OOTS #1171 - The Discussion Thread

[Xyril]

But Odin also is a few crows short of a murder.

Well, it's not certain he was when he made the prophecy--Thor did say he had his good days--and if he were, that's just another reason why the prophesy is the way it is aside from "conservation of detail."

[Spanish_Paladin]

I wonder if the other vampires are dusted already..

[Ruck]

Forcibly drag the vampires out? He's both the most powerful cleric and one of the only ones actually equipped for melee combat, so its not out of the question that he just beats them until they have to mist out.

I would think that would be against Dwarven Law and thus get him turned to stone.

Would it though? Vampires are classic monsters, and given the near-constant state of conflict the dwarves seem to be in, with trees if nothing else, it seems unlikely to me that there aren't provisions for going out and picking a fight with a monster, especially for the protection of your home.

Idea I just had: What if there's some Excalibur Exception (a term I don't think actually exists, but bear with me) for Durkon's new hammer? Like, somewhere way back in Dwarven law it states that since the hammer can only be wielded by the righteous messenger of Thor, its use is by definition in compliance with Dwarven law?

I thought of this because Durkon seems confident in his chances despite the rules and the Ex-Exarch's knowledge of them; the presumptive Hammer of Thunderbolts is the one thing in these recent strips that it's explicitly stated has been forgotten about with time by the Dwarves. Plus, it would be a reason that only Durkon is going into the inner chamber.

[diremage]

Idea I just had: What if there's some Excalibur Exception (a term I don't think actually exists, but bear with me) for Durkon's new hammer? Like, somewhere way back in Dwarven law it states that since the hammer can only be wielded by the righteous messenger of Thor, its use is by definition in compliance with Dwarven law?

I thought of this because Durkon seems confident in his chances despite the rules and the Ex-Exarch's knowledge of them; the presumptive Hammer of Thunderbolts is the one thing in these recent strips that it's explicitly stated has been forgotten about with time by the Dwarves. Plus, it would be a reason that only Durkon is going into the inner chamber.

He's not allowed to attack anyone in the chamber but there's no law against giving it a skylight and four fewer walls.

[zimmerwald1915]

He's not allowed to attack anyone in the chamber but there's no law against giving it a skylight and four fewer walls.

Sure there is. Destruction of property, demolition without a permit, treason (the arboreal enemy can exploit skylights, you see). . .

[Ruck]

He's not allowed to attack anyone in the chamber but there's no law against giving it a skylight and four fewer walls.

I mean, if there's something about the hammer that supersedes the law, then "he's not allowed to ___" doesn't apply to him. But to your idea, I've had similar thoughts previously; see below for more.

Sure there is. Destruction of property, demolition without a permit, treason (the arboreal enemy can exploit skylights, you see). . .

We don't know that-- and, in fact, given how much chipping at rocks the subterranean Dwarves must have to do, I could actually believe there's no blanket ban on demolition. And then you consider that Durkon has a weapon he can throw into the ceiling and have return directly to him, without relying on that pesky gravity...

[Cazero]

Plus, it would be a reason that only Durkon is going into the inner chamber.

What's that about only Durkon? Sigdi is also going in.

[Dion]

What's that about only Durkon? Sigdi is also going in.

Also, Minrah.

[Paleomancer]

Isn't the chamber only near the surface? If I'm remembering correctly (and I might not be) breaking througg the roof will only open it up to the cavern in which it is in, not to the open air.

Edit: 1155 Elder Screed
Found the link! In it, the grumpy clan elder says "You know I don't like being this close to the surface." She seems to imply the whole council structure is part of a LotR Mines of Mora cavern close, but not actually exposed, to the surface.

[The MunchKING]

Idea I just had: What if there's some Excalibur Exception (a term I don't think actually exists, but bear with me) for Durkon's new hammer? Like, somewhere way back in Dwarven law it states that since the hammer can only be wielded by the righteous messenger of Thor, its use is by definition in compliance with Dwarven law?

It's an interesting idea, but I doubt that will be the answer.

[Ruck]

What's that about only Durkon? Sigdi is also going in.

Ah, yes.

Also, Minrah.

Where does that happen?

It's an interesting idea, but I doubt that will be the answer.

Probably not, but there has to be something Durkon knows that we don't, that will allow him to thwart the vampires in the chamber.

[Squire Doodad]

Probably not, but there has to be something Durkon knows that we don't, that will allow him to thwart the vampires in the chamber.

Any Dwarven Citizen is permitted to challenge a Dwarven clan leader for the right to be inducted into the clan via rap battle, and the rap battle must be watched over by all other available clan leaders. Rap battles take precedence over all other events barring an official parlimentary investigation.

[Mad Humanist]

Any Dwarven Citizen is permitted to challenge a Dwarven clan leader for the right to be inducted into the clan via rap battle, and the rap battle must be watched over by all other available clan leaders. Rap battles take precedence over all other events barring an official parlimentary investigation.

Rap in a Dwarven accent? (I've heard rap in Polish so it's possible I guess.)

[Kader]

bankrupting a sex trafficking ring

This is not the proper name for, as far as we yet know of, one forced marriage (it would not even be the proper name for a family that has opportunistically arranged several forced marriages over the years). The proper term is forced marriage. Does your emotional appeal in favor of the principles of guilt by kinship, collective responsibility, and collective punishment of all family members, whether or not they took part, still work if we don't artificially inflate the wrongdoing to something calculated to sound much worse? Forced marriage is also a moral wrong, after all, but it seems that accurate language would facilitate accurate judgment.

[The Aboleth]

This is not the proper name for, as far as we yet know of, one forced marriage (it would not even be the proper name for a family that has opportunistically arranged several forced marriages over the years). The proper term is forced marriage. Does your emotional appeal in favor of the principles of guilt by kinship, collective responsibility, and collective punishment of all family members, whether or not they took part, still work if we don't artificially inflate the wrongdoing to something calculated to sound much worse? Forced marriage is also a moral wrong, after all, but it seems that accurate language would facilitate accurate judgment.

The_Weirdo has been explained this many times over. They don't care. Best to just ignore them, unless you're in the mood to engage them in a 20-page discussion about it in which nothing is ultimately resolved and everyone just ends up angry.

[Worldsong]

This is not the proper name for, as far as we yet know of, one forced marriage (it would not even be the proper name for a family that has opportunistically arranged several forced marriages over the years). The proper term is forced marriage. Does your emotional appeal in favor of the principles of guilt by kinship, collective responsibility, and collective punishment of all family members, whether or not they took part, still work if we don't artificially inflate the wrongdoing to something calculated to sound much worse? Forced marriage is also a moral wrong, after all, but it seems that accurate language would facilitate accurate judgment.

So far as The_Weirdo appears to be concerned a clan which engages in arranged marriages is a sex trafficking ring, despite all the logic and reason which points out the differences. I'm pretty sure they genuinely don't see it as inflating the wrongdoing to something much worse, I think they actually consider it to be about the same thing.

Best not to bother.

[Larre Gannd]

Probably not, but there has to be something Durkon knows that we don't, that will allow him to thwart the vampires in the chamber.

Perhaps it’s not illegal to cast healing spells in the chamber. Like, you know, on vampires

[Peelee]

Perhaps it’s not illegal to cast healing spells in the chamber. Like, you know, on vampires

Any spell, quoth the Gonetor.

[Larre Gannd]

Any spell, quoth the Gonetor.

Darn you and your correctness!

[danielxcutter]

Any spell, quoth the Gonetor.

I wonder if that means "all spellcasting, period", "using spells on any creature, but not objects", or "spells on creatures besides yourself".

[Peelee]

I wonder if that means "all spellcasting, period", "using spells on any creature, but not objects", or "spells on creatures besides yourself".

I'm taking "any spell on any creature" to mean no objects and including yourself.

[danielxcutter]

I'm taking "any spell on any creature" to mean no objects and including yourself.

Yeah, sounds most likely, but is that strictly the only way to interpret it? Just curious.

[Goblin_Priest]

I'm taking "any spell on any creature" to mean no objects and including yourself.

Any spells targeting any creatures are outlawed by some given unnamed rule. That doesn't mean there isn't also other rules that also happen to bar spells that don't target creatures, under different conditions. For example, spells targeting unattended items might not be banned on the whole, but it might be illegal to do a spell to change the shape of the room, or the materials, or to move through dimensions, and so on, and so on, making most spells that don't target creatures also banned. It just wasn't relevant to bring up all the minute details of what is or isn't allowed. Or possibly a surprise is in store.

[Peelee]

Yeah, sounds most likely, but is that strictly the only way to interpret it? Just curious.

You may be able to interpret it differently, but it seems like it's the author's way of telling us "hey here's a specific restriction they have to keep to."

Of course, I have historically been very, very wrong on nearly all my predictions, so take that with probably a whole can of salt.

[The_Weirdo]

So far as The_Weirdo appears to be concerned a clan which engages in arranged marriages is a sex trafficking ring, despite all the logic and reason which points out the differences. I'm pretty sure they genuinely don't see it as inflating the wrongdoing to something much worse, I think they actually consider it to be about the same thing.

Best not to bother.

Very well: what are the actual differences? Or do you think that them giving her no option on whether or not to marry has no bearing on them giving her an option - or not - on her sexual availability as regards Ivan, were he so inclined?

[Ruck]

Very well: what are the actual differences?

This was answered quite well and thoroughly by Xyril several pages ago, and given your tendency to ignore or refuse to acknowledge posts that contain information you don't want to process or can't refute, I don't think you should be trying to get someone else to repeat the same information so you can have the same argument for the 750th time.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Is garlick against dwarf law?

[DavidSh]

What's going on in the first panel of #1170, if not a spell or supernatural ability? The rule may have to be read as "on another creature". Gontor* would still be gloating.

[danielxcutter]

What's going on in the first panel of #1170, if not a spell or supernatural ability? The rule may have to be read as "on another creature". Gontor* would still be gloating.

Quite likely a specific exception, as otherwise meeting inside the blue barrier would be pointless.

[The_Weirdo]

This was answered quite well and thoroughly by Xyril several pages ago, and given your tendency to ignore or refuse to acknowledge posts that contain information you don't want to process or can't refute, I don't think you should be trying to get someone else to repeat the same information so you can have the same argument for the 750th time.

Fine. If we decide to apply such an approach, we can apply it to Hilgya, too: she didn't force Gamblingaddict to bet the entire family fortune.