Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6323696" data-attributes="member: 23484">There's nothing to forgive. What you wrote was poorly argued. I'm not going to ignore someone who does that (why would I?) -- but I will treat them with respect by giving them my time in an attempt to engage in a real conversation. So let's see what you have to say.(1)When we cut away the silly rhetoric (everything after the first sentence quoted above), it seems I did misunderstand you. It's not that you are almost right; you are indeed completely wrong. You claim "the Hobbie [is] virtually equivalent to an Ogre". This is not the case. In order for this to be potentially true (as you note here) you need there to be allies in the equation, which is what I said. A revised claim, <<the hobgoblin and other allies are virtually equivalent to an ogre and other allies>> is also, I suspect, incorrect, but at least is defensible. That's  a question of encounter building, though, not the ability of the creature, or evidence of bad design.(2)See? This is helpful. You're choosing an interesting line here, and since you've already brought up "theory of mind" it's worth pursuing. The definition you provide (from 3.5, c. 2003) assumes the ally is capable of being friendly, whatever that means. In D&D terms, that's a measure of the intelligence score. So is any positive intelligence score sufficient? Before reading your post, I would have said yes, but I have reconsidered.In 5e the Ochre Jelly has an intelligence of 2 (characterized in the stat block as "bestial cunning"). So, here's the question: can an ochre jelly be an ally? (or, to use the definition you've provided, can it be a creature friendly to me?). I would say no. Since a human minimum intelligence is 3, we have a benchmark for the potential to be an ally: Int 2 no; Int 3 yes. And there are cases where one can be fighting with a sentient being (such as the intelligent sword) where it is not an ally. So Intelligence 3+ is a necessary but not sufficient quality to make an ally. So you have changed my mind on this -- your argument has made me raise my threshold for what constitutes an ally. I still see no reason to think non-sentients can be an ally by this definition.  (3)I did make it myself, along with others. Remember, I'm agreeing with you on this. (4-6)No new evidence presented here, simply "yes it is". If you can't or won't substantiate your claims, I will continue to see them as empty. I can do more than take it or leave it, I can choose to engage with it. You've posted here because (I presume) you believe your view is worth other people's time. We all get consider the substance, if any, in the posts of our interlocutors, and add to the argument. This is what I tried to do here. It's not whinging to ask for an argument where there is none, or where you by your own admission have not provided one.</blockquote>

Verification