Book 2 – Page 68

[Kalak]

Someone said something earlier about it being much ado about nothing, since the tower was going to fall anyway. I was under the assumption that Stanley was right about to put on his new Jetpack made by his dollamancer and get the heck out of there. Tramennis will probably die from the fall, but Stanley will not, because he'll be up and away. At least, that was the impression I got. Did I go wrong somewhere?

[Lamech]

Someone said something earlier about it being much ado about nothing, since the tower was going to fall anyway. I was under the assumption that Stanley was right about to put on his new Jetpack made by his dollamancer and get the heck out of there. Tramennis will probably die from the fall, but Stanley will not, because he'll be up and away. At least, that was the impression I got. Did I go wrong somewhere?

True, Slately is about to flee. But even if he survives, the garrison will have been taken, which is still means the city is gone. And its not like any of the ground units can do squat about Slately in the air. So Parson popping through the portal won't matter. BUT, no one (besides Archer, Lady Lazarus, and the other heavies) on the GK side or in the MK realizes this. So even if I'm right about the garrison falling, everyone in the MK, and dungeon believe this is very important.

[sleepymancer]

Someone said something earlier about it being much ado about nothing, since the tower was going to fall anyway. I was under the assumption that Stanley was right about to put on his new Jetpack made by his dollamancer and get the heck out of there. Tramennis will probably die from the fall, but Stanley will not, because he'll be up and away. At least, that was the impression I got. Did I go wrong somewhere?

That sounds about it. Although, I reckon we're going to see Oss prove that decrypted can turn (at the opportune moment, as it were) and catching Trem as he falls, possibly by the hand, then swinging him onto the back of the carpet and punching through the Archon stack together. Possibly the casters will add to this and maybe Cubins will survive, swinging from one of the tassles at the corner and watching Ace plummet to his death while the dittomancer falls and falls.

Then, Slately will have two decrypted sons (Ansom will get turned at some point) so both will be even tougher and more potent for when the side reforms, and will be devastating tactical and warforces under the strategic guidance of Trem. Role on book 3!!

[Grimnir]

Social event? Oi I guess that is one way to call it.

[Stormchi]

Great update!

I read "Disband yourself" more as "drop dead", than "f*** you"

I too am curious about the obscured portrait, one of Slately's dead heirs perhaps?

[GaryThunder]

Great update!

I read "Disband yourself" more as "drop dead", than "f*** you"

It has the same syllabic meter as "Go f*** yourself." Stressed, stressed, unstressed, stressed. About the same implication, as well. That's how I read it.

[WaterMonkey314]

{Bla bla bla}

Oi, you! Get yer ass back to GMing that "The Arkentool War" game you're running

Annie le Nox is still waiting for you to confirm the flawless Trockaderos victory over the Yellow Dwagons.

Just being cheeky.

*insert Hat-tip emoticon here*

Ayayayayay - 'M movin', sure I am! But for that I think you'll get a special surprise next turn (actually, you guys were going to get this anyway).

[drachefly]

while the dittomancer falls and falls.

I like it.

[Kreistor]

Lawful doesn't just mean "the actual law as actually written down," Lawful can mean "adhering strictly to a particular code of conduct."

DnD doesn't get to redefine a term for general use. But that DnD definition has one enormous flaw, and always did: everyone operates by their own code of conduct, even the insane. Once you have identified their particular rules, everyone is Lawful by that definition. The specifics of DnD Lawful include absolute adherence to a definable Code, with no exceptions. I'm sorry, but everything I listed is an exception to even the DnD Lawful definition. Dodging around the Convention and using it doesn't make one inherently Chaotic or Lawful, when law enforcers are nearby to ensure violations are punished. We have not seen the GMTTA operate away from that restriction, and so cannot assume they would maintain their adherence when in private without possible punishment. It is only when someone is alone, and chooses to adhere to a Code when non-adherence would be beneficial that we can truly see if someone is Lawful or Chaotic.

Because you do not know that they wouldn't violate the Convention. You are ASSUMING they wouldn't. Nowhere do they state that they wouldn't.

Note the current discussion with Maggie. Why have the GMTTA have stated that Parson violating the Convention against attacking through portals is wrong? Because it's against the Convention? Or because it would factionalize the MK and lead to violence? Obviously the answer is the latter, which is not a Lawful argument, it is a Good argument.

And hopeful semi-omniscients like the Great Minds

Nowhere are they said to be close to omniscient. They merely think similarly, A lot of people that think similarly can still be wrong, and I shouldn't need to list examples of that.

They literally cannot afford to hit Jack.

Why are you bringing Jack into this? I never said anything about Jack. I'm only against the assumption that the GMTTA are Lawful.

People who aspire to omniscience almost always tend towards Law

Again, where's the claim to be omniscient? Maggie was the only source for any suggestion of superior mental capacities in the GMTTA, and she is right now arguing that they are idiots. They've lost one fanboy there. Obviously fallible.

[drachefly]

Lawful doesn't just mean "the actual law as actually written down," Lawful can mean "adhering strictly to a particular code of conduct."

DnD doesn't get to redefine a term for general use. But that DnD definition has one enormous flaw, and always did: everyone operates by their own code of conduct, even the insane.

What? Impulsive people, and especially addicted people, don't operate by their own code; they only operate by their biophysics. Simply being unable to execute actions that are not mechanistically determined by the laws of physics doesn't make you lawful. People set rules and then break them all the time.

Saying that everyone operates by their own code of conduct is just being silly.

This usage of the term 'Lawful' has meaning and could apply in this context, especially as the term 'Lawful' is not a point of evidence in this conversation! If there's doubt over what was meant when it was said, we get clarification, not try to get into an argument over it.

[The.Healing.Mage]

Lawful doesn't just mean "the actual law as actually written down," Lawful can mean "adhering strictly to a particular code of conduct."

DnD doesn't get to redefine a term for general use. But that DnD definition has one enormous flaw, and always did: everyone operates by their own code of conduct, even the insane.

What? Impulsive people, and especially addicted people, don't operate by their own code; they only operate by their biophysics. Simply being unable to execute actions that are not mechanistically determined by the laws of physics doesn't make you lawful. People set rules and then break them all the time.

Saying that everyone operates by their own code of conduct is just being silly.

This usage of the term 'Lawful' has meaning and could apply in this context, especially as the term 'Lawful' is not a point of evidence in this conversation! If there's doubt over what was meant when it was said, we get clarification, not try to get into an argument over it.

You're in violent agreement. He was saying that the fact that DnD classifies everyone as following a certain set of rules (often hidden from the PCs) has always bothered him for that exact reason. I have the same problem with Hipsters. If they're knee-jerk chaotic, doesn't that mean they're still defining themselves based on society? (Also, I hear breathing is pretty mainstream, brah. Not to tweak them or nuthin'.)

[Housellama]

I have the same problem with Hipsters. If they're knee-jerk chaotic, doesn't that mean they're still defining themselves based on society? (Also, I hear breathing is pretty mainstream, brah. Not to tweak them or nuthin'.)

*falls over laughing* Okay, that's just dirty. And awesome.

+1, my good man!

[Oberon]

Or maybe I read Order of the Stick.

Alas, poor sarcasm, shall you ever convey via text?

In other words, all tGMtTA know is that Jack got to the portal room. That's it, and no more.

They know or can infer a bit more than just those bare facts. Jack, in sticking his head through and carrying out a rather casual conversation with TGMTTA has left his body unaware of and unprotected against any potential attack. This implies that he isn't worried at all about said attack. Which implies that either the Jetstone forces are so pressed that there's no chance that any of them will enter the Portal room (a natural place for Jetstone casters to flee a falling city from, after all), or that GK forces hold the portal room strongly. They don't know that it's actually the second option which is in force, but in any event they can know a lot more than just some random GK caster stuck his head through the Jetstone portal.

The MK Survives because the individual casters there all benefit having a safe place to study and the final escape route if their side should fall. The casters who are attached to particular sides can successfully walk a moral tightrope on the grounds than improving their abilities is good for their own side. When the MK becomes a conduit for invasion, all that falls apart.

Yeah, it'll change a few things. Such as, more guards in portal rooms. But really, the threat is rather small. The most casters we've seen in a side has been 5, and I just can't imagine 5 casters doing their own worth in damage before dying against the defenses of a capitol city. Situationally it might be potent, but not typically. A side with just one or two casters would never even consider this tactic, it would just be a quick way to lose a valuable resource which is replaced only randomly over time and not necessarily by the same type of resource (a dead thinkamancer might be followed by a mathamancer, for example).

Casters are resources which pay back a time investment in spades when they are supported and encouraged to level. Pissing them away on attacks through the MK portals is a poor way to accomplish that goal.

They're master class thinkamancers. Surely they can look up the G strings at Spacerock to see if it's still enemy controlled.

Jetstone has no thinkamancer. Are you implying that the city itself has a g-string? Kinky!

Annie le Nox is still waiting for you to confirm the flawless Trockaderos victory over the Yellow Dwagons.

It's death and sweet dreams forever for Annie le Nox! And who are you to disagree?

But that DnD definition has one enormous flaw, and always did: everyone operates by their own code of conduct, even the insane. Once you have identified their particular rules, everyone is Lawful by that definition.

Er, no. Everyone does not operate by their own code of conduct. There are plenty of people who espouse to value a certain code of conduct. They may even have such a code embodied within their worship. And yet they violate it again and again. And they feel the guilt for their failing, again and again. And still they continue to fail to live up to their own code of conduct. This appears to be the human norm, that people hold virtues to which they themselves cannot adhere to be the proper code of conduct, and not that all persons actually manage to follow their own codes of conduct.

[Kreistor]

What? Impulsive people,

And you know for certain that there is no rhyme or reason to their impulsiveness? You can't predict what catches their interest? That only means you don't understand their rules, not that they don't have them.

and especially addicted people, don't operate by their own code;

I question that statement. From what I know of addicts, they often follow a pattern of behavior, and are very habitual, and I'm not talking about the predictability of their substance abuse. Visiting the same places day after day, keeping to their small, safe world. Extremely predictable.

they only operate by their biophysics.

They become automatons? Hardly. Addicts are people with desires and goals, just with an inability to achieve them through action.

Simply being unable to execute actions that are not mechanistically determined by the laws of physics doesn't make you lawful.

When did I suggest that? I said that Lawful people are only determinable as such when not under observation.

People set rules and then break them all the time.

That's such a broadly applicable statement, I need to ask you to refine it significantly. And I 'm not sure it says what you want. Is it for or against average people being Lawful or Chaotic, trying to live by personal codes, etc.? Most people would call their personal code "morality," BTW. If you're getting down to New Years Resolutions, you're not on point. The Codes we're discussing aren't about trying to not eat chocolate anymore: it's about how you choose your actions. In DnD, a Chaotic person, faced with the same situation multiple times, would act differently each time. A lawful person would choose the same action, or a variant of it based on specifics. All I contend is that a thief, when presented with a wallet on the ground, will always choose to steal the money. Many contend that is Chaotic, but I contend that is repeatable and predictable, making it Lawful, despite being lawless behavior.

Saying that everyone operates by their own code of conduct is just being silly.

That's what DnD says about every Lawful person, so it's hardly silly to extend it to the other 2/3rds of their typing of people.

This usage of the term 'Lawful' has meaning and could apply in this context, especially as the term 'Lawful' is not a point of evidence in this conversation! If there's doubt over what was meant when it was said, we get clarification, not try to get into an argument over it.

I reject your attempt to control the conversation. We'll argue about whatever we feel like, unless the moderators step in to stop us. With past threads being completely open on off-topic discussions, I don't think we'll have a problem here.

Er, no. Everyone does not operate by their own code of conduct. There are plenty of people who espouse to value a certain code of conduct. They may even have such a code embodied within their worship.

Why should "worship" have anything to do with it? Do you think personal Codes require a Deity's involvement? (DnD doesn't require it.) So long as someone's actions are predictable, they're operating by a Code. Refer to the thief example above.

Alas, poor sarcasm, shall you ever convey via text?

Yeah, it can, but you're just bad at it.

[fjolnir]

One thing we are forgetting is that there IS a thinkamancer with eyes on the situation. Bunny still has the bat in the tower giving the play by play directly into her head, so the only thing that tGMTTA need to do is latch onto HER g-string to see a current sitrep.

[The.Healing.Mage]

I have the same problem with Hipsters. If they're knee-jerk chaotic, doesn't that mean they're still defining themselves based on society? (Also, I hear breathing is pretty mainstream, brah. Not to tweak them or nuthin'.)

*falls over laughing* Okay, that's just dirty. And awesome.

+1, my good man!

My high school was Hipster central. After thorough exploration of the concept I have decided that Hipsterism and I will probably never be reconciled. I tend to believe that society is in general not too bad a system, but like any man-made system it's possible to make it function better. If something seems unfair or wrong, sometimes its because the alternative might happen to be worse, but sometimes it is actually wrong. We should aspire to be able to tell the difference, and fight the battles most in need of being fought.

For example, war isn't a great thing, but neither is appeasement. And one of them actually solves problems. Not prettily, not in a way that any sane person wants, but bowing down and letting tyrants flourish is infinitely worse than the atrocities of war, first because they commit atrocities against people helpless to resist, second because tyranny eventually leads to war anyway, but a war on the tyrant's terms. Now, if you can avert war with the threat of war, or with an actual treaty where both sides agree to work together in good faith and actually follow through, then you've won an even greater victory than any direct military one. Occasionally that even works.

And on a more individual level, allowing people to carry guns or knives or any other weapon is a hideously terrible idea - but the alternative is a defenseless populace against people who intend harm. In the States or, recently, in Norway, for example, when someone goes on an armed rampage, dozens of people are hurt or killed before the assailant is stopped. By contrast, in Israel, (where every citizen is a trained veteran and many of them have concealed-carry licenses), gun rampages are very ineffective, because there will be a dozen people on a given street who will be willing and able to take down a gunman. That's why suicide bombs became popular with terrorists in the first place, since they're something of a manpower drain in countries where the populace isn't armed.

tl;dr Counterculture ladies and gents occasionally identify real problems with the established system, but because the people who are trying hardest to change society are mostly idealists to the exclusion of realism, their solutions are not always valid. But don't dismiss the issues they raise solely because the proposed solution isn't the best.

[Housellama]

And on a more individual level, allowing people to carry guns or knives or any other weapon is a hideously terrible idea - but the alternative is a defenseless populace against people who intend harm. In the States or, recently, in Norway, for example, when someone goes on an armed rampage, dozens of people are hurt or killed before the assailant is stopped. By contrast, in Israel, (where every citizen is a trained veteran and many of them have concealed-carry licenses), gun rampages are very ineffective, because there will be a dozen people on a given street who will be willing and able to take down a gunman. That's why suicide bombs became popular with terrorists in the first place, since they're something of a manpower drain in countries where the populace isn't armed.

Heinlein got it right.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

I'm not saying anything for or against gun control. However, when one has to keep firmly in mind that everyone nearby might be carrying extremely user-friendly lethal weapons, it makes one think a little bit longer about what they have to say, and pick their words and actions with a bit more care. Which, as far as I'm concerned, isn't a bad thing.

[The.Healing.Mage]

Heinlein got it right.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

I'm not saying anything for or against gun control. However, when one has to keep firmly in mind that everyone nearby might be carrying extremely user-friendly lethal weapons, it makes one think a little bit longer about what they have to say, and pick their words and actions with a bit more care. Which, as far as I'm concerned, isn't a bad thing.

But on the flipside there has to be a strictly enforced moral of not using those guns (viz a viz it's a crime to shoot first but not to shoot last) because not being able to walk around feeling safe is one of the strongest, most corrosive, and most fundamental roadblocks to progress.

[cheeseaholic]

I thought Norway had mandatory military service and guns everywhere like Israel.

[The.Healing.Mage]

I thought Norway had mandatory military service and guns everywhere like Israel.

Maybe they do, but this evil boop Breivik seems to have gone on quite the spree despite that. (Just wiki'd it, it seems that they have extensive hunting gun-rights, but no sort of concealed-carry rights. So unless a deer picks up and Uzi and strolls down the street massaging the trigger, it's effectively like having no guns.)