The Gaming Den

Every single one of Vaarsuvius' victims' CE - that's gotta be the most retarded decent into evil ever. Not to say that s/h/it won't be goaded into targeting innocents soon, but that familicide did the world a fvcking favor.

OotS beats us over the head with the fact that evil races aren't really evil IF WE WOULD JUST TRY TO UNDERSTANDZ THEMZ IT IS IN FACT US WHO ARE THE MONSTERS--except when they totally are. Which is most of the time.

Remember, Roy and friends totally barged into someone's home, killed the owner, and robbed them blind. This was never portrayed as evil at all; hell, Miko of all people said it was just and necessary. But really, can you think of any sane standard of morality where you're allowed to barge into someone's place, kill their kid, and get away with it scot-free? D&D justifies this by saying that the creature is CE and that killing it will increase the amount of life and happiness in the world. But the important thing to remember is that the OotS says otherwise--except when it counts.

So either the author is prepared to give us the biggest mindfuck of all time by pointing out our selective sympathy is hypocritical and frankly racist, or he's just forcing the story along the way he wants it to. I want this comic to be good so I'm hoping for the first, but it'll probably be the latter.

Uh, the thing's that, hilariously, the whole "we should try to understand them" can work with goblinoids, and can't with chromatic dragons. So, Vaarsuvius' act was less morally questionable than most stuff that passed unnoticed - why the sympathy for the dragons then?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:But really, can you think of any sane standard of morality where you're allowed to barge into someone's place, kill their kid, and get away with it scot-free? D&D justifies this by saying that the creature is CE and that killing it will increase the amount of life and happiness in the world. But the important thing to remember is that the OotS says otherwise--except when it counts.

Does it? Remember, dragons are specifically on the same alignment scheme as outsiders.

Uh, the thing's that, hilariously, the whole "we should try to understand them" can work with goblinoids, and can't with chromatic dragons.

Where is this portrayed, exactly? OotS subscribes heavily to a 'Red vs. Blue' system of morality.

Does it? Remember, dragons are specifically on the same alignment scheme as outsiders.

Neither D&D or OotS makes the distinction. This is what allows you in the game and characters in the comic to barge into goblin camps and kill everyone there without losing your paladin status.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Uh, the thing's that, hilariously, the whole "we should try to understand them" can work with goblinoids, and can't with chromatic dragons.

Where is this portrayed, exactly? OotS subscribes heavily to a 'Red vs. Blue' system of morality.

In "always Chaotic Evil". There's evidence even, unless you think draconic hoards are obtained via lawful commerce (possible, but no way I'll argue it) ...

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Neither D&D or OotS makes the distinction. This is what allows you in the game and characters in the comic to barge into goblin camps and kill everyone there without losing your paladin status.

D&D does - go read a MM. And as for paladins, I figure soldiers don't count as innocents in any sense of the term, even if not specifically evil - it's a war and they're actual combatants.

People are desensitised to killing in huge numbers - an army of nameless orks is around every corner, whereas one dragon is an individual and therefore killing all the dragons means killing a lot of individuals as opposed to killing millions of nameless orks.

Now obviously it's worse to do the latter, because you're ending more lives and any number of them could have done nothing wrong to boot.

Alternatively, everyone hates orks (they're ugly and they smell) whereas lots of people love dragons (because they're big awesome firebreathing monsters) or love dragons (and guess what? I don't want to hear about it!)

But I do recall reading somewhere that dragons are practically nailed to their alignments and change is close to impossible. But I've also read that only Outsiders have this issue, and I've also read that even Outsiders can change (.01% of all Balors are NG, there are infinite Balors etc.)

So it's as consistent as the rest.

Koumei wrote:People are desensitised to killing in huge numbers - an army of nameless orks is around every corner, whereas one dragon is an individual and therefore killing all the dragons means killing a lot of individuals as opposed to killing millions of nameless orks.

Sure (except that it's not Warhammer). That's them being retarded, though. Wait, is it surprising? Just like people in the GitP forum going "I hope the dragon kills the mate, but not the kids" (I'm not making it up).

Koumei wrote:Alternatively, everyone hates orks (they're ugly and they smell) whereas lots of people love dragons (because they're big awesome firebreathing monsters) or love dragons (and guess what? I don't want to hear about it!)

Eh, if someone loves black dragons, they better not be hypocritical about the consequences of their lifestyle.

Koumei wrote:But I do recall reading somewhere that dragons are practically nailed to their alignments and change is close to impossible. But I've also read that only Outsiders have this issue, and I've also read that even Outsiders can change (.01% of all Balors are NG, there are infinite Balors etc.)

Dragons and outsiders have the same alignment lines. As for the possibility of change, it has to be forced - so one's welcome to go doing it around. As for the chance of one such change having occurred in that family, it's likely lower than the chance of causing environmental damage by raiding a cave, so there ya go.

Koumei wrote:So it's as consistent as the rest.

Gelare wrote:Ugh, Heroes. I still watch it for some silly reason - maybe I still misguidedly hope that the writers will come to their senses - but man, I hate virtually all of the characters. Especially Claire, whom I really despise as a whiny, stupid bitch, and who has somehow become one of the main (possibly even the mainest) characters.

I like to think of Heroes as "MST3K: The Home Game".

I got the idea that Vaar wasn't killing ALL of the black dragons, just all dragons related within 9 degrees of that one. Granted, that's a lot of fucking dragons, but not all of them.

Koumei wrote:Alternatively, everyone hates orks (they're ugly and they smell) whereas lots of people love dragons (because they're big awesome firebreathing monsters) or love dragons (and guess what? I don't want to hear about it!)

Dragon cock? I walk.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:I got the idea that Vaar wasn't killing ALL of the black dragons, just all dragons related within 9 degrees of that one. Granted, that's a lot of fucking dragons, but not all of them.

It's not technically genocide, but I find it morally close enough, and am sure most readers will too. It might be forgotten, though, that if they're actually all unfixably evil ...

Gelare wrote:Ugh, Heroes. I still watch it for some silly reason - maybe I still misguidedly hope that the writers will come to their senses - but man, I hate virtually all of the characters. Especially Claire, whom I really despise as a whiny, stupid bitch, and who has somehow become one of the main (possibly even the mainest) characters.

Yeah Sylar is really the only remotely cool character on the show, and I still watch the show solely because telekinetically sawing the top of someone's head off is so cool.

One of the main problems is that it actually has too many characters, so it means that the plot advances really slowly and that they have to go through a bunch of contrived shit to get the characters together constantly, and that strains suspension of disbelief a lot.

And the weird personality swings they threw into Season two and three were just horrible. It's like a sad attempt at character development, but without any actual development. It was more just like some character got hit with a helm of opposite alignment for no reason.

The thing is that it's a show that you think could be really cool if the writers would just stop being idiots and write a decent plot.

I guess I just hate the idea of there being some creatures whose birth is an irredeemable blight on the world and whose existence even as a baby only threatens the happiness of everyone on the planet.

I know it's just part of the story, but it's depressing as hell.

RC wrote:Sylar is really the only remotely cool character on the show

Hell, no. Sylar's a tool. Literally. Everyone uses him. He's easily manipulated because of his retarded and incomprehensible mommy and daddy issues, and since he's such an asshat, he's easy to blame when someone else manipulates him into doing something psychopathic. He's the lousiest character on the show.

Lago wrote:I guess I just hate the idea of there being some creatures whose birth is an irredeemable blight on the world and whose existence even as a baby only threatens the happiness of everyone on the planet.

Seconded.

FrankTrollman wrote:It [Grave of the Fireflies] really is like watching someone perform surgery on you.

I did actually watch surgery being performed on myself, and it was fun. I sang along to the radio and tried to mess with the blood pressure monitor. So for me it was completely unlike Grave of the Fireflies.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I guess I just hate the idea of there being some creatures whose birth is an irredeemable blight on the world and whose existence even as a baby only threatens the happiness of everyone on the planet.

I hate the idea of there being creatures so pretty and beautiful and sparkling and precious whose birth is a grace to the world and everyone should just drop what they're doing and submit to their pointy-eared masters. That's why I hate Lord of the Rings. Sure it's a great literary work and all that, but I couldn't help wishing Sauron would win and knowing he wouldn't.

Which brings me to this. People in general love "feel-good" stories of characters overcoming insurmountable odds, but if the author makes it painfully clear the story will have a "good" ending, the roles are suddenly reversed and it's the antagonists who are facing insurmountable odds (and failing). That's more like a greek tragedy and not "feel-good" at all.

Starmaker wrote:I hate the idea of there being creatures so pretty and beautiful and sparkling and precious whose birth is a grace to the world and everyone should just drop what they're doing and submit to their [drooling, toothless, diaper-wearing] masters.

I would totally agree with this, except I had a baby, and he totally changed everything.

Hey, Maj, are we ever going to see that 8-bit maid blowing a kiss icon aain?

This one?



She's not a standard smiley here, so I have to type in the whole image address to use her. But if she needs more screen time...

ITT, elves are now replaced with babies.

And nothing of value was lost!

Maj wrote: Hell, no. Sylar's a tool. Literally. Everyone uses him. He's easily manipulated because of his retarded and incomprehensible mommy and daddy issues, and since he's such an asshat, he's easy to blame when someone else manipulates him into doing something psychopathic. He's the lousiest character on the show.

Nah, he's a good character. At least I like the actor playing him anyway. It's just that the writing of season three was so horrible and just made him really stupid because they flip flopped his allegiance so many damn times for no reason. I could see him seeking out his real parents, but the amount of

First he's on his own, then he's with Angela and tries to be a loyal company man, then he's with Arthur doing whatever the hell Arthur was trying to do, then for whatever reason he falls in love with Elle and decides to abandon Arthur (wtf?), then he randomly turns evil again for no apparent reason.

I tend to pretty much ignore what happened in that season because it was fucking stupid. Honestly, I'm surprised how the show made it past season 3, because it was just terrible writing. So mostly I just mind block season 3 from my head as far as Sylar is concerned because I like to remember him how he was originally and not the god awful crap they turned him into. It seems like for the most part the writers are trying to ignore what happened in season 3 too, since I think they realize it was crap. Since Sylar seems to have just gone back to his serial killer roots from what I've seen of the new season. And that's where he's cool: the boogey man who strikes out of nowhere and telekinetically slices the top of your head off.

RC: We'll see next week when the show focuses more on him.

As for your attitude about season 3... That's the exact same attitude I have towards last night's episode of Chuck.

Okay, so House. It's an awesome series, or at least it used to be. The first four seasons were gold. The... fifth? The season after Amber dies, that one started to lose me. I watched it all, but... I don't know, perhaps it was focusing too much on House trying to be "everything's normal!" with Wilson, maybe it was the terrible build-up for House/Cuddy, I don't know. It wasn't terrible, but I didn't really like the direction it was going.

Now this latest season. I've seen (well, had playing in the background) two episodes, and it's just awful. Somewhere, House stopped being a jerk with a heart of gold (deep, deep down) and instead got Flanderised into just being a jerk. When he's simply a prick, he's no longer awesome. He's just another prick, and there are plenty of them - there reaches a point where we don't care that he's a genius any more.

Also, in one episode he switched to the methadone program (which, as all of his friend pointed out, carries a very high chance of dying*), actually wore a suit and shaved. Seriously, when temporarily fired he became a reverse-bum. Let me tell you something: House without stubble isn't House. You look at him and just see Hugh Laurie, and you then expect Steven Fry to come on stage for a hilarious skit.

Note that this didn't change the fact that he's a jerk. Yes, he cleaned himself up and briefly looked like he was becoming a good role model or something (briefly though, fortunately), but he's still a prick. I will give them this though: he hired a prostitute to watch him while he slept to make sure he kept breathing. Because "They're cheaper than nurses and don't mind the sexual harassment."

*This is probably why America and Australia love the methadone program so much: because it kills the drug addicts off.

Doesn't the 5th season have the episode where someone comes in with weird symptoms, house treats it and makes it worse, then finds out what the real disease is and fixes it at the end?

I love that episode!

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Doesn't the 5th season have the episode where someone comes in with weird symptoms, house treats it and makes it worse, then finds out what the real disease is and fixes it at the end?

I love that episode!

The big draw of House is, well, House. Seriously, most of the entertainment comes from watching him interact with people.

It's like how Two And A Half Men is all about just how degenerate everyone is, and all the lines they throw around.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Doesn't the 5th season have the episode where someone comes in with weird symptoms, house treats it and makes it worse, then finds out what the real disease is and fixes it at the end?

I love that episode!

are all episodes like that?

b/c I saw one where a lady was dying, and House didn't think to look for tapeworms b/c he thought the patient was Jewish (and didn't eat pork).... or something?

I'm assuming that he's making reflexive decisions based on his knowledge. Sort of like Sherlock Holmes seems to pull answers out of the [a]ether.

Count: nonono, that one was in season 3!

JE: Basically, yes. The episode layout is pretty much the same, and we're not even meant to care about the patients and symptoms (although interestingly enough, unlike most medical drama shows it uses real medicine - the bullshit is just expecting us to believe all these 1-in-a-billion things go to that hospital, and that he hasn't been jailed for his methods... yet).

It's really all about the cast and their interactions. And yeah, he tends to pull ideas from nowhere or come to conclusions based on something random someone told him.

Examples:
"No, that's not a dog, it's a bear."
"It's brown and it has four legs so it's a dog."
"Look kid, just because it looks like something and you call it that...." (at this point he realises the sick midget isn't actually a midget, they just assumed she was because her mum was, and her size is related to the illness.)

"House, do you just exist to steal all my food?"
"....that's IT!" (tapeworm)

I even tried to replicate that in the awesome House/Pokemon crossover I wrote (based on the terrible crossover idea generator)

Look, don't diss House.

Besides, how am I to get my fix while Frank is out of the country?

-Crissa