OOTS #1153 - The Discussion Thread

[nolongeralurker]

Death threats one moment, mashed carrots the next.

Tha's Sigdi for ya.

[Rrmcklin]

I don't even think Hilgya being an active adventuring mother should be the assumption.

She left to become an adventurer in the first place to get out of her marriage and away from her family, but she came back because she missed dwarven lands, and now she's definitely not hurting for cash after bankrupting her clan.

Hilgya's here now because of personal issues, but I don't think the assumption should be that she still actively adventures regularly. If she does and this mission is an indicator of her bringing Kudzu with her along for everything I feel like that just hurts her credibility as a responsible mother even more.

[Gusion]

There's no such thing as a strongly neutral act--it's like saying "a zero of a high absolute value."

I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "Natural" act in D&D - It's impossible to be strongly Neutral, because Neutral, by definition, is about the lack of strong affiliation. A "Netural" act would jsut be an act that either adds nor subtracts to your morals - a +0.

I strongly disagree. Core RAW explicitly discusses there are two types of neutral characters, and one of those types is someone dedicated to keeping balance in the world and advocates neutrality. The SRD puts it this way, "Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run."

A strongly neutral act might be joining one side in a war, but then switching sides when they appear to be wiping out the other side.

[Peelee]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[The_Weirdo]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[Ironsmith]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

In a more serious sense, maybe cynicism and disillusionment? (No longer compassionate enough to be Good, but not so angry and bitter at the world as to plunge into being Evil.)

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please avoid real world politics on this Forum.

[Ruck]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

*accidentally crashes space station into planet*

[Rrmcklin]

Let me get this straight: I should avoid to point out a trend in the comic (the good housewife mom) and the fact that we have eventually a variant in H being a very relevant break from that trend, being the first one who actually we see both being a mom on screen -and not as an informed attribute good for a dramatic side plot- and a powerful character, and that I'd hate to lose that novelty, because else someone feels "manipulated"?

But while I'm writing I came up with the true question, which is: why I'm caring, actually?

Indeed I shouldn't. Feel free to feel manipulated all the way along, people.

As has already pointed out your "trend" isn't even a trend, some of your examples (Elan's mom) are just wrong but you moved the goalpost, and others rely on assumptions (Haley's mom) that I don't buy into (it seems much more likely to me that Haley's mother was also a thief and member of the Thieves Guild, and she and her husband worked as a team).

Yes, probably bringing him again in a battle would be hardly acceptable, since what happened the last time.

(Even though, to be honest, if I had her kind of power, I'd probably feel like her about: "He is safer with me than with some random schmuch who won't be able to defend him from...[put a genre-savvy threat here]", but since she had this close call, maybe that changed her mind.)

Well then, I'd call you a terrible parent too. The thing you don't seem to be acknowledging is that Hilgya's gender has nothing to do with the issue, terrible parenting decisions care not about it.

My first thought was: "I hope not! After all right now she is the most powerful cleric the heroes have around. If she is willing to join the battle against Xykon, she might do a lot against him. And since the author introduced her, he might go so far. The only downside would be if she get killed, leaving Kudzu motherless, but if she manages to trust the others, she might trust to be resurrected if they win."

But, on the other side, as soon as she will know about the end-of-the-world deal, she might just plane-shift with Kudzu in a safer place. And the author might feel that her nature would be suited for: "me and my son first, the world? not my business!"

But, again, if she was the kind of person who plane shifts and hides away, she wouldn't be such a high level character.

Conclusion: I'm still not sure if she will go away or not.

(Wow, so many words to say "I don't know!")

If you're expecting the Order of the Stick to add a main character who is not a member of the Order of the Stick, and also fills the exact same role as the character who was just revived, prepare to be disappointed.

Yes, Hilgya will go away. Frankly, I have a hard time thinking "Kudzu doesn't have her in his life" is a bad thing, but unfortunately I'm pretty sure the story agrees with your assessment on that.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I replied to woeweed, so let's make me crystal clear now: I don't need excuses, because I don't care one bit and I realized I shouldn't have cared in the first place.

If you need that, I can even make myself a sign with that sentence.

But, on a second thought, no, I don't care enough to make that effort, so you can get a post-it attached to the screen of your pc, if you need a reminder.

You're the one who unironically argued that the Order was being ungrateful for not thanking Hilgya for resurrecting Dukon after she murdered him herself because "the net result is that he's alive again, and he deserved it anyway". That you don't care what anyone has to say about your ridiculous take on this character while blatantly excusing anything she does is obvious.

[Kish]

Actually, he obviously does care. He's made at least two posts now proclaiming how much he doesn't care, and that's not something anyone does if it's true. (I don't know if it's more than two, 'cause I only see his posts when someone else quotes him.)

[Ironsmith]

As has already pointed out your "trend" isn't even a trend, some of your examples (Elan's mom) are just wrong but you moved the goalpost, and others rely on assumptions (Haley's mom) that I don't buy into (it seems much more likely to me that Haley's mother was also a thief and member of the Thieves Guild, and she and her husband worked as a team).

Also, whether Hylgia is the only of whatever specific qualifiers are used doesn't change that her behavior is reprehensible. "Gosh, I'd sure hate to see Elan learn to care about people more than stories, since he's the only clean-shaven blonde man in the entire comic! (Think about how that'd reflect on clean-shaven blonde men. For shame, for shame...)"

[Gusion]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

I'd say a desire for contentment not happiness.

The "middle way" is a very important concept in Buddhism, for example.

[Dr.Zero]

As has already pointed out your "trend" isn't even a trend, some of your examples (Elan's mom) are just wrong but you moved the goalpost, and others rely on assumptions (Haley's mom) that I don't buy into (it seems much more likely to me that Haley's mother was also a thief and member of the Thieves Guild, and she and her husband worked as a team).

No, I didn't move the goal post, this is from my very first post on the subject.

For one, I won't be comfortable at all with the only powerful high level working[1] adventuring[2] mom we have seen in the comic to be someway "reformed".

[...]

[1] No, in d&d having a tavern doesn't count.
[2] No, V doesn't count, either. For at least a couple of reasons I'm sure anyone can understand by oneself.

And I have even stated that I already pointed out that. So, try again.

Actually, he obviously does care. He's made at least two posts now proclaiming how much he doesn't care, and that's not something anyone does if it's true. (I don't know if it's more than two, 'cause I only see his posts when someone else quotes him.)

LOL!

The old nice: "I ignored him, theoretically to avoid him, but I still feel the need to talk about him"
I suppose I should be honored. If I cared enough about this, I mean.

[Rogar Demonblud]

At Hilgya's WBL ridiculously hypercompetent childcare is a rounding error in the family budget. She has no excuses and no justification.

[woweedd]

No, I didn't move the goal post, this is from my very first post on the subject.



And I have even stated that I already pointed out that. So, try again.



LOL!

The old nice: "I ignored him, theoretically to avoid him, but I still feel the need to talk about him"
I suppose I should be honored. If I cared enough about this, I mean.

You know, bragging about how much you don't care doesn't really create the impression that you're being honest with yourself about not caring.

[Dr.Zero]

You know, bragging about how much you don't care doesn't really create the impression that you're being honest with yourself about not caring.

You're making some confusion about caring and poking fun.

[woweedd]

I strongly disagree. Core RAW explicitly discusses there are two types of neutral characters, and one of those types is someone dedicated to keeping balance in the world and advocates neutrality. The SRD puts it this way, "Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run."

A strongly neutral act might be joining one side in a war, but then switching sides when they appear to be wiping out the other side.

Yeha, except that concept ever made much sense to me. Take it far enough, and you end up like the "Neutral" route in an RPG, doing enough good and evil acts to "balance out", without any coherent reasoning behind it.

[Ruck]

A strongly neutral act might be joining one side in a war, but then switching sides when they appear to be wiping out the other side.

I'm going to suggest that joining a war in such fashion as to function as someone who keeps the war going as long as possible probably isn't actually Neutral.

[Fyraltari]

I'm going to suggest that joining a war in such fashion as to function as someone who keeps the war going as long as possible probably isn't actually Neutral.

It also seem to assume that the war is between an evil side and a good side. Which is quite rare, as far as wars go.

[Erys]

I strongly disagree. Core RAW explicitly discusses there are two types of neutral characters, and one of those types is someone dedicated to keeping balance in the world and advocates neutrality. The SRD puts it this way, "Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run."

A strongly neutral act might be joining one side in a war, but then switching sides when they appear to be wiping out the other side.

I would put neutral as inaction. You don't have a dog in that fight, so to speak, so you stay out of the affair/fight.

To join a war, then switch sides when your side is winning strikes me more as someone who enjoys battle and killing... which, imho, is more evil than anything else.

[The_Weirdo]

It also seem to assume that the war is between an evil side and a good side. Which is quite rare, as far as wars go.

Not as much as you might think. And relativizing an Evil side - particularly a Lawful one - is a great way to have said Evil side compete for the narrative, to the point of having its representatives become leaders again down the road.

No; the right and wrong sides of history must be made clear. Take it from someone who knows. The wrong side of history not being treated as utter abject evil has caused a lot of damage, within literary works and outside them. Every Tarquin-like leader is a monster, should be treated as such and that fact should never, ever be whitewashed.

[Dr.Zero]

If past discussions are of any indication, if one side goes trying to convince the other side that "this is neutral", nothing will be declared neutral.

What I think might help is the old: "Don't be part of the problem, but part of the solution".

So, since d&d rules explicitly say that one of the possibilities to be neutral is to seek balance, ask yourselves: "If I was a GM, what I'd say it's the right way to seek balance between good/evil?"

When you've reached an answer, that is the answer you were searching.

(Which adds as a bonus a nice mystic tone about "look inside yourself" and all that new age stuff)

At that point, instead of asking to someone else what he sees as seeking balance, you can offer your own definitions to compare with the others. Or keep if for yourself (like I'll do), but knowing it exists.

(And if you can't reach any answer, then the game is not for you, if not house ruled to someway eliminate neutrality from the alignment.)

[Fyraltari]

Not as much as you might think. And relativizing an Evil side - particularly a Lawful one - is a great way to have said Evil side compete for the narrative, to the point of having its representatives become leaders again down the road.

No; the right and wrong sides of history must be made clear. Take it from someone who knows. The wrong side of history not being treated as utter abject evil has caused a lot of damage, within literary works and outside them. Every Tarquin-like leader is a monster, should be treated as such and that fact should never, ever be whitewashed.

Thank you for helping me make my point.

[woweedd]

Not as much as you might think. And relativizing an Evil side - particularly a Lawful one - is a great way to have said Evil side compete for the narrative, to the point of having its representatives become leaders again down the road.

No; the right and wrong sides of history must be made clear. Take it from someone who knows. The wrong side of history not being treated as utter abject evil has caused a lot of damage, within literary works and outside them. Every Tarquin-like leader is a monster, should be treated as such and that fact should never, ever be whitewashed.

OK, while I get where you're coming form, viewing things in complete black-and-white, good-or-bad terms doesn't actually work very well in the real world.

[The_Weirdo]

OK, while I get where you're coming form, viewing things in complete black-and-white, good-or-bad terms doesn't actually work very well in the real world.

I'm coming from Brazil. :P

Thank you for helping me make my point.

What? Should we really relativize Tarquin-like leaders?

[Fyraltari]

What? Should we really relativize Tarquin-like leaders?

We shouldn't demonize people this only leads to more violence down the line. Pretending people are nothing but monsters and dehumanizing the entire sides breed more conflict and is the favorite tactics of dictators everywhere, as well as pretending that only one side is responsible for the wrongdoings. In most cases both sides are responsible for the conflict and in all of them both sides have atrocities to answer for. Claiming "we are on the right side of history" is all too often an excuse for the horrors committed something you ought to be familiar with.

[The_Weirdo]

We shouldn't demonize people this only leads to more violence down the line. Pretending people are nothing but monsters and dehumanizing the entire sides breed more conflict and is the favorite tactics of dictators everywhere, as well as pretending that only one side is responsible for the wrongdoings. In most cases both sides are responsible for the conflict and in all of them both sides have atrocities to answer for. Claiming "we are on the right side of history" is all too often an excuse for the horrors committed something you ought to be familiar with.

And yet, being all careful not to demonize people may well end up giving the people that began the conflict or that are, yes, very much on the wrong side of history a pass, no? To include a pass to repeat what they did previously? If Tarquin were to cede power "peacefully" and never, ever be called out or punished for his many, many crimes, how long would it be before the Empire of Blood or its successor state were under the heel of a Tarquin or its fan, or an Empress of Blood clone?

[Worldsong]

If someone is trying to argue that we should judge everything in black and white I'll refrain from talking about real life examples and instead point at Miko.

THAT is what you get when you start thinking that one side is pure evil.

Some of the most vile things are done by people proclaiming to be fighting evil.

[Fyraltari]

And yet, being all careful not to demonize people may well end up giving the people that began the conflict or that are, yes, very much on the wrong side of history a pass, no? To include a pass to repeat what they did previously? If Tarquin were to cede power "peacefully" and never, ever be called out or punished for his many, many crimes, how long would it be before the Empire of Blood or its successor state were under the heel of a Tarquin or its fan, or an Empress of Blood clone?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

[The_Weirdo]

That's a slippery slope fallacy.

And if I were to bring up a hypothetical or literary example you'd call it anecdotal, but being anecdotal wouldn't matter to the people hypothetically living under that example...