Even though Dusty refers to the group as “Our band”, I think the whole entry feels like he still considers himself outside of the group. Alone in a crowd, kinda.
I guess it makes sense, given the “strife between [their] people”, but it’s kinda sad that his walls are still up so high.
He should join in the next drinking contest. I bet Frigg’s golden aura will look even better through honey-tinted meadgoggles.
He’s probably worried about his own divided loyalties. I don’t really get the impression that he’s in a rush to give up on the Savasi and apparently the Savasi are quite comfortable with the idea of violencing the hell out of their neighbors if it comes to that.
Yes, righteous. There is able to be such a thing as righteous /vengance/, and someone that herself was a murderer, deceiver of her flock, and tried to torture Frigg’s mind to breaking?
Yes, that kind of person deserves to be set on fire.
Righteous has a pretty unlawful connotation. Righteousness means sticking to your morality or I guess in Frigg’s case ethics since she’s not a huge fan of the clergy. However, morality and ethics have nothing to do with the law.
Actually….”lawful” — in D&D terms — means sticking to your code, no matter what code that is. Law means no changing your mind, no mercy, no wimping out.
“Good” is a more slippery term; it usually means “for the good of many,” however. In the case of the Bloodshot Eyeball, come on, how “good” were these ladies? Slaughtering entire herds of unicorns, kidnapping and torturing one of their own members? Not really Lawful Good sounding folks. More like Lawful Evil.
As far as Righteous goes: that’s purely a matter of perspective. The Crusaders back in the Middle Ages surely thought they were slaughtering Arabs in the name of righteousness. Ever wonder what the Arabs thought about it?
Actually, the crusaders were just given free range to plunder and murder by the Pope. They were in it for the money and not for principles. I would say that they’re lawful since they got permission first, but not righteous since they were just thieving assholes.
And of course righteousness is a matter of perspective- it’s tied into a person’s morality and ethics.
And going back to your first point- isn’t your “code” in D&D the law? The code isn’t a personal code, it’s the code of the fake country you’re from or profession or race.
No, in D&D lawful is defined by following any set code or creed. For instance, Robin Hood is actually lawful good. He has a strict moral code which he adheres to. Were he chaotic good, he would have used his phat loots to acquire armor or hire mercenaries to achieve the same ends. Instead, however, he set the rule of returning the stolen coin to those it belonged to.
Monks are similarly lawful (at least in 3.5). Their law was no the law of the land but the precepts of their school.
So long as it’s a defined code, it counts as lawful, at least by 3.X standards.
Robin Hood is actually neutral good, he doesn’t follow the predominant law of the land in going against he steward. But the sheriff could be considered Lawful, albeit evilly so. By your statement a man who must rub against every dwarf he sees, kiss every gnome he meets, and pick his nose every half hour on the hour is a lawfully aligned person because those are his laws. Though most would agree that sounds quite chaotic. I do note however that you play 3.X and I play 2.0 so there may be discrepancies, Cheers
Yeah, in 3.x those examples might be lawful. The determining factor is how many of those codes they have; dwarf rubbing might not be enough to tip the scale from neutral to lawful, but dwarf rubbing, gnome kissing, and nose picking might.
In 3.x, I’d say the Sheriff is probably more neutral evil than lawful, if only because he only employs the laws of the land at his convenience, not universally.
I think the difference is that 2e sees ‘THE law of the land’ and 3e sees ‘A law of the land.’
Basically, your Lawful Good Paladin follows the law as long as it isn’t unfair, and when it become intolerable you resist it. Your personal code of ethics, which is often linked to your chosen god, is more important. But you sympathise with legal systems and believe they are vital for keeping the peace and order, when they are fair.
The Crusaders point is something I can’t agree with entirely. This is a point in time when faith was very much beyond what we see of it today, and while it is true that for instance Bohemond was certainly in it for the plunder I don’t think this can be said to be a universal viewpoint. People wore their crusader cross as a brand on their face, they cut open people to the bellies and then lay down in the streets and prayed knee-deep in guts – and they didn’t see much of a dichotomy there. Most crusaders didn’t come out of the wars with a profit, but rather a substantial loss.
I think the crusades really took on a life of their own, and that we naturally relate to those aspects of it most familiar to our modern attitudes such as greed. But I don’t feel the faith aspect can be entirely denied, or fully understood.
I don’t know, if anyone would hear me, but hey… about the Righteousness and golden aura of Frigg… In thruth, proud and pure people are somehow golden in my heart. This is what Gravedust must have meant. This purity could come from many sources and they are not related to socially accepted terms as good, evil, or troublemaker or such… I saw a man, Christian in his whole, and he burned golden. I saw a man, never accepting the laws, always being on the low, pagan to the end, burning golden. Purity is peace with self, and Frigg is in peace with herself… at least mostly. I believe this is her purity. Though I have to contradict my own words, since, I saw men attuned with their inner selves, still, they were giving in to their animalistic instincts, but defiled by our modern societies customs. These men were in peace with themselves through lies, and they lacked that glow. Instead they were a constant resonance… like a threat untriggered. “Alignments” cannot be described with nine base alignments, people are more complex than that.
In DnD3rd Ed, we used to interpret alignments in context of the character’s personalities, therefore always customizing them. In our read, Good were selflessness, Evil were cruelty, Law were stubbornness, and Chaos were utter freedom. Though always blended, mixed together. I believe, that it was intended to be something like this, not a set of rules to define nine playable personalities.
I’m more creeped out at the idea of dwarves eating eggs.
Next he’s going to be eating vegetables or something. Speaking of which, did we ever catch what kind of food Syr’Nj eats? Does she just pour liquid on her roots? I mean feet? I mean in her mouth?
Everyone’s probably expecting that she’s a vegetarian or something. Then they end up finding her eating some meat cut form Frigg.
“Plants are alive as much as anything else. We don’t discern the difference in food by how audible it is to object to being eaten”
I’m really disappointed there isn’t more innuendo concerning Frigg and Syr’nj. Its like after reading our comments, the writing ‘crew’ says “Lets see what kinds of shenanigans our reader can really get up to when properly set up.” For all we know the ‘bonding’ Syr’nj refers to could be kinky elf play… or maybe this is all my delusion and wishful thinking.
I was a bit surprised the nun rescue sidequest didn’t lead to some kind of parallel to frig’s fighter thing and the red eye’s wrath centric teachings helping get her out of it, I was half looking for some sort of wild ur paladin deal where the diety turned out to like her. what with her reaction to retreating from the slavers and such. guess the order of the red eye was too lawful axis aligned for that, way too focused on discipline and authority, not that warlike. i really don’t know why i felt that way at all
My money’s still on Frigg/Syr’nj/Science threesome.
FYI, getting insights into Gravedust are very nice.
Don’t anyone tell Bandit that Frigg has a heart of gold, or you’re gonna be VERY sorry.
One of the few funny things anyone has said in the comments.
Well done.
Wow. She really is a paladin. O_O
She’s still a crusader.
meh. a few more level ups and a quick class change could fix that.
a paladin does not choose a paladin get choosen
I rather like how conflicted Gravedust is by this adventuring business. Despite his sagely demeanor, inside he’s going “WHAT THE FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK?!”
Me too. It’s pretty neat that’s he’s so serious and considered with his little terse, grave comments but when the diary opens it’s livejournal time.
Love the sketches, especially his take on Bandit – not just two-faced, but three…
Yes, the sketches are divine!
…oh, I did something there, didn’t I?
Even though Dusty refers to the group as “Our band”, I think the whole entry feels like he still considers himself outside of the group. Alone in a crowd, kinda.
I guess it makes sense, given the “strife between [their] people”, but it’s kinda sad that his walls are still up so high.
He should join in the next drinking contest. I bet Frigg’s golden aura will look even better through honey-tinted meadgoggles.
He’s probably worried about his own divided loyalties. I don’t really get the impression that he’s in a rush to give up on the Savasi and apparently the Savasi are quite comfortable with the idea of violencing the hell out of their neighbors if it comes to that.
Gravedust, the sommolier of souls.
A righteous heart even though she set someone on fire?
Oh, come on! Burning down the Church of Crazy was Righteous!
Yes, righteous. There is able to be such a thing as righteous /vengance/, and someone that herself was a murderer, deceiver of her flock, and tried to torture Frigg’s mind to breaking?
Yes, that kind of person deserves to be set on fire.
Well turning her to a Newt didn’t stick.
…She got better.
Ever heard of Chaotic Good? It lets you do stuff that other good people can’t, while still not suffering from an evil alignement.
“Righteous” has a pretty Lawful connotation. Chaotic good just doesn’t fit that adjective.
Righteous has a pretty unlawful connotation. Righteousness means sticking to your morality or I guess in Frigg’s case ethics since she’s not a huge fan of the clergy. However, morality and ethics have nothing to do with the law.
except that the law is supposed to be representative of the common human morarilty.
Emphasis on ‘supposed to be.’
Eric, let’s be friends.
true enough.
Actually….”lawful” — in D&D terms — means sticking to your code, no matter what code that is. Law means no changing your mind, no mercy, no wimping out.
“Good” is a more slippery term; it usually means “for the good of many,” however. In the case of the Bloodshot Eyeball, come on, how “good” were these ladies? Slaughtering entire herds of unicorns, kidnapping and torturing one of their own members? Not really Lawful Good sounding folks. More like Lawful Evil.
As far as Righteous goes: that’s purely a matter of perspective. The Crusaders back in the Middle Ages surely thought they were slaughtering Arabs in the name of righteousness. Ever wonder what the Arabs thought about it?
Actually, the crusaders were just given free range to plunder and murder by the Pope. They were in it for the money and not for principles. I would say that they’re lawful since they got permission first, but not righteous since they were just thieving assholes.
And of course righteousness is a matter of perspective- it’s tied into a person’s morality and ethics.
And going back to your first point- isn’t your “code” in D&D the law? The code isn’t a personal code, it’s the code of the fake country you’re from or profession or race.
No, in D&D lawful is defined by following any set code or creed. For instance, Robin Hood is actually lawful good. He has a strict moral code which he adheres to. Were he chaotic good, he would have used his phat loots to acquire armor or hire mercenaries to achieve the same ends. Instead, however, he set the rule of returning the stolen coin to those it belonged to.
Monks are similarly lawful (at least in 3.5). Their law was no the law of the land but the precepts of their school.
So long as it’s a defined code, it counts as lawful, at least by 3.X standards.
Robin Hood is actually neutral good, he doesn’t follow the predominant law of the land in going against he steward. But the sheriff could be considered Lawful, albeit evilly so. By your statement a man who must rub against every dwarf he sees, kiss every gnome he meets, and pick his nose every half hour on the hour is a lawfully aligned person because those are his laws. Though most would agree that sounds quite chaotic. I do note however that you play 3.X and I play 2.0 so there may be discrepancies, Cheers
Yeah, in 3.x those examples might be lawful. The determining factor is how many of those codes they have; dwarf rubbing might not be enough to tip the scale from neutral to lawful, but dwarf rubbing, gnome kissing, and nose picking might.
In 3.x, I’d say the Sheriff is probably more neutral evil than lawful, if only because he only employs the laws of the land at his convenience, not universally.
I think the difference is that 2e sees ‘THE law of the land’ and 3e sees ‘A law of the land.’
Basically, your Lawful Good Paladin follows the law as long as it isn’t unfair, and when it become intolerable you resist it. Your personal code of ethics, which is often linked to your chosen god, is more important. But you sympathise with legal systems and believe they are vital for keeping the peace and order, when they are fair.
The Crusaders point is something I can’t agree with entirely. This is a point in time when faith was very much beyond what we see of it today, and while it is true that for instance Bohemond was certainly in it for the plunder I don’t think this can be said to be a universal viewpoint. People wore their crusader cross as a brand on their face, they cut open people to the bellies and then lay down in the streets and prayed knee-deep in guts – and they didn’t see much of a dichotomy there. Most crusaders didn’t come out of the wars with a profit, but rather a substantial loss.
I think the crusades really took on a life of their own, and that we naturally relate to those aspects of it most familiar to our modern attitudes such as greed. But I don’t feel the faith aspect can be entirely denied, or fully understood.
I don’t know, if anyone would hear me, but hey… about the Righteousness and golden aura of Frigg… In thruth, proud and pure people are somehow golden in my heart. This is what Gravedust must have meant. This purity could come from many sources and they are not related to socially accepted terms as good, evil, or troublemaker or such… I saw a man, Christian in his whole, and he burned golden. I saw a man, never accepting the laws, always being on the low, pagan to the end, burning golden. Purity is peace with self, and Frigg is in peace with herself… at least mostly. I believe this is her purity. Though I have to contradict my own words, since, I saw men attuned with their inner selves, still, they were giving in to their animalistic instincts, but defiled by our modern societies customs. These men were in peace with themselves through lies, and they lacked that glow. Instead they were a constant resonance… like a threat untriggered. “Alignments” cannot be described with nine base alignments, people are more complex than that.
In DnD3rd Ed, we used to interpret alignments in context of the character’s personalities, therefore always customizing them. In our read, Good were selflessness, Evil were cruelty, Law were stubbornness, and Chaos were utter freedom. Though always blended, mixed together. I believe, that it was intended to be something like this, not a set of rules to define nine playable personalities.
those words describe me perfectly.
that is why frigg is ma gurrl.
Hadn’t you heard? Killing “Evil” characters is a “Good” act.
Lol, Syr’Nj and Frigg drunk and together in an unknown location… sounds like that guest comic could become canon ^_^
TWO WHOLE EGGS?!
That’s intense! He must bathe without a shower cap, too! :3
I’m more creeped out at the idea of dwarves eating eggs.
Next he’s going to be eating vegetables or something. Speaking of which, did we ever catch what kind of food Syr’Nj eats? Does she just pour liquid on her roots? I mean feet? I mean in her mouth?
Everyone’s probably expecting that she’s a vegetarian or something. Then they end up finding her eating some meat cut form Frigg.
“Plants are alive as much as anything else. We don’t discern the difference in food by how audible it is to object to being eaten”
How does he write so neatly on such crinkled paper?
Epic feat.
Congratulations you unlocked an achievement!
BRING THE SHOTS, HOLD THE NEEDLE!
You lost the combat medic!
I really enjoy these diary pages. I am eager to see his comments on Byron particularly, and Syr’Nj. And Best. He should totally gaze into Best’s soul.
I’m really disappointed there isn’t more innuendo concerning Frigg and Syr’nj. Its like after reading our comments, the writing ‘crew’ says “Lets see what kinds of shenanigans our reader can really get up to when properly set up.” For all we know the ‘bonding’ Syr’nj refers to could be kinky elf play… or maybe this is all my delusion and wishful thinking.
I know i used the end italicize code after the ‘really’ … don’t know what happened there.
We gave you people permission to do slash fic/art. Don’t be disappointed at us, be disappointed at the lack of fanart.
If fan art were supplied, were would such items be displayed?
Deviantart is generally the place for such things. Anyway, I think it’s fair to say- LINKS OR IT DIDN’T HAPPEN!
The good ol’ “pics or it didn’t happen” would’ve been just fine. :P
This is great, despite the Wisdom(tm) there is a sort of naivette about GD as he tries to make sense of the world around him.
Gravedust would make a great conceptual foundation for an independent Abyssal in Exalted.
I love the illustrations. You’ve got a great artist working here!
Where exactly did Frigg and Syr disappear to?? ;D
Love the symbol/image for Frigg. The one for Bandit is appropriate too, just not as cool.
I was a bit surprised the nun rescue sidequest didn’t lead to some kind of parallel to frig’s fighter thing and the red eye’s wrath centric teachings helping get her out of it, I was half looking for some sort of wild ur paladin deal where the diety turned out to like her. what with her reaction to retreating from the slavers and such. guess the order of the red eye was too lawful axis aligned for that, way too focused on discipline and authority, not that warlike. i really don’t know why i felt that way at all