1068: Tactical options

[Seto]

Absolutely. Because what folks are saying is there is a difference between PRINCIPLES and PREFERENCES.

Folks can have preferences and be willing to shed them when the tide starts to turn badly. Principles are supposed to be more bedrock.

Especially if there is more than one way to skin a cat here, leaving one's principles intact.

I find this point interesting. I would characterize your definition of the word "principle" as Lawful. Pendell's idea of a principle (a rule you follow unless the circumstances are really dire) strikes me as Neutral on the L/C axis. That which you call "preferences" is what some Chaotic characters call "principles". The difference between Chaotic and Neutral being that the first may bend principles if it's a bit more convenient, and the second only when it is A LOT more convenient. Principles understood as laws, rules, or guidelines - that's one of my favorite metrics to place a character on the L/C axis. Admittedly it's not perfect and not the only one, so counterexamples may exist and YMMV.

With that on mind, the question becomes - how Lawful is Roy? I could see it going either way. He is LG, after all, so that's a point for you; but he's been established to veer towards Neutral Good in practice, and to be too snarky for his own good, making him likely to taunt people.
I personally don't see him using THIS taunt, though. I just don't picture it, it's too unlike his character development. And I'm not at all convinced that it's A LOT more convenient, making his Neutral tendencies moot. He might think of something else to taunt with.

As for how I would act if I played Roy? Probably Total Defence for a bit, stalling while observing my surroundings and waiting for a good idea to dawn on me or an opportunity to arise. If it doesn't happen and the fight gets even worse, then I would try other options, like a Desperate Grapple or Bull Rush to throw the Giant overboard.

[Gusion]

Again, this is based on the premise that you could gain a tactical advantage from doing so greater than some other plan that you could quickly and easily think of. Because this is split second thinking Roy needs to do here. We've been arguing about this for several days now and have not come with an obviously superior option.

Speak for yourself. I assert I have presented an obviously superior option, it is just people chose to argue about sexism instead of the battle mechanics. Not a single person has argued my option isn't superior, especially according to RAW.

The only reason I see to pull out sexist insults, particularly before trying anything else, is a belief that if you didn't violate your principles for a victory you're somehow cheating by getting it.

I agree. The moral hoops some people will jump through to justify bad behavior amazes me...

[nocoolnamejim]

Speak for yourself. I assert I have presented an obviously superior option, it is just people chose to argue about sexism instead of the battle mechanics. Not a single person has argued my option isn't superior, especially according to RAW.

I agree. The moral hoops some people will jump through to justify bad behavior amazes me...

I have, however, stipulated that I'm arguing the general moral principle and am not an expert on the D&D 3.0/3.5 edition ruleset.

There are, to a certain extent, parallel conversations going on here. Those who are arguing in the hypothetical and those who are, for lack of a better way to put it, D&D rules lawyering.

I'd also argue that the people making your argument would be better served by doing so in a less personal manner.

Or, pointing to the bolded part of your post, to put another way, people arguing your viewpoint seem to persist in heavily implying - or even outright stating - that anyone who disagrees with their particular interpretation is an immoral jackass.

[Liquor Box]

Speak for yourself. I assert I have presented an obviously superior option, it is just people chose to argue about sexism instead of the battle mechanics. Not a single person has argued my option isn't superior, especially according to RAW.

You're comment from the last page was focused on RAW. But we know that RAW is not what applies to taunting in the OotSverse because we have seen taunting work in Thog's battle with Roy - in that battle Roy appeared to not require a standard action to taunt, and the outcome of Roy's successful taunting was not that Thog was shaken.

I do agree (based on real life) that a taunt would probably not help Roy here. But it does not matter what is actually the optimal action for Roy to take. roy's choice of actions are based on his own subjective choices made while in pain, and in a fraction of a second. If taunting is the first thing that occurs to him, or if it something he (perhaps wrongly) assesses as the best course of action, then our second guessing of that choice is meaningless. What people are debating is whether Roy, having decided (wrongly or not) that taunting is his best option, should constrain himself on the basis that a particular taunt is against his principles.

I very much doubt Roy will taunt, only because we have already seen that from him in the Thog fight.

[Xyril]

Again, if you truly believe in your principles you will stick to them no matter what, because there's always a better choice.

Your statement as written starts to contradict itself once you start to think about how it applies to reality. Based on everything you have stated, you don't seem to believe that something counts as a principle unless you're willing to treat it as the singular, top level priority above all other considerations. The problem is, once you start holding plural principles, you run the risk of running into situations where your different principles come into conflict, and if there is some choice that somehow avoids compromising even a single one of your principles, it might not be possible to for a human being of your abilities, given the constraints of your limited knowledge and possibly time, to actually see that choice.

So perhaps a more plausible assertion for you to make is "Again, if you truly believe in your principle you will stick to it no matter what, because there's everything else you believe in is merely a preference."

I think that, by your perspective, most people don't truly believe in principles, because they actually believe in a variety of principles with a wide range of priority levels, and one of their top level principles is that they try to follow the unwritten Miko rule: Don't take any actions (or refuse to take action) that will substantially make things worse for other people for the sake of preserving your own sense of moral superiority and ideological purity.

[Gusion]

But we know that RAW is not what applies to taunting in the OotSverse because we have seen taunting work in Thog's battle with Roy - in that battle Roy appeared to not require a standard action to taunt, and the outcome of Roy's successful taunting was not that Thog was shaken.

Actually, no. Roy was running around in 808 after Thog was already enraged and taunting him. That's it. That's a move action and a standard action. There is no evidence from that battle with Thog that Roy wasn't using a standard action to taunt. In RAW the standard reaction to *intimidate* is to be shaken, but maybe Giant was using bluff instead. *shrugs* That's his right - we only guess at what he's doing.

What people are debating is whether Roy, having decided (wrongly or not) that taunting is his best option, should constrain himself on the basis that a particular taunt is against his principles.

That may be what you're debating, but I'd say that isn't what everyone is debating. The original question was:

So, if you were playing Roy's character, what would you do in this situation?

I have, however, stipulated that I'm arguing the general moral principle and am not an expert on the D&D 3.0/3.5 edition ruleset.

Moral principles exist in D&D 3.5 within a set context (good/evil & lawful/chaotic). Many people are arguing within that because that's the framework for the greater discussion - that's the point of these fora.

Or, pointing to the bolded part of your post, to put another way, people arguing your viewpoint seem to persist in heavily implying - or even outright stating - that anyone who disagrees with their particular interpretation is an immoral jackass.

It is perhaps your lack of experience with D&D that leads you to this conclusion. I'd say those that disagree aren't lawful good. You may interpret being lawful evil as an immoral jackass, but that isn't necessarily so for a lot of people. They certainly don't think so, at least.

[halfeye]

The original statement "there is no such thing as a fair fight when you're fighting for your life" refers to the fact that there are rules in normal civil conduct and in sport-fighting, like boxing or MMA. No hitting below the belt, no eye-gouging, no biting. There's stuff you don't do because it causes permanent damage.

Well, guess what? When you're fighting for your life "not inflicting permanent damage" on someone trying to kill you should not be a concern at all. So that goes by the boards and you do whatever you have to.

There are still the Geneva conventions. Shooting surrendered prisoners because they are inconvenient is a warcrime.

[Xyril]

There are still the Geneva conventions. Shooting surrendered prisoners because they are inconvenient is a warcrime.

I think you're overlooking the part about "when fighting for your life." If the enemy has surrendered (and by that I mean actually surrendered, not waving a white flag in one hand and pointing a gun at you with the other), then you can be reasonably assured that your life isn't in immediate danger anymore.

I believe that when most moral people talk about "fighting for your life" in the context of justifying behavior that might be unjustified under other circumstances, they don't regard "a guy is trying to kill you, personally, with a knife" and "a country has declared war on your country, and somewhere far removed from you, a few of your citizens are fighting a few of their citizens." While they may disagree strongly on precisely what actions are justified in each situation, I think most people generally find that neutralizing an immediate and personal danger justifies more drastic actions than a more distant and abstract threat.

In other words, if you're trying to kill me, then I feel justified doing whatever I have to to you to get you to stop, up to killing you if necessary. Once you have surrendered, you have stopped, and extreme measures are no longer justified. If somewhere out there, your countryman Bob is trying to kill my countryman Steve, then I feel Steve is justified doing whatever he has to to Bob in order to stop him. But the fact that somewhere out there Bob is trying to kill Steve and will eventually get to me if unstopped doesn't give me the right do whatever I want to you.

The state of war might justify certain actions to prevent you from running back to help Bob, but it doesn't justify anything and everything. In fact, the only people in this thread who have raised the argument that war justifies just about everything have been the guys pointing out how wrong that argument is.

That may be what you're debating, but I'd say that isn't what everyone is debating.

No, as others have already pointed out--repeatedly-- there are (at least) two different debates going on, one very strictly following the question raised in the OP, and another debating an issue that sprang from that original debate that more than a few people seem to find interesting.

Personally, I have no problem with that. Discussions often go places nobody predicted--that's what makes them fun--and the second debate is related enough to the original one that I think it would seem very artificial to spin it off into a new threat. And for the most part, it's usually very obvious which debate someone is engaging in, so if I'm not at all interested in the secondary debate, I simply stop reading a post once I realize it's unrelated to my interests, and I don't respond to the post.

It is perhaps your lack of experience with D&D that leads you to this conclusion. I'd say those that disagree aren't lawful good. You may interpret being lawful evil as an immoral jackass, but that isn't necessarily so for a lot of people.

It is perhaps your lack of experience with humans unfamiliar with the rules of D&D that leads you to this conclusion, but when you say things such as "The moral hoops some people will jump through to justify bad behavior amazes me..." regarding folks who disagree with you, they tend to take it as being a bit judgmental. For that matter, even if "evil lawful" is not strictly synonymous with "immoral jackass," calling a player (not his character) either is pretty insulting, even to folks who ARE familiar with the rules of D&D.

[Ruck]

I don't think "inconvenient" is necessarily the right word to use when discussing principles. I think most people have a hierarchical set of principles, which they do their best to keep until those principles come into conflict, then the hierarchy (whether or not the person realizes this) guides which principle takes precedence. (Indeed, many great dramatic works have been written about characters who didn't realize this about themselves until they had to choose.)

I don't think it makes someone a terrible person to have "saving my life (which I am using to save the lives of those around me, and also the world)" as a higher principle than "not saying sexist things." But then, I also think you have to contort pretty hard to come up with a scenario where "saying sexist things" is likely to be an effective option worth justifying. You could convince me Roy sincerely believes it is, I suppose.

[Mido]

"Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters."
-Javik

I hope somebody here played the ME series, because that quote would just go over most everybody's heads. I was a paragon player through and through for most of the series but that did make me waver to renegade a lot. Still, I think an agree to disagree maybe in order here due to an impasse.

I don't think "inconvenient" is necessarily the right word to use when discussing principles. I think most people have a hierarchical set of principles, which they do their best to keep until those principles come into conflict, then the hierarchy (whether or not the person realizes this) guides which principle takes precedence. (Indeed, many great dramatic works have been written about characters who didn't realize this about themselves until they had to choose.)

I don't think it makes someone a terrible person to have "saving my life (which I am using to save the lives of those around me, and also the world)" as a higher principle than "not saying sexist things." But then, I also think you have to contort pretty hard to come up with a scenario where "saying sexist things" is likely to be an effective option worth justifying. You could convince me Roy sincerely believes it is, I suppose.

I know we disagree on the main point (justifiable usage of questionable tactic), but I like that you do understand how the other POV is delineated. Thank you. More so, I'm a fan of your avatar there. I don't suppose your last name is Sanchez right?

[Ruck]

I know we disagree on the main point (justifiable usage of questionable tactic), but I like that you do understand how the other POV is delineated. Thank you. More so, I'm a fan of your avatar there. I don't suppose your last name is Sanchez right?

You're about half right. Look a little bit closer and see if you can figure it out.

[Gusion]

[QUOTE=Xyril;21827430]In other words, if you're trying to kill me, then I feel justified doing whatever I have to to you to get you to stop, up to killing you if necessary. Once you have surrendered, you have stopped, and extreme measures are no longer justified. /QUOTE]

Fine, okay, I'll play.

If I'm trying to kill you, and the only way to stop me is to rape and kill an innocent person to stop me, are you justified in doing so?

It is perhaps your lack of experience with humans unfamiliar with the rules of D&D that leads you to this conclusion, but when you say things such as "The moral hoops some people will jump through to justify bad behavior amazes me..." regarding folks who disagree with you, they tend to take it as being a bit judgmental. For that matter, even if "evil lawful" is not strictly synonymous with "immoral jackass," calling a player (not his character) either is pretty insulting, even to folks who ARE familiar with the rules of D&D.

1. I'd never call anyone "evil lawful."
2. I didn't call any individual "lawful evil."
3. And no, it isn't particularly insulting. "Welcome to the deep end of the alignment pool."
4. I'm mostly TN, although I've found myself leaning more LN lately. So what.
5. The fact that some people will go through a lot of work to justify their behavior as good amazes me. If you find that insulting... well...

[Seto]

3. And no, it isn't particularly insulting. "Welcome to the deep end of the alignment pool."

Just interjecting on this point - and it's a detail, given that you didn't actually call anyone LE, so bear with me, but... yeah, of course it's insulting. D&D or not, casually calling someone "Evil" is not likely to fly well. And even if some players are immersed in D&D to the point that they can instantly tell the difference between "Evil" and "evil" and be fine with whatever alignment you give them, most people can't abstract the D&D meaning from its larger-real world (judgmental) connotations. It is, in fact, so much of a problem, that most rewrites of alignment I've seen focus not on content (clarify what's Good, what's Evil within the system we have), but start with renaming alignments so that they actually are accepted as several equal moral perspectives.
As easydamus puts it, "The names of the alignments themselves seem to indicate that the alignments are viewed from the lawful good point of view. Being called "lawful" seems to be better than being called "chaotic" while "good" is vastly better than the pejorative term "evil.""

As much as I consider myself TN, as much as I'm all about TN pride and stuff and am actually convinced that this perspective makes sense, I'm sometimes torn about the label, because I want to try and be a good person. And sure, what I call "good" might not be exactly the same as what D&D calls Good, and I do think "goodness" is achievable on TN terms, but the fact that the names are the same is difficult to overlook. Alignment gets inside your head, man.
(Also, since alignment is meant for fictional characters, using it to categorize real-world people is by and large a terrible idea, unless it's self-ascribed and you're fine with it).

[KorvinStarmast]

The tactical thread discussion was actually of some interest until all of the moralizing showed up.
Can we get back to any other tactical considerations that have not yet been addressed?

Example:
Roy climbs up rigging/rope/mast to evade/avoid? How does he induce the Giantess to climb after him or to otherwise keep pursuing him? The underlying premise is that he's trying to avoid a second iteration of "giant makes chutney of multiple crew members via some sort of cleave attack" that had happened earlier.

[pendell]

@ pendell: The point folks are making is that 'sexist taunts' isn't the only weapon available to be used. So why use that one?

What are the others? Not my department to figure out, thankfully.

Well, that second question is why I started this thread in the first place, and I appreciate Kevin Stormast's last post.

I need to step away from this thread, as it has been taking up to much of my real-world time, but you directly addressed me so I'll answer you.

If Roy still had his sword, I wouldn't have even thought of it. Roy + Sword is more than adequate to defeat this enemy. Gratuitous and unnecessary insults give very little tactical advantage. As King Lune would say in The Horse and His Boy :

"Shame, Corin," said the King. "Never taunt a man save when he is stronger than you: then, as you please."

The only reason I'm bringing it up now is because Roy has lost his best weapon. The only weapons he has immediately to hand are his brain and his sharp, sarcastic tongue.

And the only reason I brought up that particular category of insult is because the enemy has made it clear it's a particularly vulnerable spot. If she had, instead, said something about loving puppies, I wouldn't be sexist. I'd start talking about how delicious puppies were with tomato and mozzarella cheese. If she was an avid Naruto fan, I'd ask when she was going to grow up and watch a real anime. And if she was a fan of a particular sports team ... you get the picture.

The only reason, I care, again, is that this is a known weak spot and it's pretty much all I know about her. When insulting someone, it's best to be as specific and personal as possible.

And once again, the only reason I'm considering it is because Roy is currently without any better weapons.

Of course, if Roy has some sort of weapon retrieval ability, now would be the best possible time to deploy it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Xyril]

In other words, if you're trying to kill me, then I feel justified doing whatever I have to to you to get you to stop, up to killing you if necessary. Once you have surrendered, you have stopped, and extreme measures are no longer justified.

Fine, okay, I'll play.

If I'm trying to kill you, and the only way to stop me is to rape and kill an innocent person to stop me, are you justified in doing so?

Why exactly are you asking me this question, other than to feed your own sense of moral superiority? I even bolded a relevant portion, which you left unmodified when you quoted me, that seems to definitively answer your question--the fact that you deliberately ignored this, apparently to prove some sort of point, makes me wonder if it's possible to engage in any sort of constructive conversation with you.

And in case it hasn't been painfully obvious at this point, the answer is no. If you're trying to kill me, you don't get to complain that I'm fighting dirty because I kicked you below the belt or hit a guy with glasses. You don't get to whine that it's unfair that you charged at me with a knife, and I pulled my gun and emptied my magazine into you before you got within range. It's not immoral that, instead of following some arbitrary code of chivalry, I lied and say, "Hey look, it's Vin Diesel and he wants to play D&D with you!" and then hit you in the back of the head with a vase after you turn around.

You're a sociopath jerk who's trying to kill me, and as far as I'm concerned the moment that you decided that my right to life and freedom from bodily harm didn't matter was the moment you abdicated any moral or legal expectation of fair play or that your own rights deserve respect.

That doesn't justify doing the same things to other people. I thought I was pretty specific on this, but apparently you felt it would be more beneficial to your position to pretend that I wasn't. As I have pretty clearly stated--repeatedly--when it comes to a more distant danger and action that implicates the rights of people who aren't actively trying to kill you, there is far less moral justification for doing normally immoral things. In this instance, my personal morality coincides neatly with the law--the limit of the excuse of duress (committing crimes because someone is threatening your life) exists somewhere well before causing serious bodily injury (a category that includes rape) to an innocent person. Now, if the only way to escape your murderous rage is to break into some random person's shop (an action I would find immoral under normal circumstances) and hide, then I think that the circumstances would justify that comparatively minor harm (and I would still feel obligated to pay restitution to that person as soon as practicable.)

3. And no, it isn't particularly insulting. "Welcome to the deep end of the alignment pool."

1) In context, I think V DID in fact find the comment, if not insulting, then a very troubling commentary on V's previous conduct.
2) Out of context, it could go either way. If it's from a guy who prides himself on being a bit of a rebel, directed towards another person who wants to be the same way, it would probably be complementary. In a set of circumstances where the guy on the receiving end tries to be a good guy but knows he makes a mistake, and he understands that the guy saying the comment doesn't intend to convey harsh condemnation, then it might be considered a somewhat joking rebuke.

5. The fact that some people will go through a lot of work to justify their behavior as good amazes me. If you find that insulting... well...

It's not insulting to say it in the abstract. In context, where it seems to be specifically directed at a few folks who have disagreed with you on some point... yeah, it's kind of insulting.

For example, if I say abstractly, "It's kind of shocking the extent to which people will remain willfully blind to things that other people have stated clearly because they would rather refute a straw man argument than address a real one. They seem to believe that debates are less about sincerely trying to understand someone else's position and more about the appearance of scoring points in some sort of superficial rhetorical game. It's pathetic." In a purely abstract, hypothetical context, that's not insulting at all.

If however I've just been calling someone out for that very sort of straw man behavior, and then I say "On an abstract, hypothetical, and completely unrelated note, [snip]," then in context I'm very clearly directing that comment as an insult towards a specific person, and in context it would be rather disingenuous of me to claim otherwise.

[Jasdoif]

My own thoughts on this argument are: let's say taunting *would* give Roy a tactical advantage. Why does that taunt have to take the form of a sexist comment of some sort? I'm sure there are other things he could say that would be equally effective, and he might not even think of the sexist taunt first off.

Indeed.


"Sigh, now I'll have to do this the long way. I mean, you can't be so much stronger that one of you is better than two of him, right?"

Learn from the necromancers, there's a circumstance bonus to be had in the corpse that's right there.

[Ruslan]

The tactical thread discussion was actually of some interest until all of the moralizing showed up.
Can we get back to any other tactical considerations that have not yet been addressed?

Example:
Roy climbs up rigging/rope/mast to evade/avoid? .

With Roy away, the Giantess can just hit the balloon (she's tall enough to reach it from the deck) a few times and down the ship.

How does he induce the Giantess to climb after him or to otherwise keep pursuing him?

You may not like the answer but ... how about taunting her?

[KorvinStarmast]

You may not like the answer but ... how about taunting her?

I am all for taunting her, I had mentioned that earlier (or maybe in the other thread) with a reference to how Belkar was taunting that Vamped Goliath near the end of the Godsmoot bit where he had just climbed up the mountain.

Sadly, the vitriol from the other thread has infected this one.

Good point on her being probably tall enough to reach up and whack the balloon (or Elan! ) without that much trouble.

[Havelocke]

If i had a strong fighter in this situation (such as Roy), and a companion of not so high intellect (such as Elan) I would have Elan drop down behind the giant, somewhere near the back of the ankles. Fighter/Roy would then bull rush and knock the giant over in typical school ground fashion. Depending on how close the giant is to the rail, could knock her over. OR Elan could save the day again.

[factotum]

With Roy away, the Giantess can just hit the balloon (she's tall enough to reach it from the deck) a few times and down the ship.

Assuming she knows that the balloon is what's keeping the ship up--no guarantee that she *does* know that, she might just think it's magic.

[Kantaki]

Assuming she knows that the balloon is what's keeping the ship up--no guarantee that she *does* know that, she might just think it's magic.

Well, she did cause leak that is troubling our heroes right now.
And the strike looked very much deliberately.
Furthermore airships seem to be common enough that there are maps for them.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the raiders of the local tribes know how to bring them down.

[Mido]

You're about half right. Look a little bit closer and see if you can figure it out.

...I can't figure it out! YOU HAVE FAILED ME BRAIN!!

Well, she did cause leak that is troubling our heroes right now.
And the strike looked very much deliberately.
Furthermore airships seem to be common enough that there are maps for them.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the raiders of the local tribes know how to bring them down.

This seems like a reasonable presumption.

[atemu1234]

In other words, if you're trying to kill me, then I feel justified doing whatever I have to to you to get you to stop, up to killing you if necessary. Once you have surrendered, you have stopped, and extreme measures are no longer justified.

Fine, okay, I'll play.

If I'm trying to kill you, and the only way to stop me is to rape and kill an innocent person to stop me, are you justified in doing so?

Okay, which school of philosophy are we talking here?

Because many would agree that doing what it takes to save your life at the cost of another is morally neutral at worst.

And what's with this weird Prisoner Dilemma - this isn't the subject of debate. There's not a greater reason for you to be doing this. And why is it that someone saying 'hey ya know taunting someone for funsies isn't really a good thing' is to ask them if they'd rape and kill someone to save their own skin.

[Ruck]

...I can't figure it out! YOU HAVE FAILED ME BRAIN!!

Well, notice that my username is Ruck, not Rick, and that you might recognize the artwork style, but it's not exactly who you think it is. But then, I'm not sure what other TV shows you have seen.

[Gusion]

Why exactly are you asking me this question, other than to feed your own sense of moral superiority?

I feel no sense of moral superiority. Sometimes I feel intellectual superiority to people, but rarely do I feel morally superior. To truly be that way I'd need to be confident that given the same set of circumstances of their lives that I would choose a more moral choice than they did - not just what they say they would do, but the actual choice they made. It is easy to say you wouldn't steal if you were hungry. It is a lot harder not to do it. So until I am as hungry as that person who stole, I won't declare myself as morally superior to them.

And in case it hasn't been painfully obvious at this point, the answer is no.

No, it wasn't obvious. Painfully or not. Just because you wrote (and then put in bold) that you feel like you have the right to directly to the attacker whatever you want does not specifically say how you would feel about doing actions to other people, whether you think you're specific about it or not. It is entire absent on the subject. Perhaps you wrote about it in an earlier post and I missed it, I'll admit I didn't read every word you've written on the subject. But just because you specified "to you" does not logically imply how you feel about other situations.

As I have pretty clearly stated--repeatedly-- when it comes to a more distant danger and action that implicates the rights of people who aren't actively trying to kill you, there is far less moral justification for doing normally immoral things.

Okay, so, fine. That's all I was getting at. So you are willing to put a principle above your own life. There is a line that corresponds to actions, and some actions you normally consider immoral you are willing to do to save your life and others you aren't. I expect pretty much everyone to be the same, it is just what our sense of "good" and "evil" is depends on where you are on that line. The soldier that shields the child behind him is "good" and the one who uses the child as a shield is "evil" as our society and D&D defines those terms.

I am anticipating you agree with me up to this point.

So the next part is the rest of the equation - does the chances of your immoral act saving your life matter? So sure, you're willing to steal a dollar if you know it saves your life. What if there is only a chance of saving your life?

Would you hurt a friend if it gave you a 1% chance to improve your battle? .1%?

Because in the end, that's the moral argument here that other's made which I did not see addressed. Roy's choice of taunts could hurt and negatively impact his friendship with Andi and others aside from the giant, with a low change that it will actually help anything. Given an obvious better choice of asking for help from those friends (coordinating assistance, yelling for Elan, getting a healing potion, etc.), it is a questionably moral act to taunt her in such a manner as been proposed.

So, that's exactly why I was asking.

[Liquor Box]

Actually, no. Roy was running around in 808 after Thog was already enraged and taunting him. That's it. That's a move action and a standard action. There is no evidence from that battle with Thog that Roy wasn't using a standard action to taunt. In RAW the standard reaction to *intimidate* is to be shaken, but maybe Giant was using bluff instead. *shrugs* That's his right - we only guess at what he's doing.

Exactly. We can only guess at what rules the Giant is applying, except that it does not seem to be the application of RAW for intimidate as you suggested - so using a RAW approach does not really advance matters.

That may be what you're debating, but I'd say that isn't what everyone is debating. The original question was:

I think it is what nearly everybody on page 5 (the page preceding your post) was debating.

[Mido]

Well, notice that my username is Ruck, not Rick, and that you might recognize the artwork style, but it's not exactly who you think it is. But then, I'm not sure what other TV shows you have seen.

Okay, help me out here if I do get it wrong. From what I gather, the avatar is an amalgam of Rick and another character. If so, yeah, that may be the disconnect.

*snip*

So, it's all down to what tactical options are available, and stooping down to non-essential tactics that you take umbrage on, is what I gathered. If so, it's definitely understandable. From my assessment though (it's not absolute, just a different assessment):

1.) coordinating assistance - questionable given the state of the crew post-Andi debacle... granted Roy may not be aware of that yet but I think it would be a factor.
2.) Yelling for Elan - Still grabbing on for dear life while trying to mend the ship due to some unforeseen turbulence. I'd say it's remotely viable but not really expedient.
3.) Getting a healing potion - acceptable, but we're not that aware of healing potion locations (on Roy's person, with the crew [though like the first one, they may be pre-occupied], somewhere on the ship maybe, more so using it may give openings to AoO so might be a moot point [getting attacked while chugging the potion down].
4.) Assistance from the Mechane Crew - barring the Andi-inspired confusion within the ranks, it would be a bit irresponsible to bring them to the forefront of the fight since it's already been shown that they are mostly not enough of a high level to withstand attacks from the opposition.

Those are just some of the reasoning why those may not have been the first choice of tactic (at least IMHO). Like mentioned earlier, I don't hold those to be the truth of the matter (I'm pretty much going with the info Rich has shown so far in my own assessment). So I still disagree, but I do see why you would see otherwise and I understand.

[Ruck]

Okay, help me out here if I do get it wrong. From what I gather, the avatar is an amalgam of Rick and another character. If so, yeah, that may be the disconnect.

You gather correctly. Here's the full image:

https://imgur.com/Ti9O63g

[littlebum2002]

You gather correctly. Here's the full image:

https://imgur.com/Ti9O63g

Wow, that's pretty clever. I never noticed how similar their names were before.