OotS 448

[drothgery]

I think this is one of the worst strips since the Miko storyline was put on the back burner (which was a good idea, as that just wasn't working). Definitely missing teh funny.

 

[SPoD]

Sometimes Rich's idea of entertaining and/or humorous is just too morbid for me. This strip is asking the reader to cheer for Xykon, based on some premise that watching good people killing each other is fun, and is doing it in a rather silly and intended-to-be-humorous manner.

I disagree, I don't think this strip was meant to be funny AT ALL. I think it was supposed to be disturbing and unsettling to us, which it was to many people. The thing is, to XYKON, this was funny, because Xykon is an evil sick bastard. If you came away from the strip feeling mildly disgusted, then I think it had its intended effect on you.

Rich has long since abandoned the idea that every strip needs to have a hilarious punchline, so don't assume that any given strip, if you don't find it funny, was INTENDED to be funny in the first place. This one wasn't; the girl at the end committing seppuku is the clue that we're supposed to feel bad for the paladins, not root for Xykon.

There is no possible way that Xykon's use of the Symbol of Insanity in this strip could be seen as anything other than offensive.

"It's not possible for anyone to see it this way, despite the fact that several people see it that way on this very thread!"

I'll just leave it there, since its a waste of time to argue with anyone who pronounces their opinions as inviolable facts.

 

[Grog]

I'll just leave it there, since its a waste of time to argue with anyone who pronounces their opinions as inviolable facts.

It's not an opinion that Xykon used the symbol as an offensive spell. It's a fact, clearly and unambiguously shown in the strip.

The problem people seem to have with it is that the way he did it isn't "by the rules" enough, or is somehow "cheap."

I don't have a problem with anything that happened in the strip (well, I do, but that has more to do with the strip not being funny IMO). I'm simply responding to the people saying that what happened in the strip was within D&D rules. It wasn't.

Whether or not that's a problem depends on whether or not one thinks the strip should conform strictly to D&D rules at all times. Me, I say it's a comic strip, and it can have whatever rules the creator thinks it should have.

 

[Elephant]

You DID read my post with the description of this hypothewtical strip, right?

Oh. Yeah, I saw that. Though mildly amusing, it didn't make much of an impact on me, sorry. You'll have to spend another two minutes to come up with a better "better" script for this strip if you want to convince me.

 

[beeber]

didn't think it was funny, i thought it was shocking.

as drama? excellent. as a d&d thing? would never permit it. i would have ruled it as trying to use it offensively, among other things. but then again, it would never have been an issue since xykon isn't a pc . . . .

next week's strips should prove interesting

 

[Tinker Gnome]

Maybe something is wrong with me, cause I thought it was funny.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I disagree, I don't think this strip was meant to be funny AT ALL. I think it was supposed to be disturbing and unsettling to us, which it was to many people. The thing is, to XYKON, this was funny, because Xykon is an evil sick bastard. If you came away from the strip feeling mildly disgusted, then I think it had its intended effect on you.

I would agree with you... If Belkar didn't exist. However, Belkar does exist, and Rich has shown a tendancy to make morbid and disturbing things into jokes all the time. Further, this strip has enough elements that are humorous (the bouncing ball, Xykon's joking) that it seems like a joke set-up. Finally, there are a lot of people who are making declarations that this is funny, which disturbs me somewhat.

Regardless, even if it wasn't meant to be funny, it still fails to accomplish much else, for reasons that Celebrim described above.

 

[Wolv0rine]

It's not an opinion that Xykon used the symbol as an offensive spell. It's a fact, clearly and unambiguously shown in the strip.

See now, I disagree with That. I don't think he used it offensively at all. I think he used it as an area-effect no differently that if he'd cast it as a 10 foot tall symbol on the wall behind him and said "Look guys!"
Placing the ball with the symbol in their midst is not an offensive action. They could have not looked at it, they could have closed their eyes, whatever. All he did with the ball was to put it in motion in their midst, an action that -- by itself -- did nothing.
Now "Follow the bouncing ball" could have been a Suggestion or somesuch, which would have quite simply been the ultimate 2-step use of two non-offensive spells to create an offensive Effect. But he didn't MAKE a single one of them fall prey to the Symbol spell by simply throwing the ball.

And so far, as the thread stands at 4 pages, only ONE person has mentioned the only part of this strip that (only in a vague "...Ahh but it's OotS, so who cares" kind of way) bothered me... that D&D doesn't have super bouncy balls.

 

[SPoD]

It's not an opinion that Xykon used the symbol as an offensive spell. It's a fact, clearly and unambiguously shown in the strip.

No, it's not. Unless you can provide me an unambiguous definition of what "offensive" means in the rules, then the only data we have to make that determination is the example given—and what Xykon did was not the same as that example. You could look at that example and detrmine that an attack roll is what makes it "offensive".

Would determining it to be offensive be a reasonable DM's interpretation? Of course. But what's "reasonable" doesn't matter here. It can't be conclusively proven that this specific action was offensive, because there is no comprehensive definition for the word "offensive" with regards to the rules.

Invisibility has the courtesy to specifically define what is an attack with regards to that spell; Symbol spells do not do the same for what is offensive. That's a flaw with the spell description. Thus, it is up to DM interpretation, and even if 1000 out of 1000 DMs surveyed wouldn't allow it, that doesn't mean that DM #1001 wouldn't.

In short, stating that something is a fact doesn't make it so.

 

[RedFox]

Maybe something is wrong with me, cause I thought it was funny.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a morbid sense of humour. I found it funny, too. And I know we're not alone.