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

[Lissou]

A colon may work as well, although a lack of space after it may look weird. The ― is looking good to me, though!

[pearl jam]

On a saner forum, we might not worry about the fact that the thread title is truncated on replies when it doesn't break functionality?

[Emanick]

On a saner forum, we might not worry about the fact that the thread title is truncated on replies when it doesn't break functionality?

I am officially nominating this to be the thread title of The Index of the Giant's Comments VI.

[Peelee]

I am officially nominating this to be the thread title of The Index of the Giant's Comments VI.

You could nominate a fifth of it maybe.

[137beth]

I am officially nominating this to be the thread title of The Index of the Giant's Comments VI.

If you take out the question mark and smilie, it is still 133 characters even without an RE: preppended to it. You could nominate more than half of it though.

[Jasdoif]

I am officially nominating this to be the thread title of The Index of the Giant's Comments VI.

In light of the underlying oddities, all future subtitle nominations must be 40 characters or less. The limit will likely need to be reconsidered if we get to The Index of the Giant's Comments XVIII, but I think it will work for now

[Gwynfrid]

Regarding Quild's removal suggestions, here's my take.

Durkon Throws Diamond Dust - Durkon threw diamond dust into the air in 844.
I agree we should remove it.

Haley's Boots of Speed - Yes, she did get them dyed to match her brown/tan garb.
I agree we should remove it.

Elan's Rapiers - He has two. His original, and one from Julio Scoundrel.
I think we should keep it. It answers a question that was asked once and might be asked again (even if that's pretty unlikely). The fact that this particular rapier no longer appears today, when the story has moved on, doesn't matter.

Protection from Law is Illegal in Many Places
I think we should keep it. It isn't just a joke, it answers a real question: Why Belkar didn't request a ring of Protection from Law instead?

Orrin Draketooth's Daughter - She's not Haley.
I agree we should remove it.

The quote in the index that I think you are referring to (this one) also has the Giant state that he put in a line about Orrin's daughter's age specifically to eliminate the possibility that it was Haley. The Giant's motivation for specifying the age isn't in the comic, only the age itself. That quote is not redundant with the comic.

You are technically correct. However, this means the only non-redundant answer in this quote is to the question "why did the Giant mention Orrin's daughters's age?" This question hasn't ever been asked on the forum (as far as I know) and I believe the odds of it ever being asked are vanishingly small.

[ti'esar]

You are technically correct. However, this means the only non-redundant answer in this quote is to the question "why did the Giant mention Orrin's daughters's age? This question hasn't ever been asked on the forum (as far as I know) and I believe the odds of it ever being asked are vanishingly small.

It may not be something anyone would probably ask - but it is still a look into the Giant's planning process, even if just on a very small level. That's worthwhile, although perhaps not that much.

[Gwynfrid]

It may not be something anyone would probably ask - but it is still a look into the Giant's planning process, even if just on a very small level. That's worthwhile, although perhaps not that much.

That's correct, but isn't tracking the Giant's planning process a matter beyond the scope of the Index? Not to mention how it veers uncomfortably close to stalking (for me at least).

[ti'esar]

As I understand it, what the Giant wants is that people not write down every opinion he has about anything. But how he specifically goes about writing OOTS? I thought that was a well-established part of the index.

[Keltest]

I think using a single example to make a point about Rich's writing process is pushing it, especially because what it actually says about the process is not spelled out in the quote. To me, it says that Rich sometimes heads off questions he anticipates in advance when writing, and if that's a common consensus, I think we can agree there are quotes better disposed towards making that point.

[Quild]

Protection from Law is Illegal in Many Places
I think we should keep it. It isn't just a joke, it answers a real question: Why Belkar didn't request a ring of Protection from Law instead?

Belkar has poor knowledge of how this work. He asked for an item that boosts his saving throws (or rather: he was thinking that the protection would be absolute from the vest, while it's not) and when the gnome understood what he was looking after, she brought the cloak clasp up.

Now, the gnome thinks it more likely that the clasp is malfunctioning rather than Belkar being Evil. It probably wouldn't be very interesting for her to sell items that grants Protection from Law in the same goal of protection from charms while her clients are very more likely to be Lawful rather than Evil.

Maybe she has something else. But Belkar wants to hide to her the fact that he's Evil, so we won't know.

But I don't see why Protection from Law would be illegal, besides a joke. I don't even think that it protects you from the effects of a Zone of Truth.

[Gwynfrid]

Belkar has poor knowledge of how this work. He asked for an item that boosts his saving throws (or rather: he was thinking that the protection would be absolute from the vest, while it's not) and when the gnome understood what he was looking after, she brought the cloak clasp up.

Now, the gnome thinks it more likely that the clasp is malfunctioning rather than Belkar being Evil. It probably wouldn't be very interesting for her to sell items that grants Protection from Law in the same goal of protection from charms while her clients are very more likely to be Lawful rather than Evil.

Maybe she has something else. But Belkar wants to hide to her the fact that he's Evil, so we won't know.

But I don't see why Protection from Law would be illegal, besides a joke. I don't even think that it protects you from the effects of a Zone of Truth.

Asking for Protection from Law wouldn't be the same as admitting he's Evil. But, in most of the world, you can expect police to be Lawful. Protection from Law would grant bonuses against police trying to subdue criminals whether with magical or non-magical means, so it makes sense to make it illegal. Belkar doesn't want to get in trouble by hinting he might be trying to evade law enforcement.

[Peelee]

Asking for Protection from Law wouldn't be the same as admitting he's Evil.

I don't follow.

[littlebum2002]

I ... what problem does that solve?

Posting the full text of every quote from Rich in the Index would solve the problem of having to find the quote using the summaries given. Instead, you could just "Show ALl Spoilers" and search for any word in the quote and find it, if it is in the Index.

Of course, this would be unbelievably complicated, for many reasons, the most noticeable of which is that the thread moderator would have to reserve the first 30 or so posts instead of the first 7

Regarding Quild's removal suggestions, here's my take.

Durkon Throws Diamond Dust - Durkon threw diamond dust into the air in 844.
I agree we should remove it.

Haley's Boots of Speed - Yes, she did get them dyed to match her brown/tan garb.
I agree we should remove it.

Elan's Rapiers - He has two. His original, and one from Julio Scoundrel.
I think we should keep it. It answers a question that was asked once and might be asked again (even if that's pretty unlikely). The fact that this particular rapier no longer appears today, when the story has moved on, doesn't matter.

Protection from Law is Illegal in Many Places
I think we should keep it. It isn't just a joke, it answers a real question: Why Belkar didn't request a ring of Protection from Law instead?

Orrin Draketooth's Daughter - She's not Haley.
I agree we should remove it.

I second every one of these

I don't follow.

Trying to do something illegal (in this case "order an illegal Protection from Law item"), doesn't necessarily make one Evil. Neutral characters can often engage in illegal activities, and Good characters can as well on occasion. For instance, I wouldn't see any harm in a Good character who is invading and trying to destroy an Evil kobold city from using Protection from Law to protect themself while doing so. Even though it is technically illegal, it is in support of a Greater Good, etc etc.

[Pyrous]

Trying to do something illegal (in this case "order an illegal Protection from Law item"), doesn't necessarily make one Evil. Neutral characters can often engage in illegal activities, and Good characters can as well on occasion. For instance, I wouldn't see any harm in a Good character who is invading and trying to destroy an Evil kobold city from using Protection from Law to protect themself while doing so. Even though it is technically illegal, it is in support of a Greater Good, etc etc.

The point is that the gnome had more Protection from Evil clasps. If Belkar asked for a Protection from Law item instead, he would be admitting he's evil.

[Peelee]

Trying to do something illegal (in this case "order an illegal Protection from Law item"), doesn't necessarily make one Evil. Neutral characters can often engage in illegal activities, and Good characters can as well on occasion. For instance, I wouldn't see any harm in a Good character who is invading and trying to destroy an Evil kobold city from using Protection from Law to protect themself while doing so. Even though it is technically illegal, it is in support of a Greater Good, etc etc.

Aha. I'd misread that as "would be the same as admitting he's Evil." Hence my confusion.

I am not a smart man.

The point is that the gnome had more Protection from Evil clasps. If Belkar asked for a Protection from Law item instead, he would be admitting he's evil.

Nope.

If i go to the store to get a wool jacket, and the one they gave me has a hole in it, and i say, "well, how about synthetic fibers then," it wouldn't mean I am morally opposed to leather. Doesn't matter if they had more wool coats in the back.

[Jasdoif]

If i go to the store to get a wool jacket, and the one they gave me has a hole in it, and i say, "well, how about synthetic fibers then," it wouldn't mean I am morally opposed to leather. Doesn't matter if they had more wool coats in the back.

On the other hand....If you go to the store to get a wool jacket, and you start itching when you try it on, and the salesperson says that shouldn't happen unless you're allergic to wool and offers to get another wool jacket in case that one's contaminated, and you instead say "nah, how about synthetic fibers then,"....You being allergic to wool wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume.

[Lissou]

I don't follow.

Protection from Law can be useful for a Chaotic Good person against a Lawful Evil one. Wanting an item that offers Protection from Law does not mean that you're Evil. The two axes are completely independent from one another after all.

[Peelee]

On the other hand....If you go to the store to get a wool jacket, and you start itching when you try it on, and the salesperson says that shouldn't happen unless you're allergic to wool and offers to get another wool jacket in case that one's contaminated, and you instead say "nah, how about synthetic fibers then,"....You being allergic to wool wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume.

True, but it wouldn't be a tacit admission. It'd be a bad idea to call an ambulance, for instance.

Not to mention that if I know i am allergic to wool, i wouldn't be asking for a wool jacket to start with.

[Keltest]

True, but it wouldn't be a tacit admission. It'd be a bad idea to call an ambulance, for instance.

Not to mention that if I know i am allergic to wool, i wouldn't be asking for a wool jacket to start with.

I would think that it would be a bad idea to call for an ambulance even if they did flat out admit it, given that they don't appear to actually be having any sort of attack or anything. If they continue shopping, skipping the wool clothing as you guide them would not be unreasonable.

[Jasdoif]

Not to mention that if I know i am allergic to wool, i wouldn't be asking for a wool jacket to start with.

Apparently Hypothetipeelee was unaware of the wool allergy (maybe it was a late-developing allergy?), just as Belkar didn't know he'd be adversely affected by a protection from evil effect. Or maybe it was a case of the salesperson neglecting to mention the jacket was wool, but if we posit a lawsuit scenario we're not going to get an answer until the next version of the Index thread, at the earliest.

[Peelee]

Apparently Hypothetipeelee was unaware of the wool allergy (maybe it was a late-developing allergy?), just as Belkar didn't know he'd be adversely affected by a protection from evil effect. Or maybe it was a case of the salesperson neglecting to mention the jacket was wool, but if we posit a lawsuit scenario we're not going to get an answer until the next version of the Index thread, at the earliest.

Point taken. Let's restart. If Bob asks for a Protection from Evil item, and when it malfunctions, asks for a Protection from Law item, then i doubt the salesperson would think, "aha! Bob must be Evil!"

[Ruck]

Point taken. Let's restart. If Bob asks for a Protection from Evil item, and when it malfunctions, asks for a Protection from Law item, then i doubt the salesperson would think, "aha! Bob must be Evil!"

It's not the specifically asking for Protecting from Law, it's the following exchange:

"That Protection of Evil clasp must be broken. Let me get you a new one."
"Uhhhhh, you know what? That's okay, why don't I just try something else?"

[Pyrous]

Point taken. Let's restart. If Bob asks for a Protection from Evil item, and when it malfunctions, asks for a Protection from Law item, then i doubt the salesperson would think, "aha! Bob must be Evil!"

Except that he didn't asked for a Protection from Evil item, he asked for a item that stops mental control. He was offered one that hurt him. This should only happen if he was Evil or if the item was malfunctioning. The gnome retrieved the item and if she tries it on herself while getting a replacement, be it another Protection from Evil, or a Protection from Law one, she would have reason to suspect Belkar was evil (chaotic evil if he asked for protection from law). Belkar was trying to avoid suspicion, and that included getting rid of the evidence. For half price.

[Quild]

Belkar has probably no idea that a Protection from Law item would work, so there is little chance that he can think of it.
He didn't even knew that his vest wouldn't be an absolute protection.
Otherwise, Belkar would probably have asked for a Protection from Law item even knowing that it was illegal in many place (he could act surprised that it's illegal in Tinkertown).

Anyway, my point entirely was that there is no point for Protection from Law to be illegal and that I think the Giant made a joke.
Cops are Lawful? Mostly, surely, it's not an absolute (reminds me that Gotham started again yesterday).
If the point is that an item providing +2 deflection bonus to AC and +2 resistance bonus of save against most or all cops, lot of stuff you can get the same effects from, could be illegal.
Armors are illegal in Cliffport many place because cops are warriors! Also weapons. And spells, they work too. You're not allowed to get level eithers, it's dangerous!

Nope, I'm not buying it to be a serious thing about OOTS-lore.

Pyrous: I believe an Evil Neutral creature wouldn't be affected by Protection from Law either.

[Kish]

I am not going to go to a great deal of effort to read the made-hard-to-read-for-no-reason post before this one. I am, however, going to mention a point of D&D rules that some people are likely unaware of here:

"Protection from X" renders someone immune to all mind control, regardless of the alignment of the controller. The other effects (AC bonus, save bonuses, untouchability by summoned creatures) care about alignment, but for what Belkar wanted the clasp for, it might as well have been Protection from Good.

[Gwynfrid]

Anyway, my point entirely was that there is no point for Protection from Law to be illegal and that I think the Giant made a joke.

We can second-guess the Giant, but it's always going to be inconclusive. To the question, why did Belkar not ask for a Protection from Law item, there are (at least) two possible answers: #1 because Belkar didn't know any better, or #2 because he didn't want to ask for something illegal. The original poster suggested the answer is #1. Then Rich posted to say the answer is #2. Joke or no joke, this is a valid answer. We have no reason to dismiss it.

[Peelee]

We can second-guess the Giant, but it's always going to be inconclusive.

I firmly believe it's a joke, but I can't argue against this.

[Pyrous]

I was going to make one last argument for exclusion, but it's a good joke and I won't be bothered if we keep it in the index.