OOTS #1116 - The Discussion Thread

[Runeclaw]

The edge case where Loki's CN, has a rule about his morally-Neutral clerics turning instead of rebuking, and Hilgya being CN instead of CE...doesn't seem notably more likely than Hilgya taking an extended alignment trip up to Good and possibly back.

If Loki and Hilgya were both CN, why would there need to be a special rule regarding Loki's clerics? Wouldn't she just be free to choose at that point?

[Fyraltari]

But then, I grew up in a terrorist-infected hellhole. And I was studying in Spain when their trains got blown up (heck, I had used those same train lines an hour prior to the explosions) and I was working in London when their subway got blown up (although other than waking past one of said subway entrances, I wasn't as close to dying from it as the previous two cases - I was still using trains for commuting), so maybe I'm a bit biased against random acts of terrorism that target groups of people rather than individuals. Call me silly that way.

One of these is already much more than anyone should live, let alone all three.
Here's hoping you don't run afoul of those horrors again.

As mentioned above, the author disagrees with you. "Caring for your friends" is not a Good trait, because both Good and Evil people have friends (and likewise, there are both Good and Evil people who don't have them). As an indicator of alignment, it provides no evidence on any direction. Good is defined as the willingness to put your resources/health/life/etc. on the line for those that are NOT your personal friends, without an expectation of a reward.

"X is not a good thing because evil people do it" is backward reasonning. People and characters are evil because of the things they do not the other way around.
Evil characters can (and if to be three dimensionnal often must) have good traits and likewise for Good characters and evil traits. What matters is how many and how praiseworthy/despicable those traits are.
If someone regularly give alms to the homeless but also happens to be a serial killer, that person would be Evil but that wouldn't mean that a habit of giving alms is not a good trait.

Likewise that Hilgya, Sabine and Nale have demonstrated sincere love for someone in comic is to their credits because love is in and of itself a good thing, however having one (or a handful) good traits is not and should not be enough to get someone out of the evil alignment. Else every evil character would be another Xykon, Tarquin or Kubota.


Concerning the Paladin of Slaughter restriction thingy, that strikes me as good example of the "Stupid Evil" that was discussed in the preceding thread (I think) in that the character (is expected) to behave in ways that are self-defeating for the sake of Eeeeeeeeeeeevil.

[Jasdoif]

If Loki and Hilgya were both CN, why would there need to be a special rule regarding Loki's clerics? Wouldn't she just be free to choose at that point?

That's what I had thought once; then it turned out the 3.5 FAQ addressed the matter:

I assume that my lawful good cleric of a lawful neutral deity must opt to turn undead and not rebuke. If he later becomes lawful neutral, can he opt to start rebuking instead of turning? What if he then becomes lawful evil? What if he is a lawful good cleric of Wee Jas who becomes lawful neutral?
You can’t voluntarily change whether your character turns or rebukes undead. If your new alignment would require a change—such as a turning cleric who becomes evil, or a LG cleric of Wee Jas who becomes LN—the change is applied automatically.

Book commentary confirms that she was Evil back in the Dungeon of Dorukan, so she'd have rebuked undead at that point; per that FAQ entry she couldn't choose to starting turning instead of rebuking when/if she hit CN; she'd have to go all the way to CG which would require her to turn instead of rebuke for that change to happen.

Arguments that special rules apply to Loki are plentiful in this thread already, and the technically true "FAQ is not RAW" seems neither helpful nor amusing.

[hamishspence]

That's what I had thought once; then it turned out the 3.5 FAQ addressed the matter:Book commentary confirms that she was Evil back in the Dungeon of Dorukan, so she'd have rebuked undead at that point; per that FAQ entry she couldn't choose to starting turning instead of rebuking when/if she hit CN; she'd have to go all the way to CG which would require her to turn instead of rebuke for that change to happen.

Unless Loki is "CN inverse of Wee Jas" with a "all CN clerics of Loki must Turn rather than Rebuke" counterpart to her "all LN clerics must Rebuke rather than Turn".

That would allow for her to not go all the way to CG.

(Personally though, I'd prefer a solution that doesn't mandate them both being CN, given the strong implication in Start of Darkness that Loki qualifies as being "among the Evil gods").

[Jasdoif]

Unless Loki is "CN inverse of Wee Jas" with a "all CN clerics of Loki must Turn rather than Rebuke" counterpart to her "all LN clerics must Rebuke rather than Turn".

That would allow for her to not go all the way to CG.

That's the edge case I mentioned on the last page, yes.

[Kish]

To be clear, I think the solution, which Rich all but spelled out in the "turn un deh!" comic, is: All Loki's clerics Turn Undead regardless of their or Loki's alignment. He is the god of chaos, so this verse doesn't rhyme or scan. It's just if the question asked is "does D&D explain/account for this?" that the only honest answer is: No it does not, neither for an evil cleric Turning nor for a cleric of an evil god Turning.

[Jasdoif]

To be clear, I think the solution, which Rich all but spelled out in the "turn un deh!" comic, is: All Loki's clerics Turn Undead regardless of their or Loki's alignment.

I was thinking the "answer" with the most accuracy is "Hilgya turns undead, and a mechanical explanation would detract from the story".

That's not particularly interesting or entertaining, though.

[Rockphed]

They are in Pathfinder. We discussed it way upthread.
Or if you want 3.5, slap a new hat on a Celestial Bison.

Either way, they are probably Summon III creatures. Using Summon V to call Summon III creatures, she gets 1d4+1 of them (4 in the comic). So only a 5th level slot. We don't know what her level is, but assuming she's tracked fairly close to the party, she used a good-but-not-top-level slot. Her 6s and 7s should be available (and maybe a couple 8s if she the same level as V).

For 120+HP worth of disposable creatures. And if they all drop dead, she has enough 5th level slots she may be able to do it again.

Note that anarchic giraffes are magical beasts, with d10 hit dice. If these are based on the celestial bison, there are 168 hit points of giraffe running around.

If Loki and Hilgya were both CN, why would there need to be a special rule regarding Loki's clerics? Wouldn't she just be free to choose at that point?

(Personally though, I'd prefer a solution that doesn't mandate them both being CN, given the strong implication in Start of Darkness that Loki qualifies as being "among the Evil gods").

Per comic 1107, Loki views the undead as icky and stuff. Presumably he has a special rule that says "all clerics of Loki turn undead, rather than rebuking, even if the cleric is evil". Which, yes, is less KISS than I would like, but otherwise we are left with both Loki and Hilgya being CN, which we just spent a half dozen pages establishing as incredibly unlikely. Please don't get that argument started back up this thread.

[Devils_Advocate]

Obviously anti-paladins are compelled to do evil regardless of its utility.

So lack of evidence is evidence of lack?

Of course absence of evidence (of some proposition) is evidence of absence (for that same proposition)! If you look for some sort of evidence and find it, you increase your estimated probability; that's what it means for an observation to be evidence of something! Basic rationality demands that that be balanced by a decrease in estimated probability if you don't find the evidence you looked for. Otherwise you know that your estimated probability will either go up or stay the same, meaning that the expected value of the probability once you become better informed is higher than the current value. But you can't rationally be knowingly biased one way or the other by your own ignorance. QED.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but only tautologies are provable in any absolute sense.

No, Word of Giant said that she was CE back then.

Now, she may or not still be CE, but having (and then abandoning due to impracticality) the idea of burning the clan hall down with her entire clan (minus her and Kudzu) inside after what they did to her isn't an Evil act.

See, this is a great example of the sort of thing I'm talking about! Something doesn't have to be an Evil act to be evidence of Evil alignment! We can divide characters into several categories:

1. Wouldn't consider mass murder and wouldn't commit mass murder.
2. Would consider mass murder but wouldn't commit mass murder.
3. Would consider mass murder and would commit mass murder.
4. Wouldn't consider mass murder but would commit mass murder.

Evidence that someone isn't in category 1 or 4 (Hopefully we can agree that almost no one is in category 4!) is evidence that that individual is in either category 2 or category 3. So, barring evidence that one of those is more likely than the other, both become more likely as membership in category 1 (or 4) becomes less likely. E.g. if our initial probability estimate had 1, 2, and 3 each at ~33%, then reducing the 1st possibility to near 0% raises each of 2 and 3 to near 50%. 3 is more likely.

But at the same time, so is 2, because, while they're competing hypotheses, they're not only in competition with each other. This is a very important point; a false dichotomy can keep two disputants from realizing that the evidence actually favors both of their mutually exclusive hypotheses over other possibilities. That happened to me (and someone else) once, and I felt pretty silly once I realized that I was making exactly the same basic mistake as the person I was arguing with. Learn from my mistake and try to avoid this particular embarrassing error.

So, a statement from Hilgya's can serves as evidence that Hilgya is still an Evil character who commits Evil acts, even if it isn't an admission of an Evil act on her part. It isn't proof, but, once again, proof of non-tautologous statements in general is impossible via the much-discussed Problem of Induction.

...Did I miss something?

This particular horse was beaten to death so long ago that it has long since reached an advanced state of putrescence, with rotting gore splattering everywhere as the beating continues. Now, so long as the deceased-equine-pummelers and their audience continue to extract satisfaction from the process, all well and good for them us, and the horse certainly isn't suffering any more at this point, but others nearby find themselves bothered by the sights and sounds and smells. And telling them that they can simply relocate to anywhere else starts to look a bit disingenuous when the horse is being dragged around hither and thither as the proceedings continue, to the extent that the spectacle is nigh-impossible to escape.

Hilgya loving her offspring is per se not a good act. Like Belkar and Scruffy.

The thing is, while the PHB informs us that a creature's alignment represents that creature’s general moral and personal attitudes, it doesn't tell us what it means for an individual act to have an alignment. In fact, acts having alignments is a concept simply referred to without ever being properly introduced, so far as I can see; alignment is only introduced as a property of characters. So, uh, WHOOPS? Bit of an oversight there, seems like.

Nevertheless, the alignments are described largely in terms of behavior rather than attitude, and so the naive assumption would certainly seem to be "an act is of the alignment described as acting that way". Unfortunately, that seems to clash with designer intent; paladins probably aren't meant to fall whenever they hurt or kill anyone. One way around that is to say that an act is only of an alignment when it's a manifestation of the sort of general attitude that that alignment represents... but in that case, characters can't take actions outside their alignments! E.g. nothing done by a Neutral character is Evil, because the same general attitude that would render the action Evil would also render the character Evil. But that also seems to clash with designer intent, because the description of the Paladin class implies that a Good character taking an Evil act is a thing that can happen.

Deliberately endangering the life of someone who annoys you is no more inherently Evil than intentionally protecting the life of someone you like is inherently Good, if acts are only aligned as manifestations of general attitudes. So, so long as he valued the welfare of other sentient beings in general, and wasn't violating any other aspect of his code of conduct, a paladin could conceivably try to get his own Lawful Good ally killed out of personal dislike without falling for committing an Evil act. I feel like that's pretty far how this sort of thing is typically regarded as working.

But that's also a thing that happens in On the Origin of PCs, so that is indeed apparently the sort of universe we're dealing with. I mentioned in another thread that that seems so flagrantly inappropriate that it struck me as a deliberate presentation of how alignment shouldn't be run; The Order of the Stick often seems to poke fun at how Dungeons & Dragons is played in practice. But that's apparently the sort of universe we're dealing with regardless of the author's intent in making it that way.

[jere7my]

Eh, I think we're just about wrapped up here, actually. Pretty much just a minor disagreement.

You were saying?

[hamishspence]

Note that anarchic giraffes are magical beasts, with d10 hit dice.

It specifically says for the relevant templates (fiendish, celestial, Anarchic, etc) "Do not recalculate Hit Dice if its type changes" and the sample templated animals all have d8s rather than d10s.

[zimmerwald1915]

You were saying?

It's only been three pages since then. And not all the posts therein were on point.

[Ironsmith]

You were saying?

In fairness, the discussion between myself and The_Weirdo stopped...

[Devils_Advocate]

Loki's opposition to the undead would come as a surprise had he not been previously established as being rather at odds with his daughter, Hel. Given that, though, it makes sense.

Things there is no provision for in by-the-book D&D:
1) A cleric who Turns Undead, yet spontaneously casts Inflict spells and not Cures.
2) A neutral or evil cleric of an evil god Turning rather than Rebuking undead.

Since 2 is established as the case here

Where was Loki "established" as being an Evil god?

the rules have definitely been changed for Hilgya such that we can't rely on 1, and your question can really only be answered by Rich.

I doubt that Rich would weirdly gimp a particular subset of clerics that way, giving them the worse half of each potential set of class features. Normal negative energy clerics can at least heal their controlled undead minions; the hypothesized type can't even do that (barring the use of specific spells or items that would also be off the table if the reason for the weirdness is that their deity opposes the undead). Then again, I suppose that there's some official precedent in clerics of Wee Jas normally rebuking but being weirdly restricted in their use of undead? Hmm.

They don't convert the spell, they lose the spell to be able spontaneously cast the cure/inflict spell.

I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make. What's the difference?

Actually, before this book have we seen anyone else do summoning besides Redcloak? He uses multiple elementals, grabbed some fiends to squash the Resistance (plus another elemental). I can't think of anyone else doing the summoning thing. Well, technically Dorukan did using Gate.

Elan used illusory summons a couple of times on Vaarsuvius's advice. Doesn't technically count, but I thought I'd mention it.

[hamishspence]

One way around that is to say that an act is only of an alignment when it's a manifestation of the sort of general attitude that that alignment represents... but in that case, characters can't take actions outside their alignments! E.g. nothing done by a Neutral character is Evil, because the same general attitude that would render the action Evil would also render the character Evil. But that also seems to clash with designer intent, because the description of the Paladin class implies that a Good character taking an Evil act is a thing that can happen.

and in the Atonement spell description - a point is made of how an act committed "under some kind of compulsion", can still have an alignment.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

Where was Loki "established" as being an Evil god?

Redcloaks narrative of how "several of the older Evil gods broke ranks to defend" The Dark One (only two are shown, Loki and Tiamat) combined with Thor's comment about Loki's "wicked ways"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html

did seem like hints in that direction.

[zimmerwald1915]

Where was Loki "established" as being an Evil god?

It was heavily implied, though not outright stated, in Start of Darkness.

[Jasdoif]

I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make. What's the difference?

The cleric does not convert a prepared spell into a cure spell, and then cast the now-prepared cure spell. The cleric loses the prepared spell when they spontaneously cast the cure spell.

The difference is that a spell prepared with metamagic applied has the same casting time as the spell without metamagic applied, while a spontaneous spell with metamagic applied takes longer to cast. And a cleric spontaneously casting a metamagic-ed version of a cure or inflict spell is explicitly called out as taking longer to cast.

[Scarlet Knight]

Wow, rainbow colored giraffes. I guess these are the flashbacks they warned us about.

Far out.

[Kish]

The cleric does not convert a prepared spell into a cure spell, and then cast the now-prepared cure spell. The cleric loses the prepared spell when they spontaneously cast the cure spell.

The difference is that a spell prepared with metamagic applied has the same casting time as the spell without metamagic applied, while a spontaneous spell with metamagic applied takes longer to cast. And a cleric spontaneously casting a metamagic-ed version of a cure or inflict spell is explicitly called out as taking longer to cast.

Or, using even fewer words:

The distinction is that when Durkon casts a Cure Light Wounds spell he didn't prepare that morning, that is spontaneous casting, subject to all the rules for spontaneous casting.

[Alex Warlorn]

That was funny!

[The_Weirdo]

This particular horse was beaten to death so long ago that it has long since reached an advanced state of putrescence, with rotting gore splattering everywhere as the beating continues. Now, so long as the deceased-equine-pummelers and their audience continue to extract satisfaction from the process, all well and good for them us, and the horse certainly isn't suffering any more at this point, but others nearby find themselves bothered by the sights and sounds and smells. And telling them that they can simply relocate to anywhere else starts to look a bit disingenuous when the horse is being dragged around hither and thither as the proceedings continue, to the extent that the spectacle is nigh-impossible to escape.

May I take a moment to appreciate just how utterly and magnificently funny this description of yours is?

And to be sure there is another thread now...

[Peelee]

Obviously anti-paladins are compelled to do evil regardless of its utility.


Of course absence of evidence (of some proposition) is evidence of absence (for that same proposition)!

Today I learned there was evidence that most elements didn't exist before the industrial revolution.

[Devils_Advocate]

Yes, there's such a thing as evidence of untruths. Google "false positive" to learn more on the subject.

Redcloaks narrative of how "several of the older Evil gods broke ranks to defend" The Dark One (only two are shown, Loki and Tiamat) combined with Thor's comment about Loki's "wicked ways"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html

did seem like hints in that direction.

It was heavily implied, though not outright stated, in Start of Darkness.

Loki could have changed alignment! YOU DON'T KNOW FOR SURE! :P

More seriously: Loki and Hilgya strike me as being pretty close to equally well established as Evil, so it just seems weird to grant, even for the sake of argument, the possibility that one, but not the other, is Chaotic Neutral. While there's no explicit contradiction, it seems like inconsistent standards of evidence are being applied.

The cleric does not convert a prepared spell into a cure spell, and then cast the now-prepared cure spell. The cleric loses the prepared spell when they spontaneously cast the cure spell.

Ah, I see. I had thought that it would make sense to say that the prepared spell is "converted to a Cure* spell upon being cast", but upon reflection that ignores the overloading of the word "spell" to refer to both stored magical energy and the magical effect produced by invoking that energy (and more). That is to say, a prepared Protection From Evil spell (sense 1) is only "converted" into an active Cure spell (sense 2) in the same sense that a prepared Protection From Evil spell (sense 1) is "converted" into an active Protection From Evil spell (sense 2); the "conversion" is not into anther thing of the same type, but into another thing of a different type. But the word "convert" at least implies otherwise and is thus inappropriate. Got it.

*OotS capitalizes rather than italicizes spell names.

[Goblin_Priest]

The books specifically suggest using Bison and Rhino stats for other large herd animals. Celestial Bison is on the SM III list.

People are pretty sure she used a 5th or 6th level slot to summon 1d4+1 anarchic giraffes from the summon monster III/IV lists. We know she goet 1d4+1 because there are more than 3 of them. While a bunch of elephant equivalents would be awe-inspiring, I'm pretty sure Hilgya does not have enough 9th level slots that using one for a few summons is "cheap". She might, just might, have 9th level slots, but that is unlikely. People are generally guessing that giraffes use some variant of either the bison or rhino stats.

They are in Pathfinder. We discussed it way upthread.
Or if you want 3.5, slap a new hat on a Celestial Bison.

Either way, they are probably Summon III creatures. Using Summon V to call Summon III creatures, she gets 1d4+1 of them (4 in the comic). So only a 5th level slot. We don't know what her level is, but assuming she's tracked fairly close to the party, she used a good-but-not-top-level slot. Her 6s and 7s should be available (and maybe a couple 8s if she the same level as V).

For 120+HP worth of disposable creatures. And if they all drop dead, she has enough 5th level slots she may be able to do it again.

Heh, hadn't seen that one in the background. Could almost have been a second casting, he's so far off! ;)

So yea, I guess it's fair to assume it was Summon Monster V that was cast. It's also likely that her top spell level is probably not crowded with Summon Monster spells, so that parks her at probably around level 11?

Or "about the same level as the party" also makes fair narrative sense. Because, rival rule, right? :P

[Shining Wrath]

On the topic of battle tactics, we're about to find out how free-willed Durkula's minions are. Because Hilgya is going to represent a serious threat, and their instructions are to kill the elf, then the cleric of Thor (poor Minrah!), and then the bard. If the minions can't choose to deal with the high level cleric, they don't have much in the way of free will.

Also, I'm wondering why Durkula thinks Roy can't save himself with his sword. It's pretty obvious it is an artifact or close to it; it's a pretty arrogant assumption that such an item can't display powers you wot not. But then, arrogance does seem likely to be Durkula's downfall.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But then, arrogance does seem likely to be Durkula's downfall.

Given that Greg's supposed to be the polar opposite of Durkon, and Durkon is self-effacingly passive to the point of letting his friend get eaten by a frog, yes, I'd say that Greg being a bit too arrogant would make perfect sense.

GW

[DaggerPen]

Given that Greg's supposed to be the polar opposite of Durkon, and Durkon is self-effacingly passive to the point of letting his friend get eaten by a frog, yes, I'd say that Greg being a bit too arrogant would make perfect sense.

GW

Agreed, but to nitpick here, I wouldn't say 'polar opposite'. I mean, we've seen the comic comment about the idea of evil opposites as being a bit arbitrary anyway, but it seems more like vampires are supposed to be the embodiment of their vessel's darkest urges and resentments. Durkon* isn't Durkon's polar opposite, but the (un)living embodiment of the part of Durkon that always chafed as Suffering For Duty and Being The Side Character In His Own Life. That seems polar opposite in some ways, particularly because Durkon is so staunchly about duty and law and is generally solidly good, but I feel like 'polar opposite' implies that he's going to be the opposite in all ways. Heck, Durkon* is even still Lawful - aside from having summoned the devil, indicating a LE alignment, he's still going about things in a Lawful Evil way - organizing and leading a team, going through complex machinations, rules lawyering and enjoying it, etc., etc.

I'm not trying to be overly finicky here, honest, and I know you don't mean to imply that Durkon* is opposite in every way, but I feel like I see a lot of commenters who think that vampires are Helm of Opposite Alignment spirits, despite the comic being fairly clear that it's more complicated than that, and I'm using this as a blatant excuse for this spiel.

That aside, however, you're right that arrogance definitely seems to be one of Durkon*'s biggest potential downfalls, and that he has it precisely because Durkon himself is so passive and he's the embodied resentment that Durkon's held about it.

[goodpeople25]

On the topic of battle tactics, we're about to find out how free-willed Durkula's minions are. Because Hilgya is going to represent a serious threat, and their instructions are to kill the elf, then the cleric of Thor (poor Minrah!), and then the bard. If the minions can't choose to deal with the high level cleric, they don't have much in the way of free will.

Also, I'm wondering why Durkula thinks Roy can't save himself with his sword. It's pretty obvious it is an artifact or close to it; it's a pretty arrogant assumption that such an item can't display powers you wot not. But then, arrogance does seem likely to be Durkula's downfall.

Or some if not all could have whatever reason to go with the intial plan if not told otherwise. (General personality types, focusing on their current target, possibly misguided sense of self preservation with the high level cleric) I think it would also depend on what Hilgya is doing.

As for the sword what do you mean by wot not? Is it about Durkon* assuming the sword has no tricks left or him thinking his situation is secure enough to handle any expected additional tricks?
But yeah I think the arrogance fatal flaw is pretty darn likely, though I'd say there could be a bit more to the cause(s) on Durkon's end.

[Peelee]

Yes, there's such a thing as evidence of untruths. Google "false positive" to learn more on the subject.

False positives would seem to be an excellent example of bad evidence, or false evidence. Not exactly the kind you want to hang your hat on.

Also...

Loki could have changed alignment! YOU DON'T KNOW FOR SURE! :P

That was pretty great.

[Ironsmith]

Fun little attention to detail here... Hylgia has to explain herself to Minrah, not Roy. Apparently the guy's seen it all at this point.