This is the thread for discussion of The Order of the Stick plot, characters, etc. We have a separate thread
for discussing game rules and mechanics. Excessive rules discussions here may be thumped as off-topic.
OP edited to make this header - Fighteer
edited 18th Sep '17 1:08:08 PM by Fighteer
Does he get bonus enthrallment over blood donors? (Could this be the end of The Donor Party?)
![]()
![]()
![]()
That pun was bad and you should feel bad.
edited 5th Jul '14 10:00:21 AM by TotemicHero
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)![]()
Lie his head off, of course. If Belkar could summon up any sort of successful Intelligence score, he'd have had that little confrontation in front of witnesses.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Who cares about the rules? This vampirism-Hel thing is an Ass Pull anyway
That seems like a very stupid move by Durkula - there's got to be a more subtle, or at least less aggressive, way of fending off Belkar, that wouldn't seriously risk alerting the rest of the Order. Hypnotizing Belkar into putting down all of his weapons and walking away, for example. Simply killing Belkar - which appears to have been his intent, though it failed - isn't something the rest of the team would simply overlook.
But then, it's possible that he is stupid, and his success in infiltration thus far has been based solely on his access to Durkon's memories - put in a situation where he had to improvise, he panicked. Or perhaps he extrapolated from Durkon's lack of positive interactions with Belkar that none of the team had had positive interactions with Belkar (not so far off the mark) and, being Evil, didn't grasp that the rest of the Order would seriously object to killing Belkar even if none of them liked him.
Interestingly enough, Belkar's speech seems to be the final nail in the idea we kicked around a while ago that - possession nonwithstanding - having one's alignment changed results in the same personality and allegiances, just with an evil now. Or at least that such a think could happen automatically. If Belkar's right, than any instance of having one's alignment personally changed externally could in some way be either possession or more blatantly mind control in this setting.
As a matter of fact, it seems to debunk the idea that alignment isn't at its core something that's personally chosen in the first place (at least, from Belkar's point of view) - which is interesting given the universe the characters live in. Redclock would probably find an intelligent conversation with Belkar very intriguing.
I also like the irony of Belkar's speech applying to him as well - the idea that alignment change comes from changing over time so gradually that they never even realize it.
I also found that very interesting, although I'm not sure I saw it in quite the same way.
On one level, you have Belkar talking about Slowly Slipping Into Evil and analogizing it to himself experiencing that, but in the opposite direction- I think it is going too far to say he's had a Face Realization, but he's definitely talking about experiencing something along those lines.
On another level, Burlew via Belkar seems to be deconstructing the idea that a person with a forced alignment change would/should be "x, but evil". I think Burlew/Belkar is right that this doesn't necessarily make sense, because a person would be in denial until they had fundamentally changed as a person. Now I would suggest that this isn't the only direction possible- if vampirism was just this forced alignment change, you might have the stereotypical Friendly Neighborhood Vampire who dresses in black and broods over their condition. But Belkar/Burlew is right that Durkula being so chipper about the situation is not how the "x, but evil" person would act.
And it's interesting that while Belkar is wrong in his focus on Durkula drinking his blood (since Durkula really was a mindless thrall at the time), he really is right on in understanding how that behavior followed by Durkula being "right as Thor's rain" shows that what arose after Durkon died isn't Durkon.
Edit- In terms of where this is going, Durkula will obviously b.s. his way out of it and Belkar will be on playing Casandra- and Durkula will probably spin things so that the Party (or at least Roy) hates and mistrusts Belkar even more.
Still, Durkula messed up in that he either shouldn't have tried to kill Belkar or else he should have made sure that he succeeded.
Edit 2- I like the nickname someone on the Giant thought up for Durkula- Jerkon- quite catchy.
edited 5th Jul '14 12:47:34 PM by Hodor
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wikiI don't think so?
From what I've heard, "Begs the question" is short for "Begets the question", rather than using "begging" as in "begging and pleading". It's meant to refer to arguments that assume a premise they never prove, or which attempt to prove a premise with a logical conclusion that requires the premise to be true in the first place.
Like, "I'm actually a unicorn who's been transformed into a human. You can trust me, because unicorns don't lie."
Basically, the argument spawns (begets) itself without any actual logical standpoint.
edited 5th Jul '14 1:51:05 PM by Enlong
I have a message from another time...begsthequestion.info
as well, to wrap up the linguistic derail.
Well, an interesting page—and hopefully, as others have suggested, a crack in Durkula's plans.
Eh, I'm not sure that I agree with their concern over the loss to logic and philosophy: there's significant precedent for specialised fields having their own definitions of words that are less strictly defined in colloquial use—look, for example, at the scientific meaning of "heat" (which, if I recall correctly, refers specifically to flow of thermal energy, and not to an object's temperature). It can cause problems—look at the problems that seem to result or be reinforced by the colloquial definition of the word "theory", for example—but I'm not convinced that this is likely to be such a situation.
I'll confess that I'm not a fan of the colloquial use of "begging the question", but I'll grant that Dictionary.com
does include it in at least one—the entry taken from Collins, I believe—of the definitions that it gives for the phrase, albeit that said entry also notes that it's considered incorrect by some. One of the other entries notes that the meaning "raise the question" seems to be pretty recent.
edited 5th Jul '14 4:37:23 PM by ArsThaumaturgis
My Games and Asset PacksI take great delight in opportunities to apply literally to normally figurative concepts. Such as something being "literally bananas"
edited 6th Jul '14 12:46:06 AM by Adannor
I've been meaning to ask this: So, the heroes escaped Tarquin, but the three empires are still around...um, yeah.
Even Tarquin acknowledged, when they were formally introduced, that the Order was on their way to addressing a Bigger Bad, and offered them assistance towards that end.
(At least before he went full retard
anyway.)

As long as his victim keeps failing Will saves, but that twenty will eventually happen.
EDIT: p-p-p-p-p-pagetoppah!
edited 5th Jul '14 3:40:57 AM by Kayeka