OOTS #615 - The Discussion Thread

[Blanth]

Haley still doesn't know whether to use silver or cold iron

Excellent point. And there's really only one way to find out. 2cp says it's going to end up NOT being cold iron next they meet. Oh well.

Please note that most monsters with elemental resistances are still affected normally by sonic attacks, though it is rather poor for sneaking around unnoticed.

I do believe you are forgetting: SONIC!

[Shady_halfling]

Wait, where's she getting the arrows from?

crystal didn't break her quiver she still had that.

[Kish]

Belonging to the Thieves' Guild in the first place (which he did, he was 'one of their best snipers') is lawful?

Yes. Belonging to any but the most anarchic of organizations is a demonstration of order, and this Thieves' Guild is very ordered indeed, with rules, regulations, and a leader who cites "the good of the guild" as a justification for suppressing independent competition.

Whether it supports "the law" is irrelevant to the "Lawful" alignment.

[hamishspence]

oddly, sample thieves in Cityscape are all non-good, nonlawful.

Belonging to an organization doesn't make you lawful. Taking orders from superior, that you disagree with, or don't respect personally, thats more obviously Lawful. Even Chaotic orcs obey their warlord, if only out of respect and fear.

and look at Shojo- he didn't just belong to organization- he was head of it. His Chaotic side could be seen in his breaking its rules (secretly).

[mroozee]

I don't think you quite understand how large the Greysky City guild is.

It may be large, but we have seen the same Guild Members around Haley over and over - something you wouldn't expect to see if there were hundreds of guild members running around. My guess is that we have seen close to everyone in the guild - or at least close to everyone who is looking for the OOTS'ers.

[Fighteer]

Yes. Belonging to any but the most anarchic of organizations is a demonstration of order, and this Thieves' Guild is very ordered indeed, with rules, regulations, and a leader who cites "the good of the guild" as a justification for suppressing independent competition.

Whether it supports "the law" is irrelevant to the "Lawful" alignment.

Negative, Ghost Rider. If that were true, than Chaotic individuals could never form groups of anything other than temporary convenience. A Thieves' Guild has rules, to be sure, but they are generally based on the idea of maximizing its members' ability to profit without crowding each others' turf. Leadership in such a guild is based on your ability to navigate the murky currents of power in a Chaotic political system while keeping your back free of sharp stabby instruments.

Or you can look at it this way: in a Lawful organization, members can be expected to follow the rules because they are rules. In a Chaotic organization, rules are only followed if they are more convenient than not following them.

By saying Chaotic characters can't form a guild, you make one of the basic D&D alignment mistakes: thinking that Chaos means total rejection of all rules. Chaotic characters are not crazed lawless anarchists. They do not break laws simply because they exist. They do not roll a die every morning to decide what to do that day. On the other hand, they do value individualism over blind obedience. They feel that actions speak louder than words. They follow leaders who command their respect, not just ones who are placed over them by a law or rule. In fact, they inherently distrust anything that smacks of arbitrary authority.

Such individuals can be persuaded to band together for a common cause, but the leader must always be one step ahead or he'll find himself replaced (or worse, ignored). This perfectly describes a Thieves' Guild.

[LuisDantas]

It may be large, but we have seen the same Guild Members around Haley over and over - something you wouldn't expect to see if there were hundreds of guild members running around. My guess is that we have seen close to everyone in the guild - or at least close to everyone who is looking for the OOTS'ers.

Haley's statement that she knows all her current opponents by name supports your conclusion. It suggests that Haley herself doesn't expect the guild to have many new people.

Of course, she was proven wrong when Yor joined the fray. But still, it is an indicator of the guild's size.

[David Argall]

It may be large, but we have seen the same Guild Members around Haley over and over - something you wouldn't expect to see if there were hundreds of guild members running around.

This is a literary problem, not an indication of the size of the guild. Writers tend to reuse characters rather than invent new ones. Sometimes for good reason. Look at all the strips wanting to see X again. And it is less work too. So the members of the guild who appeared before have a strong tendency to appear again, whether the guild is 10 members or 10,000.

[Toper]

Does no one else wonder how a blind man in Greysky City managed to retain a fortune in magical weaponry in an unprotected room right off the front foyer?

[John Campbell]

You'd also have to add the 1d6 cold damage from the basic frost property of the weapon itself. 1d6+2d10 cold gives a pretty decent shot at blowing through Sabine's resistance.

She only gets the +2d10 on a crit, and probably only crits on a 20.

Icy burst really isn't a very good enchantment... 95% of the time, plain old frost is just as good, and it's way cheaper.

[Fighteer]

Does no one else wonder how a blind man in Greysky City managed to retain a fortune in magical weaponry in an unprotected room right off the front foyer?

Nobody but the people it's intended for ever notice the Wall of Weapons. It's a basic staple of comedic fiction.

[WarriorTribble]

Does no one else wonder how a blind man in Greysky City managed to retain a fortune in magical weaponry in an unprotected room right off the front foyer?

The Thief Guild also acted as a police force of shorts. As long as Pete payed his protection money, I'm sure his stuff would have remained unstolen and protected.

[Kish]

Negative, Ghost Rider. If that were true, than Chaotic individuals could never form groups of anything other than temporary convenience. A Thieves' Guild has rules, to be sure, but they are generally based on the idea of maximizing its members' ability to profit without crowding each others' turf.

Because, of course, every Thieves' Guild is a Chaotic organization even though rogues can be any alignment. We agree on one thing: One of us is making one of the basic alignment mistakes.

(For the record, though, saying that supporting an organization is inherently Lawful--how Lawful, depends on the precise nature of the organization, with Bozzok's guild seeming more Lawful than a lot of organizations--isn't at all the same as saying no Chaotic character could do it.)

[Starwaster]

If you wrote for a living, you might well feel differently. Many writers have been harassed by people who claim that the writer 'stole' some idea of theirs. Ask David Gerrold.

It's probably an occupational hazard.

Actually, Ive allways thought that statement by Rich is both rude and pompous. "Inspriation" is no cuss-word and I dont think even daVinci could have done without it. There really is no reason for an artist to comment on such things in either direction unless there is some moronic american law of "partial copyright", or the likes, that forces you to state something like this.

[Fighteer]

Because, of course, every Thieves' Guild is a Chaotic organization even though rogues can be any alignment. We agree on one thing: One of us is making one of the basic alignment mistakes.

I'd challenge you to find an explanation of a Thieves Guild that doesn't involve breaking the law in some way. Now there are some morality plays where one or more of the principal members of such a guild might be Lawful, but it doesn't really fit in with the whole "breaking into houses and taking the shineys" concept.

(For the record, though, saying that supporting an organization is inherently Lawful--how Lawful, depends on the precise nature of the organization, with Bozzok's guild seeming more Lawful than a lot of organizations--isn't at all the same as saying no Chaotic character could do it.)

Supporting an organization is inherently neither Lawful nor Chaotic. It depends entirely on the motivations behind the support.

Edit: Ugh, I need to spend more time reading before posting. I think you are agreeing with me?

Bozzok's Thieves' Guild may be slightly better organized than many, but its basic methods are no less unlawful, which I will stipulate does not automatically mean Chaotic. The fact that members who leave are threatened with death, though, indicates that the guild isn't placing much faith in their honor and loyalty. Further, it's pretty obvious that Bozzok didn't rise to his present position by means of a popular vote, and that he won't leave that way either. However, in the meantime, he has it quite firmly under his control... well, until Haley showed up anyway.

You also have to take the guild in context to its surroundings; compared to the general state of anarchy in Greysky, almost any form of organization looks Lawful.

[xelliea]

nice comic, where are the 5000 comics?

[KuH]

Hmmm, Yor's name has me thinking ...

Spoiler

Show

I wonder if his name is a long setup for a gruesome death followed by the pun of: 'Alas, poor Yor', 'Ick', 'I knew him well'

[Kish]

I'd challenge you to find an explanation of a Thieves Guild that doesn't involve breaking the law in some way.

Irrelevant, since the Lawful alignment has to do with "ordered," not "the law."

Edit: Ugh, I need to spend more time reading before posting. I think you are agreeing with me?

Bozzok's Thieves' Guild may be slightly better organized than many, but its basic methods are no less unlawful, which I will stipulate does not automatically mean Chaotic. The fact that members who leave are threatened with death, though, indicates that the guild isn't placing much faith in their honor and loyalty.

I would say the exact opposite. The fact that Bozzok exerts such firm and uncompromising control over the Guild, with structured rules, lethal punishment for infractions, and detailed bookkeeping on how much of their take the guild's members have to give "to the guild" (it being nearly all is the evil part), and Bozzok even lectures Haley on how it would be "bad for the Guild" if she was permitted to ignore the rules, shows this particular Thieves' Guild as probably the most strongly Lawful Evil organization we've seen in the comic to date. (Or, at least, that's what Bozzok wants it to be--remembering both Hank and Pete stealing from the guild, it's quite possible that a more thorough view of the guild would show it as seething anarchy barely held under nominal control by its Lawful Evil leader. But this whole tangent started because someone said it was Chaotic for Pete to join the guild at all, which demonstrates the classic "they break the law, so they're the opposite of Lawful" alignment misunderstanding.)

[dps]

Irrelevant, since the Lawful alignment has to do with "ordered," not "the law."

I would say the exact opposite. The fact that Bozzok exerts such firm and uncompromising control over the Guild, with structured rules, lethal punishment for infractions, and detailed bookkeeping on how much of their take the guild's members have to give "to the guild" (it being nearly all is the evil part), and Bozzok even lectures Haley on how it would be "bad for the Guild" if she was permitted to ignore the rules, shows this particular Thieves' Guild as probably the most strongly Lawful Evil organization we've seen in the comic to date. (Or, at least, that's what Bozzok wants it to be--remembering both Hank and Pete stealing from the guild, it's quite possible that a more thorough view of the guild would show it as seething anarchy barely held under nominal control by its Lawful Evil leader. But this whole tangent started because someone said it was Chaotic for Pete to join the guild at all, which demonstrates the classic "they break the law, so they're the opposite of Lawful" alignment misunderstanding.)

In the real world, a person who doesn't want to be bound by any rules or regulations himself (which would be chaotic) may still very well attempt to tightly control the actions of his subordinates/underlings (which would be lawful). I'm not sure how that dichotomy would work in DnD terms; it's been too long since I've played, and I never played all that much anyway.

[The Minx]

In the real world, a person who doesn't want to be bound by any rules or regulations himself (which would be chaotic) may still very well attempt to tightly control the actions of his subordinates/underlings (which would be lawful). I'm not sure how that dichotomy would work in DnD terms; it's been too long since I've played, and I never played all that much anyway.

Wanting others to submit to tight control by your rules and desires is not necessarily Lawful. Even the Slaad Lords want their minions to obey them. That is not to say that they are successful as long as said minions are beyond arm's reach, of course, but still.

[Kish]

Wanting others to submit to tight control by your rules and desires is not necessarily Lawful. Even the Slaad Lords want their minions to obey them. That is not to say that they are successful as long as said minions are beyond arm's reach, of course, but still.

Yes, but how would they phrase that?

Would they talk about, "The good of all slaad," and have books of formalized rules? Or would they just say, "Don't piss me off or I'll beat you up"?

[Assassin89]

Being lawful does not mean you do always follow the rules of society. If a certain rule in society is corrupt, a lawful person is not obliged to follow it. Similarly for chaotic people, although a code of conduct can be placed onto others, they are not obliged to follow.

[The Minx]

Yes, but how would they phrase that?

Would they talk about, "The good of all slaad," and have books of formalized rules? Or would they just say, "Don't piss me off or I'll beat you up"?

Probably it would include #2.

Instead of #1, it would be "this is in your personal interests too, because of X, Y and Z". Reasons X, Y and Z may well have been arranged by the Slaad Lord at some prior point, of course.

[Samurai Jill]

Wanting others to submit to tight control by your rules and desires is not necessarily Lawful.

How else do you define obedience to authority figures? Emphasis on hierarchy, control and group composition strikes me as pretty much Lawful.

[hamishspence]

Elves society has its courts to resolve disputes, Orc society has what order there is enforced by strength, Drow Society, while more NE with CE leaders, has "tradition" as one of its most important ordering factors.

very few Chaotic societies are completely without some form of rules- the Diaboli in Dragon Compedium, and earlier Mystara setting, have no government, but still have traditions, taboos, etc.

in the context of D&D, Chaotic societies aren't completely disordered, its just the way the are ordered tend to be different from Lawful societies- less conformist, but they still have rules and traditions.

[Samurai Jill]

Yes, exactly. But that's still a Lawful aspect to other Chaotic individuals.

Personally I think the term 'Chaotic society' is an oxymoron. Societies, by definition, need to be fairly damn regimented or they don't last long enough in a particular form to be called a 'society.'

[hamishspence]

How regimented can cover a fairly wide range, from "do no harm, but otherwise do as you like" (anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted) to the reverse- rules are all- anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden.

a Chaotic society might has laws restricting the governmnet, police- etc- freedom of action, conscience, and so on. The higher the focus on "individual rights" the more likely it is that a society has a Chaotic bent.

Elves, in Races of the Wild, are a fairly Chaotic society whose rulers rule with a light hand.

[mroozee]

This is a literary problem, not an indication of the size of the guild. Writers tend to reuse characters rather than invent new ones. Sometimes for good reason. Look at all the strips wanting to see X again. And it is less work too. So the members of the guild who appeared before have a strong tendency to appear again, whether the guild is 10 members or 10,000.

Fair enough though this may just be a distinction without a difference. From Haley's point of view, if the guild has 10,000 members but only 30 will ever interact with the story (for literary reasons) there's not a whole lot of plot significance added by the remaining 9,970. So maybe a better way to phrase it would've been:

"My guess is that we have seen close to everyone in the guild that we will see - or at least close to everyone that we will observe looking for the OOTS'ers."

With the exact same justification.

[Fighteer]

In a Lawful society, people can generally be expected to follow the rules and structures merely because they exist. Disobedience tends to take the form of attempting to work within the system to overturn bad laws. Enforcement tends to be strict and by the book. There is usually a clearly defined process for selecting leaders and that process may or may not have anything to do with the quality of the person chosen. The social hierarchy is clearly established and there is a formal system for moving up or down the ladder, if it's possible at all. Justice is meted out by courts and appointed officials.

In a Chaotic society, people follow the rules when they agree with them or when the consequences for disobedience aren't worth the potential gain, and feel free to disregard them otherwise. Enforcement can be brutal (in a Chaotic Evil society), capricious (in a Chaotic Neutral society), or based on the greatest good (in a Chaotic Good society), but is seldom highly regimented. Prisons, if they exist, are for the worst offenders; most punishments are fast and direct. Leadership tends to fall to the most effective or at least the most popular individual, and is seldom long-term unless it's hereditary, in which case there's usually a council that does whatever the hell it wants most of the time. The social hierarchy is fluid and mobility is based on merit, power, charisma, or whatever the society values.

Neutrals are of course somewhere inbetween, with formal rules but a less structured system for dealing with them.

In short, a Chaotic society does not equal an anarchy. Well, it may at times, but that's as much an extreme as the Lawful Stupid archetype. Even Chaotic individuals recognize that some structures are needed to make a society work, and those who reject structure entirely usually wander off to do their own thing with little fanfare.

While it's true that a Thieves' Guild could in theory be a Lawful organization, it's extremely rare and one would expect severe clashes within such a group between the highly regimented structure and the individualism of its members. Similarly, there's nothing saying that a Chaotic guild can't have strong, effective leadership and well-enforced rules as long as its members agree that it's in their best interest or are too cowed to rebel.

If Bozzok's guild had formal ranks, a military-like chain of command, a Constitution, a fee/rate structure, a court/appeal system, uniforms, etc., then I might suspect it of being Lawful. However, I've seen nothing in the comic to suggest this, and everything to suggest that Bozzok leads by virtue of competence and by eliminating anyone who's a serious rival. These are fundamentally Chaotic principles, regardless of his alignment, which may indeed be Neutral or even Lawful.

[hamishspence]

now, the Thieves Guild on Discworld- that takes regimentation a long way- quotas, authorized thievery by permission of the Patrician, rules for how much thieves of lower rank can steal compared to higher rank, opportunities for people to pay premium to insure no more than a certain level of crime against themselves, etc.

And unauthorized crime meets with the full force of Injustice, which is generally a big stick with nails in it.

You'd have to go a long way to find a more Lawful Thieves Guild than the Ankh-Morpork one.