Friendship is Dragons
Updates Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays
Page 1250 - But Fear Themselves
Author Notes:
(Pop-out)
22 Comments:
Probably worse than that -- GRANDMA's tea party!
"...I'm SO disappointed in you, Smolder..."
"...I'm SO disappointed in you, Smolder..."
That would be the only detail that'll make me uncomfortable. Otherwise pass the stale bread chips and tea. XD
I'm impressed that she appears to have caught on already.
A dragon's worst 'fear' is...etiquette!
Probably more like emasculation. Loss of face or appearance of weakness. I think dragons respect etiquette as anything could lead to a fight with someone stronger. While no dragon would admit to fearing that fight, they would fear the fallout of public defeat.
Ahh, fear.
A powerful weapon.
You know, I once had an idea for a fun character.
Without his specialized body suit plus mask, anyone looking at him has a good chance to die of fright.
He's actually a pretty nice looking fellow.
It just that his aura of pure fear is that high.
And he can't turn it off.
Luckly, opening the bottom portion of his mask to eat only gives a slight chill.
A powerful weapon.
You know, I once had an idea for a fun character.
Without his specialized body suit plus mask, anyone looking at him has a good chance to die of fright.
He's actually a pretty nice looking fellow.
It just that his aura of pure fear is that high.
And he can't turn it off.
Luckly, opening the bottom portion of his mask to eat only gives a slight chill.
Old? Sam Starfall is still roaming the cosmos, you know. Comic's still updating.
I said old, not dead. XD
But Freefall has been running for a looong time, making it old as in, it's been around for longer than most other still-running comics.
But Freefall has been running for a looong time, making it old as in, it's been around for longer than most other still-running comics.
And in all that run-time, the story hasn't even covered a year in universe.
That said, GM is learning to switch between characters here, which is a positive step. That's way better than taking each player out individually and rping with just them for a long period of time.
Wow.
Fluttershy-player has really, really improved. I feel proud of her.
Fluttershy-player has really, really improved. I feel proud of her.
I do not. I prefer pondering the moral implications of such things and for that wholeheartedly agree. Evil IS a matter of perspective! Don’t act so high and mighty thinking just cause someone wears all black and has holes everywhere they’re evil! They may just be goth!
My brother made a good definition of Evil vs. Good to avoid that...
Both Evil and Good characters will fight those that oppose them and help those who help them, but what defines them is how they treat those who are neutral to them. Good characters will help those they think need help, be courteous, and treat them as if they are on their side. Evil characters will harm them, manipulate them to their own needs, or treat them like enemies.
So a goody-two-shoes who thinks anyone that doesn't follow their god is automatically evil would be Evil. A character that doesn't do anything to or for neutral bystanders is Neutral. A character that abuses, tricks, manipulates, etc. bystanders is Evil. ...In general, whether they care or not what happens to Joe Shmoe defines that spectrum of their alignment.
...Chaotic vs. Lawful I think is harder to define. Is it how ordered your thoughts are? How predictable? Whether you can accept laws made by a government of similarly minded/alignmented people (as kingdom maker reminds us, governments can be Chaotic)? I think consistency, whether you follow specific rules, and would you break laws if you generally agree with the government all play a factor. But it is not as clear cut.
Both Evil and Good characters will fight those that oppose them and help those who help them, but what defines them is how they treat those who are neutral to them. Good characters will help those they think need help, be courteous, and treat them as if they are on their side. Evil characters will harm them, manipulate them to their own needs, or treat them like enemies.
So a goody-two-shoes who thinks anyone that doesn't follow their god is automatically evil would be Evil. A character that doesn't do anything to or for neutral bystanders is Neutral. A character that abuses, tricks, manipulates, etc. bystanders is Evil. ...In general, whether they care or not what happens to Joe Shmoe defines that spectrum of their alignment.
...Chaotic vs. Lawful I think is harder to define. Is it how ordered your thoughts are? How predictable? Whether you can accept laws made by a government of similarly minded/alignmented people (as kingdom maker reminds us, governments can be Chaotic)? I think consistency, whether you follow specific rules, and would you break laws if you generally agree with the government all play a factor. But it is not as clear cut.
For me, Chaos vs Law in alignment has always boiled down to how you deal with authorities and power structures. The less you like to be told what to do, the more you tilt towards chaos.
The example that popped into my head was Andrew Ryan from Bioshock, who I think was Chaotic Evil (or Chaotic Neutral at best), since his whole philosophy hinges on preserving freedom and rejecting externally imposed limits. Even as he became more authoritarian, he never stopped believing his own stories. This is even reflected by his death, since the point he’s making by dying is that the freedom to choose it makes him superior.
Chaos is, in that sense, as idealistic as Law, which is why Ryan wasn’t a match for the Neutral Evil Frank Fontaine, who was willing to do whatever was necessary in order to win.
The example that popped into my head was Andrew Ryan from Bioshock, who I think was Chaotic Evil (or Chaotic Neutral at best), since his whole philosophy hinges on preserving freedom and rejecting externally imposed limits. Even as he became more authoritarian, he never stopped believing his own stories. This is even reflected by his death, since the point he’s making by dying is that the freedom to choose it makes him superior.
Chaos is, in that sense, as idealistic as Law, which is why Ryan wasn’t a match for the Neutral Evil Frank Fontaine, who was willing to do whatever was necessary in order to win.
Chaos vs. Law is a harder one to define in general, but I came across a youtuber once that pretty much altered my methodology of defining the issue.
The argument goes like this: Disciplined or Emotional. Disciplined (ala lawful or logical) tends to follow a code of ethics, or rules, which regardless of the world around them follow their natural order. No matter how much emotion may be part of their fight or vernacular, in the ending fight, they still maintain that very poise that keeps them from being out of control. Naturally, the opposite is emotional (ala chaotic or illogical), wherein their decisions are not made by thought, but rather by feel. They come to their alignment based on the emotion to do so, rather than the reason to do so.
Naturally, this makes most people Neutral, neither defined by cold absolutes nor reckless whims all the time.
In short, the 'dealing with authority' does play into it, but then expands upon it.
If interested, the video that helped shape this: https://youtu.be/k1CDYsLL0aY?t=303
The argument goes like this: Disciplined or Emotional. Disciplined (ala lawful or logical) tends to follow a code of ethics, or rules, which regardless of the world around them follow their natural order. No matter how much emotion may be part of their fight or vernacular, in the ending fight, they still maintain that very poise that keeps them from being out of control. Naturally, the opposite is emotional (ala chaotic or illogical), wherein their decisions are not made by thought, but rather by feel. They come to their alignment based on the emotion to do so, rather than the reason to do so.
Naturally, this makes most people Neutral, neither defined by cold absolutes nor reckless whims all the time.
In short, the 'dealing with authority' does play into it, but then expands upon it.
If interested, the video that helped shape this: https://youtu.be/k1CDYsLL0aY?t=303
Law vs Chaos is very simple.
Do you believe in the view of the Vorlons, that order and stability permit growth? That'sOrder Law.
Do you believe in the view of the Shadows, that opportunity and change permits new growth to replace the stagnant old? That's Chaos.
Or, do you believe in the view of the Sheridan, that order that does not know itself, that chaos that has no goal, are all wrong, and it's up to each individual. That's Neutral.
Do you believe in the view of the Vorlons, that order and stability permit growth? That's
Do you believe in the view of the Shadows, that opportunity and change permits new growth to replace the stagnant old? That's Chaos.
Or, do you believe in the view of the Sheridan, that order that does not know itself, that chaos that has no goal, are all wrong, and it's up to each individual. That's Neutral.
The average D&D game takes place in a setting ruled over by actual, living Gods of Good and of Evil. These gods dwell in higher planes of existence that are physically made of Good or Evil, and are populated by otherworldly beings (angels, demons, etc.) physically made of Good or Evil. The gods also have mortal followers in the physical world who can cast divine spells that can detect, block or summon the raw energies of Good or Evil.
It is literally completely impossible for Good or Evil to be subjective in such a world. Even if it started out subjective, the gods would have the power and inclination to force their definitions of them onto the fabric of reality, and nothing else I listed could possibly exist in a world with subjective alignment.
You can argue all you want about whether alignment is subjective in the real world, but if you want it to be subjective in your game world, prepare to jettison a surprising amount of classic fantasy elements or else be an enormous hypocrite.
It is literally completely impossible for Good or Evil to be subjective in such a world. Even if it started out subjective, the gods would have the power and inclination to force their definitions of them onto the fabric of reality, and nothing else I listed could possibly exist in a world with subjective alignment.
You can argue all you want about whether alignment is subjective in the real world, but if you want it to be subjective in your game world, prepare to jettison a surprising amount of classic fantasy elements or else be an enormous hypocrite.
Rainbow Dash/Gallus: Ugh, he's that kind of guy...
Applejack/Sandbar: And here I was thinking you'd agree with him.
Rainbow Dash/Gallus: Yeah, but that's entry-level stuff. If you actually say something like that out loud, then that just shows what a poser you are.
Anyway, we've got another entry in the tale of The Forgotten Ones! We find out if we can survive about fifty goblins' worth of chaos that may or may not have been started by the actions of a mysterious dashing rogue.
(Is this what it's like to be the agent of chaos...?)Spudventures - The Forgotten Ones, Session 7: Podcast | Video