That would explain the sheer amount of mayhem and disregard for common people in most D&D and Pathfinder games I have seen..
“Hey there, I’m a big important adventurer, tell me where I can find treasure.”
“Oh hey there. Um, well there is this thing I know about. I can tell you about it if you cut me in on the profit. I need some money to keep my farm running since half my farmhands were slaughtered by orcs.”
“What, you want part of my profits to waste on your stinky farm?! Guys, torture him until he tells us where the treasure is.”
I suppose the particular adventurers and as for the reasoning why, I suppose it would be because many people I have seen just expect other people to do what they want simply due to the fact that they are more capable in certain aspects, except for the aspect which they need help with.
I have seen groups who expect a town to give complete control over to them, down to conscripting child soldiers and dissolving temples, to protect them from a nebulous threat, despite the fact the group is barely known and could be just as dangerous as what they claim to be protecting the town from.
More to the point, I have heard as a Gamemaster, this example player logic for why people should do what their characters say “Because we are PC’s and all these people are NPC’s.”
In general, just the idea that what you want is the right thing because it is what you want and anything that stops you is wrong.
That said, I really known nothing about objectivism, good or bad, beyond what I have heard second hand. I am perplexed though that a supposedly Christian (read: meant to be used for charity, helpful communities and altruism) nation such as the United States seems to have such a strong following of objectivists.
Really short summary: Ayn Rand puts forth in her books certain ideas: intelligence, competence, willpower and productivity as virtues, social contracts, and the notion that people have the right to be free and productive without being forced to support thugs and parasites.
Rand’s books The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are fiction, and I find them enjoyable to read, if a little heavy at certain parts.
Reading the “Francisco D’anconia money speech” from Atlas Shrugged is very thought-provoking; How many of us take the idea of money for granted? I’m sure you can find that excerpt in full on the internet.
Had a pretty big post written out but figured it was obfuscating and mvoign from one point to another too often.
Read the speech (came up on a Ron Paul site), found it alright but didn’t tell me much I didn’t already know. Anyone who thinks money created greed is an imbecile, greed was around since anyone decided to take more than they could reasonable use.
Plenty of other things I could try picking at but there is only one thing I really want to ask, if you feel qualified to answer it.
How, on a national scale, does one differentiate the thugs and parasites from people who could actually be productive and such if only given some support?
Okay, am I the only one thinking there was some wasted plot potential here? All props to Phil, but this seems to be an arc that is going along a bit too well, and not in a Hi-I’m-George-R.-R.-Martin-and-look-at-how-everything-is-going-right-oops-they’re-all-dead kind of way.
I find the resolution of the story a little forced, but this is just as well ‘coz the Savage Races are coming and they’ve recruited their own adventurers.
That may be intentional – previously the dialogue and plot has been excellent, and it would be unlikely to suddenly produce a somewhat contrived resolution through a friendship speech unless it was supposed to feel contrived.
Remember, this whole set up looked suspiciously like warsong gulch, suggesting that it is supposed to be quite gamey, and is thus likely to be important to the plot.
Well, hang glider boy didn’t want to bomb until the Fightopians had retreated, so he could get a friendly-fire-free bombing of The Peacekeepers. As they’re all standing around in close proximity now, I think he’s even less likely to do that.
Plus, it should be visibly evident to him that they’re not fighting anymore, which (hopefully) will make him think twice about bombing them anyway.
While he might be off his crutchoes, he’s still leaning on that flagpole.
Either way, he stands tall in my opinion. Much respect to him in each of his appearances.
Fourth panel, far left side, about half way up, is that Sundarr directing traffic or signalling to Rendar to “drop your bombs there” and Rendar is acknowledging that aim point? Looks suspiciously like Maxim 20. “If you’re not willing to shell your own position, you’re not willing to win.”
well that has nicely averted a potentially horrific scene, yay!
You sure? There’s one thing nobody’s asked yet. And I think we’ll get the answer very soon…
What. About. Rachel?
She accidentally all the fire.
She accidentally her neck.
she’s having a nap
Lower left corner, last frame, e-Merl is helping her up. She lived. I think.
Oh wait, that is not Rachel, that is Gravedust. Never mind. WHAT. ABOUT. RACHEL.
vote to kick: dc?
Oh, don’t you worry.
There’s still plenty of catastrophic mayhem available for next Monday.
The whole fire?
Every last flame.
No need for anybody to make an ash of themselves…
Bert’s face has all the smug. All of it.
…So, I predicted a new party member from this.
I wasn’t predicting an entire army.
So the cultist beat you to the punch eh?
Say, didn’t the Cultist say something about Byron becoming a leader of a Army?
Secondly, Randal still scares me up there!
“Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.”
I had no idea Ayn Rand was an adventurer.
Gah ! Don’t mention her name ! That cultist is … is … EVIL ! :-P ;-3
Oh, I am slow this week. The cultists are objectivists. Excellent. Totally appropriate.
How?
That would explain the sheer amount of mayhem and disregard for common people in most D&D and Pathfinder games I have seen..
“Hey there, I’m a big important adventurer, tell me where I can find treasure.”
“Oh hey there. Um, well there is this thing I know about. I can tell you about it if you cut me in on the profit. I need some money to keep my farm running since half my farmhands were slaughtered by orcs.”
“What, you want part of my profits to waste on your stinky farm?! Guys, torture him until he tells us where the treasure is.”
Which side of that conversation do you think is ‘objectivist’, and why?
I suppose the particular adventurers and as for the reasoning why, I suppose it would be because many people I have seen just expect other people to do what they want simply due to the fact that they are more capable in certain aspects, except for the aspect which they need help with.
I have seen groups who expect a town to give complete control over to them, down to conscripting child soldiers and dissolving temples, to protect them from a nebulous threat, despite the fact the group is barely known and could be just as dangerous as what they claim to be protecting the town from.
More to the point, I have heard as a Gamemaster, this example player logic for why people should do what their characters say “Because we are PC’s and all these people are NPC’s.”
In general, just the idea that what you want is the right thing because it is what you want and anything that stops you is wrong.
That said, I really known nothing about objectivism, good or bad, beyond what I have heard second hand. I am perplexed though that a supposedly Christian (read: meant to be used for charity, helpful communities and altruism) nation such as the United States seems to have such a strong following of objectivists.
Really short summary: Ayn Rand puts forth in her books certain ideas: intelligence, competence, willpower and productivity as virtues, social contracts, and the notion that people have the right to be free and productive without being forced to support thugs and parasites.
Rand’s books The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are fiction, and I find them enjoyable to read, if a little heavy at certain parts.
Reading the “Francisco D’anconia money speech” from Atlas Shrugged is very thought-provoking; How many of us take the idea of money for granted? I’m sure you can find that excerpt in full on the internet.
Had a pretty big post written out but figured it was obfuscating and mvoign from one point to another too often.
Read the speech (came up on a Ron Paul site), found it alright but didn’t tell me much I didn’t already know. Anyone who thinks money created greed is an imbecile, greed was around since anyone decided to take more than they could reasonable use.
Plenty of other things I could try picking at but there is only one thing I really want to ask, if you feel qualified to answer it.
How, on a national scale, does one differentiate the thugs and parasites from people who could actually be productive and such if only given some support?
MISATTRIBUTION
I uh…
Okay, am I the only one thinking there was some wasted plot potential here? All props to Phil, but this seems to be an arc that is going along a bit too well, and not in a Hi-I’m-George-R.-R.-Martin-and-look-at-how-everything-is-going-right-oops-they’re-all-dead kind of way.
Well, Rendar looks happy.
Rendar has been rendered rapturous
I find the resolution of the story a little forced, but this is just as well ‘coz the Savage Races are coming and they’ve recruited their own adventurers.
That may be intentional – previously the dialogue and plot has been excellent, and it would be unlikely to suddenly produce a somewhat contrived resolution through a friendship speech unless it was supposed to feel contrived.
Remember, this whole set up looked suspiciously like warsong gulch, suggesting that it is supposed to be quite gamey, and is thus likely to be important to the plot.
…oh, my.
Where’s the ka-boom? There was supposed to be a Rachel-shattering ka-boom.
I have a feeling there is still going to be a ka-boom. Pretty sure hang glider boy can’t hear what is going on from up there.
Well, hang glider boy didn’t want to bomb until the Fightopians had retreated, so he could get a friendly-fire-free bombing of The Peacekeepers. As they’re all standing around in close proximity now, I think he’s even less likely to do that.
Plus, it should be visibly evident to him that they’re not fighting anymore, which (hopefully) will make him think twice about bombing them anyway.
At some point during the brawling, somebody lost the Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
I really dig how Braggadocio’s glorious beard is still clearly visibly on his silhouette.
Hmm, do you think the green silhouette is Rabbit?
I see Bert was given the gift of healed legs for his courage and selflessness.
One good turn deserves another… :)
Not really, he’s limping along, holding on to the flag. Like a hero should. ;)
While he might be off his crutchoes, he’s still leaning on that flagpole.
Either way, he stands tall in my opinion. Much respect to him in each of his appearances.
They’re running 40 man raids again
I like Byron’s facepalm.
I don’t think he can hear them all up there
Bert is Best Character <33333
He’s an alt?
Wild dire horse cutie mark: FU!
Shouldn’t it just be “F!” since that’s what’s on the flag?
Secret plot to gather all of Byron’s troops together so that Rendar can bomb them?
Fourth panel, far left side, about half way up, is that Sundarr directing traffic or signalling to Rendar to “drop your bombs there” and Rendar is acknowledging that aim point? Looks suspiciously like Maxim 20. “If you’re not willing to shell your own position, you’re not willing to win.”