Ouch. Nobody can hurt you worse than a friend. Except several friends.
ok thanks now I feel like a jerk cuse I been wanting to say what Enkidu said myself
and thanks to YOU Kevin for apparantly making ME an Enkidu
Stephen is Enkidu! Stephen is Enkidu! (/dances a merry jig.)
I bet that when Kevin thinks things through he will be really sorry he gave Stephen that “Scorching Ray”-spell. 😯
Has to be said, usually having a crying-fit in the corner is a totally inappropriate and unreasonable response–even if one is being pushed with a situation that may strike one as having remarkable parallels to rape.
The anti-moral here is that if you are being bullied you need to learn what the acceptable response is fast and do it well even if you just wish it weren’t happening. It’s not like Bunker’s player was physically getting raped or anything else where this is actually impossible. And sometimes the only acceptable response is to take it like a bitch thanks to standing institutional norms of structural violence.
I wonder what kind of person Bunker’s player is in real life, that caused him to act the way he did when faced with an evil version of his character.
This webcomic is tricky sometimes in that it becomes a little… dodgy… distinguishing between the characters and their players.
Games are that way too. It’s easy to play your character’s personality when everything is clear cut and easy going. But when things become sticky or emotionally charged you frequently see the player’s personality shine through.
Very true, I as a player am awful at playing an Evil character. No matter what I do I always find my choices favoring the “good” side and to the benefit of others. I guess that is why I play a war hammer wielding barbarian, I keep my choices simple.
Not rape. Just bullying, mobbing.
Rape would imply Bunker was physically violated and lost control and say over his own body.
But being cloned does not mean you lose control over who *you* are. A twin is not you.
This is bullying, pure and simple. Bunker is being intimidated and made a social outcast.
I didn’t say this situation was rape, merely extended my blanket statement about acceptable responses up to rape. I’ll agree that this situation could be fairly considered bullying but frankly that sort of thing happens every day in the adult world too: A med student’s residency is a tradition-sanctioned hazing ritual for example (what else should we call it when people are forced to work themselves delirious on threat of wasting years and many thousands of dollars worth of previous tuition?) and I’m sure it’s not too hard to think of other examples from nearly any job. Running away and crying in a corner doesn’t do you any good with those things either.
And why is Bunker still not wearing pants? There’s a perfectly functional Symbol of Pants back by the sphinx (#646), and they don’t seem to have gotten too far from her.
Mayhap he noticed Freya had a ‘reaction’ to him when he was naked, and a well-hidden part of Bunker enjoys flaunting his figure-hugging undies at her. He did once have a thing for her, after all.
That, or he just forgot.
Fleece stole the pants!
She would, too.
Freya is a bitch!!!!
Also, did anyone else realize that it has been well over a month since the actual games plot developed at all. As soon the slime dissolved Bunker and Freya’s clothes, there has been nothing but exposition about evil people and Bunker. Granted that is nice to now but still.
Yeah… my rule is not to push plot. I know where everything is going, but I’m happy letting everyone take as much time as they feel like they need getting there. And by “everyone” I mean the characters.
That said, exposition time is over, and things are beginning to happen again, as they have today. (Though the party is still waiting to take further steps down the hall…)
No, keep up the exposition and delay the end as much as possible!
I wasn’t saying that exposition is bad. I’m just saying that that there is been a lot of expositi lately.
I just assumed that duing all the exposition time, the players were taking the opportunity to run to the fridge for more cola, grab some ding dongs, hit the bathroom, etc…
That’s pretty much the way I think of it as well, Elfguy.
Grabbing dongs is indeed an important activity for which time must be cleared.
Lawful good characters are all punks. Too many morals gets in the way of doing what needs be done. I’ve never played one, nor have I ever known anyone who ever played one. We all knew we couldn’t pull it off so we didn’t even try. In all honesty my last group would have fit right in with the Knights of the Dinner Table. Don’t know if you all have read that comic, but check it out if you haven’t. And no, it’s not an online comic unfortunately.
The question with Law/Chaos and Good/Evil most players have to answer is, what does each of those mean?
You can be Lawful Good and not be much different from a Neutral Good character with the exception of something like “Never breaks his word” – Think of it in terms of GURPS psychological disadvantages, where neutral can have or not have them, but Aligned characters should play as if they had them:
Good: Tries to be “nice” to intelligent creatures that don’t immediately attack them, unless they are KNOWN criminals or evil people (members of the cult of Cthuhlu, for example)
Evil: Will stoop to anything to accomplish their goals, tries to instil fear in their opponents.
Chaotic: Doesn’t worry at all about keeping promises. If you dig it, do it, if you REALLY dig it, do it twice.
Lawful: Thinks of himself as Honorable…will keep promises, even at risk to their own life (but just TRY to get a Lawful Evil guy to make a promise like that…it ain’t easy) for the sake of their own reputation or just because they think it’s the right thing to do.
All alignments are only guidelines anyway.
By your own definition Elfguy, you’re agreeing with what I said, insofar as I could not play a lawful good character. Someone who doesn’t attack unless provoked and always keeps his promises? No chance. I play someone who is generally a good guy, but will steal, kill, kidnap or whatever to accomplish his goal. I usually go with Chaotic good, but I’m not even sure that fits. Some of the stuff I’ve done in game was probably pretty evil. I never liked alignments though, and usually don’t really use them.
You’re skipping an important part: “unless they are KNOWN criminals or evil people” – It’s perfectly OK for a classic paladin to slaughter a band of crooks who have been waylaying travellers, even if they haven’t hit him first, so long as he is sure of their identity.
Lancelot was the prototype for the Paladin, of course, and up until he started sleeping with the queen, he was just fine.
You can usually justify a lot even as a good or lawful good character. Good char’s are definitely not pushovers unless you want to play them as such.
Even if most are nice and polite to most of their surroundings, they don’t have to be nice to monsters, evil people etc.
Good does not equal pacifist, and as a well known(at least in these parts) Jewish proverb goes, “he who is merciful to cruel ends up being cruel to the merciful”.
And you could easily play character who would stop at nothing, violate any law or break any taboo, as long as he perceives it’s for the greater good, and call him Lawful Good because he adheres rigidly to his own personal code. (You could also identify him as several other alignments for different reasons.)
Everyone knows that the Imperium of Man is lawful good…In the best and bloodiest of ways.
But my point was against some recurring views in the last week that seemed to say LG char’s were clueless do-gooders who’d greet their foes in a friendly manner, or wait for them to strike first.
The Cliche’ of “Lawful Good = Stupid” – I certainly never said they were stupid…heh.
Tim wrote: “Someone who doesn’t attack unless provoked and always keeps his promises? No chance. I play someone who is generally a good guy, but will steal, kill, kidnap or whatever to accomplish his goal.”
Ah yes. Attacking without provocation, lying, stealing, raping, killing for gain… what a pillar of the community.
So, you are actually playing an evil asshole, just one pretending that his own goals taking precedence over everyone else is a handy excuse for everything, up to and including murder, which makes it totally justified, thus “good”. (As in “what’s good for me must be good, right?”) 😡
There’s a name for that kind of person: Sociopath.
Which usually comes coupled with complete lack of remorse (since the sociopath is unable to feel that he’s done anything wrong) and a narcissistic personality disorder.
If symptoms further include: a history of cruelty to animals (especially since childhood), total lack of empathy and compassion, the ability and willingness to lie and charm others, and treating other people not as people but as mere objects existing for your satisfaction, I would up that diagnosis to textbook Psychopath.
Which is consistent with some of the other things you have posted about your worldview.
Now, I’m normally strongly against capital punishment, but as psychopaths are highly dangerous and uncurable by our current medical standards (and genetics and neuroscience suggest psychopathy is more than just a psychological condition caused by upbringing or trauma) that’s the only case where I’m actually making an exception.
my favorite Lawful good character killed two guards for not leting him enter a city because they accused him of being a bandit. later inside a kit tried to pick his coin couch, were in my character grabed him by his shirt, lifted him up to his helmed face and said “dont… do it… again..” in a very stern and monotone voice, then threw the kid like five feet into the ally he came from. the resulting intimidation test was a nat20 so the kid pissed his pants. Im pretty sure that kid wont be picking any more pokets anytime soon.
but i usualy think of most lawfull good characters as being cold and stern. however the line between lawfull good and lawfull evil is so blured it should be called lawful WTFman?!
If you think the line between LG and LE is “blurred”, I’m at a loss for words.
“Cold and stern”? What??
What the fuck is it with you people? Is that an American thing? I’ve stumbled across it so often now…
Of course, if you view the D&D alignments from the point of view that Good and Evil are nothing but two interchangable sides, two opposing teams beating each other up to see who wins, which to judge from Planescape seems to be how D&D works despite all Gygax’s talk about Good and Evil in D&D being moral absolutes (itself a questionable philosophical standpoint), well then, yes, I give up, you’re right.
Wow, somes friends he had here. Honestly, why he even lose his time playing with theses cliché seen in 90 % of webcomics “you-suck-because-i-dont-aprove” friends.