation that occurred about the topic.

Again, no one has addressed the fact that this quote contains specific information not available elsewhere: that the Giant is relying on those specific aspects of the SRD as part of his custom vampirism rules.

Ok, hows this then: The Giant deliberately made that comment to hide the fact that Durkon was possessed by an evil spirit, and as such we can draw no definitive conclusions about how he is using the RAW from the post. It specifically deals with how he could do so, if he wanted to, but that isn't what he ended up doing.

And even if he did, I would question the usefulness of that information because Rich hasn't given a crap about what the rules say for a long time.

[Peelee]

We apparently disagree on whether those two statements are functionally equivalent. (Maybe it's my using the word "fallen" for a single-classed cleric who can't cleric?) Anyway. Quotation marks don't always denote a direct quote, nor were they meant to in this case. Rich addressed "Durkon no longer follows a deity, and as such cannot cast spells yet." (And this time, I know someone said exactly that, so no one can object to the quotation marks. Though they still can object to the timeframe of someone saying that--bah, whatever. The point is, it addressed a question a lot of people had and there's no good reason to remove it. Let the record also state that I am not trying to convince Keltest unless I specifically indicate I am.)

Let me restate my question. Who had that question? Who believed that the vampire could not cast spells for reasons other than an incorrect belief in the rules?

As for Peelee's "challenge" (sorry, "challenge *eyeroll*), the usefulness of the quote isn't limited to the precise conversation that immediately preceded it, nor was that the only conversation that occurred about the topic.

Also, this quote absolutely deals with Rich's own rules for vampirism. Specifically, he's telling us that this part of the SRD--as he interprets it in the post--is part of those rules.Again, no one has addressed the fact that this quote contains specific information not available elsewhere: that the Giant is relying on those specific aspects of the SRD as part of his custom vampirism rules.

Let me get this straight. In Order of the Stick, which is standard 3.5 except when it isn't, you're saying that we need explicit comment from the author when something does keep to standard 3.5? Do you realize the inherent ridiculouseness of this?

Further, please tell me what usefulness exactly the comment gives that cannot be gleaned from the comic itself.

[dancrilis]

I challenge.

I just couldn't help thinking of this scene.

Credit to you if you were deliberately invoking it.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Also, new quote, who dis?

I think this is worth having, at the very least until the O-Chul story is released.

[Keltest]

I think this is worth having, at the very least until the O-Chul story is released.

For some reason I feel like we already have a quote to that effect, but in the probable event that my feeling is wrong, I think its worth including.

[Kalmegil]

And even if he did, I would question the usefulness of that information because Rich hasn't given a crap about what the rules say for a long time.

He cared enough to write that post; numerous people care about the post. Also, you're feeling pretty comfortable speaking for Rich here. I don't interpret the fairly nuanced statements that Rich has made on the subject of the applicability of the rules to the comic in the same simplistic way you do.

Let me restate my question. Who had that question? Who believed that the vampire could not cast spells for reasons other than an incorrect belief in the rules?

Let me restate my answer: that's irrelevant. The standard is potential usefulness in forum discussions, not usefulness in the discussion that led up to the quote. Otherwise, of course, quotes from the Giant not in response to a discussion could never be included.

Let me get this straight. In Order of the Stick, which is standard 3.5 except when it isn't, you're saying that we need explicit comment from the author when something does keep to standard 3.5? Do you realize the inherent ridiculouseness of this?

Hmm.... What are the options here. Either (A) I'm advocating for something I believe to be ridiculous, or (B) I don't believe it to be ridiculous. Which of these two options could possibly be true?

For the record, it's the second one. The Giant has a set of rules related to vampirism. Some of these rules contradict the SRD. Some extend beyond the SRD without contradicting it. Some are within the SRD. Knowing that some rules are within the Giant's milieu is information not available absent the quote. (And no, knowing Durkon is now a priest of Hel, and that there are non-theistic clerics doesn't tell us what the quote tells us.)

So I have nowhere said we need an explicit comment from the author every time something does keep to standard 3.5. I have said that, in this instance, where non-SRD rules are currently in play alongside SRD rules, knowing that is useful.

Further, please tell me what usefulness exactly the comment gives that cannot be gleaned from the comic itself.

I've stated this repeatedly. Not sure I'm creative enough to come up with a fourth or fifth way to state it. I'll give it one last try, but before I respond to other questions from you, I'd like some indication you've actually read my responses, rather than repeated demands for information.

The information provided by the quote is that the Giant, who has created a set of vampirism rules well beyond those set forth in the SRD (some of which contradict the SRD), has stated that he is specifically following several specific rules.

[Keltest]

He cared enough to write that post; numerous people care about the post. Also, you're feeling pretty comfortable speaking for Rich here. I don't interpret the fairly nuanced statements that Rich has made on the subject of the applicability of the rules to the comic in the same simplistic way you do.

Why yes, I am quite comfortable making that statement.

Let me restate my answer: that's irrelevant. The standard is potential usefulness in forum discussions, not usefulness in the discussion that led up to the quote. Otherwise, of course, quotes from the Giant not in response to a discussion could never be included.

Perhaps, but when youre making an argument based on a hypothetical lack of understanding, it weakens your argument when nobody, even the people involved in the discussion that generated that quote, demonstrated that lack of understanding.

I've stated this repeatedly. Not sure I'm creative enough to come up with a fourth or fifth way to state it. I'll give it one last try, but before I respond to other questions from you, I'd like some indication you've actually read my responses, rather than repeated demands for information.

The information provided by the quote is that the Giant, who has created a set of vampirism rules well beyond those set forth in the SRD (some of which contradict the SRD), has stated that he is specifically following several specific rules.

The rules that he was referencing are separate from his vampire rules though. He is using non-theistic cleric rules, as evidenced by the non-theistic clerics, but Durkon is not one of them, and his vampirism is entirely separate from what would happen if he were to suddenly find himself without a god for real.

[Kalmegil]

Why yes, I am quite comfortable making that statement.

And he clarified his opinion in later statements to be much more nuanced than that. For instance, especially paragraphs 3 and 4. And paragraph 5 shows exactly why the quote in question is useful: the Giant follows D&D rules except when he doesn't. Explicit statements about this are useful.

Either way, Rich not caring about the rules is irrelevant to determining the usefulness of the information he provides about what rules he is using.

I think we've rehashed the rest of the issues you address in your post enough for now, so I'll stand on what I've said so far.

[Keltest]

And he clarified his opinion in later statements to be much more nuanced than that. For instance, especially paragraphs 3 and 4. And paragraph 5 shows exactly why the quote in question is useful: the Giant follows D&D rules except when he doesn't. Explicit statements about this are useful.

Either way, Rich not caring about the rules is irrelevant to determining the usefulness of the information he provides about what rules he is using.

I think we've rehashed the rest of the issues you address in your post enough for now, so I'll stand on what I've said so far.

Per your own helpfully provided quote, we can safely assume that he is using the rules as written except in instances where we can point out a deviation has occurred, in which case an explanation for how the changed rules work might be helpful. But this isn't such an explanation, he's just using the Rules as Written for the subject, and I don't see how keeping a quote of him pointing to the SRD is all that informative of anything.

[Kalmegil]

Per your own helpfully provided quote, we can safely assume that he is using the rules as written except in instances where we can point out a deviation has occurred, in which case an explanation for how the changed rules work might be helpful. But this isn't such an explanation, he's just using the Rules as Written for the subject, and I don't see how keeping a quote of him pointing to the SRD is all that informative of anything.

There are lots of deviations on this general topic; knowing where he is not deviating helps anyone who cares to try to define the contours of those deviations in forum discussions to be more precise about it.

[Keltest]

There are lots of deviations on this general topic; knowing where he is not deviating helps anyone who cares to try to define the contours of those deviations in forum discussions to be more precise about it.

You and I have very different ideas of what the general topic is. To me, it seems pretty clear Rich is addressing the idea of how Durkon (or anyone else) could cast spells without a god. Regardless, the non-theistic cleric rules aren't specific to vampires.

[Kalmegil]

You and I have very different ideas of what the general topic is. To me, it seems pretty clear Rich is addressing the idea of how Durkon (or anyone else) could cast spells without a god. Regardless, the non-theistic cleric rules aren't specific to vampires.

The topic is bout how Rich's interpretation of the SRD interacts with the rules he establishes for his setting. Without the quote, we can assume. With the quote, we can know.