This is the thread for discussing Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition rules and how they may or may not apply to The Order of the Stick.
Discuss away, and please keep it civil. Discussion of the comic itself — plot, characters, and so forth — goes here
.
- OOTS is a webcomic set in an RPG Mechanics 'Verse based on Dungeons & Dragons version 3.5, with a custom setting and cosmology, using mainly Open Gaming License (OGL) and homebrew content.
- Tropers unfamiliar with D&D 3.5 may wish to visit http://www.d20srd.org/ to learn the details of the system or look up terminology. We will assume discussion to be about the D&D 3.5 rules unless stated otherwise.
- The author has specifically stated that, while he attempts to work within the letter of the rules as much as possible, OOTS is at heart a story and story trumps rules. This is a cautionary statement against overanalyzing.
- Any discussion of D&D cosmology should acknowledge that OOTS is entirely homebrew in this regard and nothing about it in any of the core rulebooks or supplemental material can be assumed to be canon.
Edited by wingedcatgirl on Feb 22nd 2024 at 11:46:50 AM
So. Question. Would a paladin's alignment be affected if they knowingly gave an order that led to the death of a comrade, knowing that it would kill said comrade if the order was for a higher cause? The question spun out of a look at Soon ordering the thingy with the rift that killed Kraagor, but now I'm simply curious. It seems like it may be something a paladin is simply not allowed to do: No killing off good/neutral teammates just because it's pragmatic.
Depends on the DM.
Hm. Not knowing much about the actual game, I'd probably say it's something that they can't do. Paladins don't seem to be much for pragmatism. Doubt it actually applies to the actual case in the story either way though.
The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
It's not about my morality, it's about my interpretation of how the class works, which is largely based off of how OOTS has presented them to me. I might be more inclined to think of them as willing to be pragmatic, for example, if Hinjo has been more willing to concede that Shojo did what was necessary. Granted, you're implying that the actual class requirements on behavior have a sort of gray area, so I'm saying it's simply how it appears to me based on my limited understanding.
Zzzzzzzzzz
It also needs to be taken into account that Soon (a Paladin) had sworn an Oath to seal the rifts. The spell that killed Kraagor was the same one that sealed that rift. He might well have decided that sealing the rift was more important than the loss of life.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Out of curiosity is it even worth playing a illusionist wizard much less an illusionist/ranger?. That whole school seems to be simply designed around support.
The discussion about paladins falling makes me wonder whether, if the rules are really so strict that they can't sacrifice an unwilling participant even to save many others, one could devise [[Catch22 a scenario in which a paladin would fall no matter what]]. Like, say (similarly to the example above), the paladin has sworn an oath to protect a country or something and now has no choice but to sacrifice an unwilling ally to achieve it.
There are examples of this in mythology too, so I suppose a creative DM has probably done it at some point...
edited 12th Mar '12 3:12:56 AM by ashnazg
Sadistic Choice is sadistic. That's why atonement mechanic exists.
Anyone have the list of alignments for each character?
- Roy: Lawful Good
- Haley: Chaotic Good(ish)
- Durkon: Lawful Good
- Elan: Chaotic Good
- Belkar: Chaotic Evil.
- Vaarsuvius: Probably Neutral Good when we first started, but shifted to True Neutral after the Azure City arc.
I've always thought that V's alignment was TN leaning to LN myself.
He is up for debate - it wasn't declared in comic. All others are full canon, though (Haley with -ish).
edited 12th Mar '12 9:10:07 AM by Adannor
V's isn't up for debate. The Giant confirmed them as True Neutral a while ago (on the GITP forums, not in the comic).
EDIT: Source.
edited 12th Mar '12 9:09:45 AM by MangaManiac
Ah, I see. Considering the wording it also looks to to me like he always was TN, without shifts.
@Dazai (Who Ironicly shares the name of a D&D character I made.)
Illusion is not a bad school and there is nothing wrong with playing a wizard that specializes in them.
@Kay: I'd argue that V started as True Neutral, but has started to go toward Neutral Good after the Soul Splice.
While I agree V is on the path to a more Good lifelihood, the post by the Giant was made on August 2011, which was some time after all the soul splice stuff (IIRC).
And then he went on his torture spree with the kobold of the week, balancing back down to neutral.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
, I never said V was Neutral Good, but on the path towards being Neutral Good. Big difference.
I'm just saying that he seems to have backed down from that path.
What will he do now that he learned the full truth about Familicide is up in the air.
And I never responded to you.
...Right.
...Sorry for misunderstanding you.
The main advantage is that it bypasses Death Ward and works on Constructs, the undead, etc-things normally immune to fort saves.