OOTS #1165 - The Discussion Thread

[Ron Miel]

Defenestration is out of an window. They're going in, so its, I don't know ... Refenestration?

Intrusive ?

[danielxcutter]

From what I remember, being in Korea is like perpetually living five years in the future, and yet I still managed to get ahead of you.

...lolwut.

[martianmister]

...lolwut.

Living in Korea is like living in the future, compared to Alabama, and yet he "beat" you, someone from Korea, in the game of threads.

[Peelee]

Living in Korea is like living in the future, compared to Alabama, and yet he "beat" you, someone from Korea, in the game of threads.

Also compared to NYC, IMO, but definitely compared to Alabama.

[Roderick_BR]

Did. . . did you just make a D&D fight into a game of snakes and ladders? That's amazing.

Dang! I didn't notice that. lol

Also, once a week? Try once a round

[denthor]

Punning is an unwritten class feature of bards, clearly.

Would being unwritten mean it's silently spelled?

...ok, I'm really reaching on that one.

We do not speak of puns.
that is only for the paper.

[Jasdoif]

Nobody’s going to take the position that entering via the window is a crime against humani... uh, dwarfanity?

That's an awfully defenestrative position to take.

Defenestration is out of an window. They're going in, so its, I don't know ... Refenestration?

But they weren't even fenestrated the first time!

The position in question would be that going in was wrong, though; so it'd be antifenestrative.

Except "we'll throw you back out the window if you try to come in the window" was funnier than trying to transmogrify the word "antidisestablishmentarianism", which I only remember because someone pointed out its length when I was in middle school decades ago (compare "sesquipedalian", which I stumbled across in a dictionary in high school)....Plus "defenestrative" could be unseriously construed as a form of "defensive", and that amused me.

[Dion]

Wasn’t the American “chutes and ladders” board game originally called “snakes and ladders”?

There must be a pun involving chutes and snakes,, but I’m not creative enough to make it work.

[Zhorn]

heh, bad bard jokes are the best jokes

[Martok]

I've always enjoyed OOTS's humor, but this is the first one in a while that made me literally guffaw out loud. That last panel was absolutely brilliant.

[dtilque]

Spell resistance would block most of Elans magic (as hes multiclassed and so his caster level will be lower), and cure spells against LDW amounts to a tickle at best. Fight first, heal later would be the better tactic; this will probably be the only fight the non-dwarf Order will be involved in today, so once the LDW is down, they'll have plenty of by time for wand healing/cure light wounds.

The multiclassing isn't a huge disadvantage. As far as I can tell, he only took one level of DS. After that he's taken two more levels of Bard.

However, he's using a Chaos sabre on a chaotic being, which means he loses the bonus points there. I guess he can't do much damage either way.

[Snails]

The multiclassing isn't a huge disadvantage. As far as I can tell, he only took one level of DS. After that he's taken two more levels of Bard.

Not much of a disadvantage for Elan, being someone who just doesn't cast offensive spells very often. Healing and buffing loses only very little for one less level.

While I understand why The Giant went that way, can you imagine the comic potential of Elan actually using, say, Suggestion and Mass Suggestion in combat?

[understatement]

On a mildly-unrelated note, why is Animate Dead an Evil spell while Dominate Person isn't?

(I was just imagining Elan semi-controlling against their will, which gives off a weird vibe)

[Jasdoif]

On a mildly-unrelated note, why is Animate Dead an Evil spell while Dominate Person isn't?

Probably the same reason zombies and skeletons are Evil despite mindless creatures normally being Neutral because they have no capacity for moral or ethical decisions, and why detect evil always detects undead: "Undead = evil" is sort of a standard D&D motif.

[Snails]

On a mildly-unrelated note, why is Animate Dead an Evil spell while Dominate Person isn't?

It is a minor "sacred cow" of D&D. In the mythologies that informed ye olde D&D, most especially certain Christian medieval mythologies and story traditions that were inspired by some of those Christian mythologies, animating dead is disturbing the dead in a very wrong kind of way. Or worse. The belief that messing with a dead body can disrupt the "proper" journey of the soul is a very common one, 'round the globe, in fact.

Logically speaking, one can easily imagine a campaign world where Animate Dead was not evil, with only miniscule rule changes. I do not believe that TST/WotC has ever created such a campaign world, though.

In other words: Design Decision.
Corollary: You do not have to like a particular design decision, but not liking it for reasons does not make the decision bad.

[Dion]

On a mildly-unrelated note, why is Animate Dead an Evil spell while Dominate Person isn't?

I believe the undead are unholy abominations against nature, while telling people what to do is just a thing a boss gets to do at work.

[Fyraltari]

On a mildly-unrelated note, why is Animate Dead an Evil spell while Dominate Person isn't?

(I was just imagining Elan semi-controlling against their will, which gives off a weird vibe)

Because the people who Animate the Dead wear black robes, have a sickly pale skin and have pet snakes while the protagonists might want to use Dominate Person.

I believe the undead are unholy abominations against nature, while telling people what to do is just a thing a boss gets to do at work.

[insert rant about appeal to nature and anarchism here]

[Dion]

[insert rant about appeal to nature and anarchism here]

But calling something unnatural automatically wins all arguments!

[Resileaf]

Undead in D&D are inherently evil and want to eat the flesh of the living and do much nasty stuff.

Dominating minds, although iffy most of the time, can be used for the right reasons and is therefore not inherently reprehensible.
At the very least it's not any worse than suggestion or charm person.

[Fyraltari]

Undead in D&D are inherently evil and want to eat the flesh of the living and do much nasty stuff.

If they are mindless, that amounts to say that a storm is evil because all it does is destroy stuff and yet...

Dominating minds, although iffy most of the time, can be used for the right reasons and is therefore not inherently reprehensible.
At the very least it's not any worse than suggestion or charm person.

It’s not inherently reprehensible to snatch the agency out of someone? To make them a prisoner of their own body while a foreign intelligence does with them as it pleases?

[Resileaf]

If they are mindless, that amounts to say that a storm is evil because all it does is destroy stuff and yet...

They are not mindless, they are driven to do it. If they were mindless, they'd be as animals.

It’s not inherently reprehensible to snatch the agency out of someone? To make them a prisoner of their own body while a foreign intelligence does with them as it pleases?

If the person whose agency you are taking away is a killer on a murdering spree, is it more evil to dominate them to arrest them, or shoot a crossbow bolt in their face and kill them?
The answer is neither. You're protecting people either way, just using different methods.

[Rogar Demonblud]

It also gets into how Death deities are pretty much always Evil (and often Chaotic Evil at that), despite the fact that death is one of the most natural things out there. Or Evil versions of Good races just happening to have dark skin. To wit, certain people's prejudices and fears have been baked into the rules.

[Jasdoif]

They are not mindless, they are driven to do it. If they were mindless, they'd be as animals.

Skeletons and zombies, the only types of undead animate dead creates, have no intelligence scores and are thus mindless; Animals have intelligence scores and are thus not mindless.

[Fyraltari]

They are not mindless, they are driven to do it. If they were mindless, they'd be as animals.

Except many Undeads are explicitly called mindless by the rulebooks.

If the person whose agency you are taking away is a killer on a murdering spree, is it more evil to dominate them to arrest them, or shoot a crossbow bolt in their face and kill them?

Why would that matter? Isn't killing someone inherently reprehensible too?
If you consider creating an undead evil because an undead is a destructive force then all destructiv action should be evil too. After all, they are situations where using undeads would be the lesser evil as well. What is more evil, to conscript your countrymen to fight the armies of the Evil Empire^TM or using the dead imperials as zombies to fight their former comrades, thus minimizing the body count?

The logical solution here is to consider that the morality of all spells, like all other actions is context-dependent, and call none of them evil, save perhaps, for those who cannot have a positive use (like Familicide).

[hamishspence]

They are not mindless, they are driven to do it. If they were mindless, they'd be as animals.

Skeletons and zombies are more mindless than most animals, being INT -, whereas most animals are INT 1-2 (with the exception of insects, spiders, and other invertrebrates which are classed as "Vermin" in D&D and are Int -.)

[Resileaf]

They are perhaps mindless in the way that they have no intelligence score, but unintelligent undead are still driven to attack and kill the living. That's why they're inherently evil, it's because they, without provocation or reason, will do it.

[Fyraltari]

So will fire, yet Fireball isn't evil.

[Peelee]

Spell resistance would block most of Elans magic (as hes multiclassed and so his caster level will be lower)

The multiclassing isn't a huge disadvantage. As far as I can tell, he only took one level of DS. After that he's taken two more levels of Bard.

Every level of Dashing Swordsman contains the "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" clause in their Spells Per Day table.

Prove me wrong.

[Resileaf]

So will fire, yet Fireball isn't evil.

Fire is not driven. Fire is not a creature, living or unliving, either (and don't bring up fire elementals, they're a different kind of being entirely). It's a chemical reaction, a law of nature. It would be like calling gravity evil because it makes people fall.
Arguing in bad faith is pretty evil, though.

[Kish]

I think "why is Dominate Person not evil?" is the more interesting half of the question.

Though I think the sudden accusation of arguing in bad faith is inappropriate and bizarre here.

Every level of Dashing Swordsman contains the "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" clause in their Spells Per Day table.

Prove me wrong.

Elan said he took a bard level because he wanted to advance his spellcasting and grab Mass Cure Light Wounds and Neutralize Poison, and the point there was that he was actually planning because of being impacted by Therkla's death, not that he was stupidly not realizing how his prestige class worked.