Wandering Monsters: Orcs and Gnolls

Wandering Monsters: Orcs and Gnolls
James Wyatt

In a recent Rule-of-Three article, Rodney Thompson talked a little bit about our approach to monster design. That column was well-timed, because we’re starting a big push on monsters right now. The D&D Story Team is leading the charge on this effort for the moment, and this column is a place for us to share what we’re thinking so that we can solicit your input.


Talk about this article here.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.



You can be stupid brave or smart brave, but those are separate issues not tied to bravery. You can be stupid cowardess or smart cowardess. Your combining two different definitions into one word that does not belong...



So you just agreed with what I said several posts ago.  1) Bravery can sometimes be stupid.  See bolded above.  2) You can be make the intelligent choice and be a coward.  See bolded above.

Okay Wrecan.  Time to pay out those bets   



No its two separate words that you combine to create a bigger concept.

Bravery is overcoming fear.
Cowardess is giving in to fear.
Stupid is doing things you know aren't good for you.
Smart is doing things you know are good for you.

You can combine them any way you want:
Smart Bravery
Stupid Bravery
Smart Cowardess
Stupid Cowardess

Using that logic matrix because you can combine smart or stupid with brave, its a separate logical object. So bravery is overcoming fear. It is not stupidity. It is not smart. It is simply overcoming fear to act.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


You can be stupid brave or smart brave, but those are separate issues not tied to bravery. You can be stupid cowardess or smart cowardess. Your combining two different definitions into one word that does not belong...



So you just agreed with what I said several posts ago.  1) Bravery can sometimes be stupid.  See bolded above.  2) You can be make the intelligent choice and be a coward.  See bolded above.

Okay Wrecan.  Time to pay out those bets   



No its two separate words that you combine to create a bigger concept.

Bravery is overcoming fear.
Cowardess is giving in to fear.
Stupid is doing things you know aren't good for you.
Smart is doing things you know are good for you.

You can combine them any way you want:
Smart Bravery
Stupid Bravery
Smart Cowardess
Stupid Cowardess

Using that logic matrix because you can combine smart or stupid with brave, its a separate logical object. So bravery is overcoming fear. It is not stupidity. It is not smart. It is simply overcoming fear to act.



So for the second post in a row you have agreed with what I said pages ago.  There are times when being brave is stupid, and there are times when being cowardly is smart.  Why are you arguing again?
This is why I hate the false dichotomy of courage and cowardice. The definition of those words create a false choice by suggesting that there are only two options:

Either you are cowardly for acting on fear
OR
you are brave for acting a way contrary to fear.

But it never talks about the fear itself not the actions taken. Nor do the definitions acknowledge that many acts of bravery are merely giving into one fear rather than another. Staying in fear of the lost lives of your loved ones rather than running in fear of your own lost life. Hobgobins fight to the death before they fear humiliation more than death. Goblins run because they fear death more than humiliation. Efreeti FTTD because they fear slavery more than death.

How does this relate to orcs and gnolls.

Orcs fight to the death because they seek glory more than they care for there own lives. They want the kills badly.

Gnolls runs because they are uninterested in continuing combat whe  the bloodshed and pain is theirs only and none of the enemy. Once things go south, a gnoll who is not currently whipped into a frenzy ditches out of boredom and disinterest.


Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

This is why I hate the false dichotomy of courage and cowardice. The definition of those words create a false choice by suggesting that there are only two options:

Either you are cowardly for acting on fear
OR
you are brave for acting a way contrary to fear.

But it never talks about the fear itself not the actions taken. Nor do the definitions acknowledge that many acts of bravery are merely giving into one fear rather than another. Staying in fear of the lost lives of your loved ones rather than running in fear of your own lost life. Hobgobins fight to the death before they fear humiliation more than death. Goblins run because they fear death more than humiliation. Efreeti FTTD because they fear slavery more than death.

How does this relate to orcs and gnolls.

Orcs fight to the death because they seek glory more than they care for there own lives. They want the kills badly.

Gnolls runs because they are uninterested in continuing combat whe  the bloodshed and pain is theirs only and none of the enemy. Once things go south, a gnoll who is not currently whipped into a frenzy ditches out of boredom and disinterest.




No offense, but I doubt that anyone getting their behinds whooped would quit "out of boredom and disinterest". I actually like the idea of the broken gnoll warband putting their respective tails between their respective legs and running, but that's my opinion. I just think the image of a gnoll getting bored and walking away when it's losing is sillier than that of a gnoll fleeing in terror.
This is why I hate the false dichotomy of courage and cowardice. The definition of those words create a false choice by suggesting that there are only two options:

Either you are cowardly for acting on fear
OR
you are brave for acting a way contrary to fear.



It's not soley about fear.  It's also about the situation.  If you run from a dragon, that's just smart, not cowardice.  Running from a hopeless situation is not cowardice.  However, if it's one first level fighter against two orcs and he runs, he's a coward.  The situation is far from hopeless and he could easily win.  Gnolls are cowards.   


No its two separate words that you combine to create a bigger concept.

Bravery is overcoming fear.
Cowardess is giving in to fear.
Stupid is doing things you know aren't good for you.
Smart is doing things you know are good for you.


So for the second post in a row you have agreed with what I said pages ago.  There are times when being brave is stupid, and there are times when being cowardly is smart.  Why are you arguing again?



Wait a second... "Stupid is doing things you know aren't good for you"? ... Wouldn't stupid be doing something that isn't good for you but NOT knowing?... It's the lack of knowledge that makes you stupid. If you know, you're not being stupid. Defiant. Stubborn. Brave even, knowing that what you're doing is bad for you. But not stupid.
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, That rubbing the poor itch of your opinion Make yourselves scabs?



So for the second post in a row you have agreed with what I said pages ago.  There are times when being brave is stupid, and there are times when being cowardly is smart.  Why are you arguing again?



I attribute it to the fact that you just bring out the best in folks max :P
 


No its two separate words that you combine to create a bigger concept.

Bravery is overcoming fear.
Cowardess is giving in to fear.
Stupid is doing things you know aren't good for you.
Smart is doing things you know are good for you.


So for the second post in a row you have agreed with what I said pages ago.  There are times when being brave is stupid, and there are times when being cowardly is smart.  Why are you arguing again?



Wait a second... "Stupid is doing things you know aren't good for you"? ... Wouldn't stupid be doing something that isn't good for you but NOT knowing?... It's the lack of knowledge that makes you stupid. If you know, you're not being stupid. Defiant. Stubborn. Brave even, knowing that what you're doing is bad for you. But not stupid.



That doesn't even make sense.  Try reading and understanding my words before posting.  I can't respond to you because your response just doesn't relate.



So for the second post in a row you have agreed with what I said pages ago.  There are times when being brave is stupid, and there are times when being cowardly is smart.  Why are you arguing again?



I attribute it to the fact that you just bring out the best in folks max :P
 



It's a gift!
This is why I hate the false dichotomy of courage and cowardice. The definition of those words create a false choice by suggesting that there are only two options:

Either you are cowardly for acting on fear
OR
you are brave for acting a way contrary to fear.

But it never talks about the fear itself not the actions taken. Nor do the definitions acknowledge that many acts of bravery are merely giving into one fear rather than another. Staying in fear of the lost lives of your loved ones rather than running in fear of your own lost life. Hobgobins fight to the death before they fear humiliation more than death. Goblins run because they fear death more than humiliation. Efreeti FTTD because they fear slavery more than death.

How does this relate to orcs and gnolls.

Orcs fight to the death because they seek glory more than they care for there own lives. They want the kills badly.

Gnolls runs because they are uninterested in continuing combat whe  the bloodshed and pain is theirs only and none of the enemy. Once things go south, a gnoll who is not currently whipped into a frenzy ditches out of boredom and disinterest.




No offense, but I doubt that anyone getting their behinds whooped would quit "out of boredom and disinterest". I actually like the idea of the broken gnoll warband putting their respective tails between their respective legs and running, but that's my opinion. I just think the image of a gnoll getting bored and walking away when it's losing is sillier than that of a gnoll fleeing in terror.



It's not a noncaring boredom as much as the splattered blood and pained cries of thier enemies sustains their fighting spirit. If the fight goes back, they aren't having fun anymore and will slink away. They don't run screaming like goblins. They hoot and holler about how they wont get any hearts to eat and slowly withdraw. And as long as you dont come after the corpses and slaves they drag away, they have no issue with you. That is the point, gnolls are sick, primal, and obsessed with causing pain.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!


Wait a second... "Stupid is doing things you know aren't good for you"? ... Wouldn't stupid be doing something that isn't good for you but NOT knowing?... It's the lack of knowledge that makes you stupid.

Ignorance is not a lack of intelligence; it's a lack of information.  Intelligence is how you choose to act upon what information you have (including such factors as knowing that you don't know some things).

If you choose to act in a way which would have negative consequences, but you do not realize that because you are poor at evaluating information and determining probable outcomes, then that is "stupid".

If you choose to act in a way which would have negative consequence, because you fully realize the potential results and consider the alternative to be worse, then that is "smart".  Ideally, a "smart" person would minimize the negatives and maximize the positives.

"Bravery" is the ability to overcome and continue in the path of immediate negative consequence (such as risk of personal injury).  "Cowardice" is the lack of bravery.

If you charge an ogre head-long, because you are overconfident in your own ability, then that's brave and stupid.  If you engage the ogre in order to buy time for your allies to escape, because you value their lives over your own safety, then that's brave and smart.  If you are unable to confront the ogre, even when your allies are in danger and you want to save them, then that's cowardly but smart.

If you have the option to attack with ambush or overwhelming numbers, and there's really no downside, then it would be stupid to do otherwise (unless you consider honor and valor to be more important than real risk of injury). 

Some people let an obsession with honor overwhelm their good judgment, which can lead them to taking the brave and stupid option.  There's also something to be said for the status and reputation that can be gained by putting yourself at unecessary risk, though.  Some people would rather die than let it be known that they "took the easy way" out of a fight.

The metagame is not the game.

This is why I hate the false dichotomy of courage and cowardice. The definition of those words create a false choice by suggesting that there are only two options:

Either you are cowardly for acting on fear
OR
you are brave for acting a way contrary to fear.



It's not soley about fear.  It's also about the situation.  If you run from a dragon, that's just smart, not cowardice.  Running from a hopeless situation is not cowardice.  However, if it's one first level fighter against two orcs and he runs, he's a coward.  The situation is far from hopeless and he could easily win.  Gnolls are cowards.   



That is the thing. Gnolls don't run if they think they can win. Gnolls don't run if they think they can lose either. Gnolls run if they don't see a meal, slave, or sacrifice comming out of continuing the fight.

It's all about food and pain with them. Even good and neutral gnolls are like that.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Thanks Kalex for starting this discussion using the proper format.

I've linked this Thread as the Official Discussion.



You are quite welcome!  I was kinda shocked it hadn't been created before me.



Yeah all the Forum Guides must have been away the last few days because i usually do this to help them out when i see it wasn't done and i just came back from a fishing trip.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Orcs want to spill blood, and while they'd prefer it to be yours, in the end they don't care who is bleeding as long as someone is. 

Gnolls gain power and satisfaction from causing pain, not necessarily death. I don't see them as cowards, merely very pragmatic; they have nothing to gain from dying for a cause, and their death won't help their pack. 

Co-author on AoA 2-3 and 4-1.


That is the thing. Gnolls don't run if they think they can win.



Except that the don't think they can win when they actually can.......because they are cowards.  It's why they only attack when they have a clear advantage and then from surprise.  

Gnolls run if they don't see a meal, slave, or sacrifice comming out of continuing the fight.



They run even when they do see that meal AND when they can win.  They are cowards who won't try to get that meal/slave/sacrifice even when they have a good chance of winning.  They have to such great numbers that they feel that they are assured of overwhelming victory, because they are terrified of a fair fight.  They are cowards. 




That is the thing. Gnolls don't run if they think they can win.



Except that the don't think they can win when they actually can.......because they are cowards.  It's why they only attack when they have a clear advantage and then from surprise.  

Gnolls run if they don't see a meal, slave, or sacrifice comming out of continuing the fight.



They run even when they do see that meal AND when they can win.  They are cowards who won't try to get that meal/slave/sacrifice even when they have a good chance of winning.  They have to such great numbers that they feel that they are assured of overwhelming victory, because they are terrified of a fair fight.  They are cowards. 







No. Gnolls prefer to fight with advantage because they are driven by bloodlust and fair fights require serious combat. No time to stabbing enemies over and over in nonvital but painful areas, laughing, and pointing.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!



Nope...

Bravery is overcoming fear to the do things you have to do. It is not doing something stupid. You may take a risk for a reward, but you are not going to be sucidal.



Like so many other times with you, I guess I'll just have to accept that you are wrong and move on.  Bravery can be stupid, which is why smart people often take the cowardly route.



This time, you're very much the one that's wrong.

This is why I hate the false dichotomy of courage and cowardice. The definition of those words create a false choice by suggesting that there are only two options:

Either you are cowardly for acting on fear
OR
you are brave for acting a way contrary to fear.



It's not soley about fear.  It's also about the situation.  If you run from a dragon, that's just smart, not cowardice.  Running from a hopeless situation is not cowardice.  However, if it's one first level fighter against two orcs and he runs, he's a coward.  The situation is far from hopeless and he could easily win.  Gnolls are cowards.   



No, he isn't. It's not an even match. Removing yourself from a situation in which you're fighting against the odds is only cowardice if the stakes are greater than your own life.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
WotC can create canon background but players can change it.


For example I can create orcs like infected mutant plague of people who have became crazy and violent, like a mixture of Romero´s film(s) "the crazies", Danny Boyle´s  "28 days later" and Garth Ennis´s comic "Crossed".

Other D&D fan who likes warcraft can create orcs like noble savages, green-skin hyper-drug enchaced (Cameron´s) na´vi cousins with a great nasty bad temper, nasty pieces of work.

* I don´t like bugbear. Ogres are enough muscle without brain. I like hogoblin like a mixture of klingons (Star Treck) and gorilles caste from Planet of Apes. Imperialist invadir but with sense of honor. (please, the next time, I would rather the word "Espantajo" to be translated to Spanish, or like colloquial nickname. I don´t like "osgo" (oso+trasgo  = bear + goblin), the word used for translation). 

*  I would like sometimes "evil" monsters can be no so bad to allow monsters PCs or because DM wants PCs can find other options to avoid the fight or conflict, a good reason to try diplomatic ways. 

* For me canon gnoll background make me rebember the African warlords´ squadrons from real world.

For my homebreed settins gnolls had link with werehyenas and other canines creatures (like jackals). Their famous terrorific laugh would be their warcry.

They could be human with werehyena blood because a crazy(?) tried create the perfect soldier (or a failed magic experiment with gnomes and trolls).

Other option gnolls are descendent of canomorphs (Fiend Folio, 3rd Ed), canines creatures with power to change to humanoid shape. (a mixture shifters and tieflins PC races), or they got that mixture of infernal blood later.

And their had got links with their brother race, the lupines from Savage Coast (Red Steel settin).

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

WotC can create canon background but players can change it.


For example I can create orcs like infected mutant plague of people who have became crazy and violent, like a mixture of Romero´s film "the crazies", Danny Boyle´s  "28 gays later" and Garth Ennis´s comic "Crossed".

Other D&D who like warcraft can create orcs like noble savages, like green hyper drug enchaced na´vi cousins with nasty bad temper.

*I don´t like bugbear. Ogres are enough muscle without brain. I like hogoblin like a mixture of klingons (Star Treck) and gorilles caste from Planet of Apes. Imperialist invadir but with sense of honor.

* For me canon gnoll background make me rebember the African warlords´ squadrons. 

I would like sometimes "evil" monsters can be no so bad to allow monsters PCs or because DM wants PCs can find other options to avoid the fight or conflict, reasons to try diplomatic ways. 

* For me homebreed settins gnolls had link with werehyenas and other canines creatures (like jackals). Their famous terrorific laugh would be their warcry.

They could be human with werehyena blood because a crazy(?) tried create the perfect soldier (or a failed magic experiment with gnomes and trolls).

Other option gnolls are descendent of canomorphs (Fiend Folio, 3rd Ed), canines creatures with power to change to humanoid shape. (a mixture shifters and tieflins PC races), or they got that mixture of infernal blood later.

And their had got links with their brother race, the lupines from Savage Coast.



"28 gays later"

I hope you meant to hit "D".



This time, you're very much the one that's wrong.



You're too late.  He already agreed with me twice.  

WotC can create canon background but players can change it.


For example I can create orcs like infected mutant plague of people who have became crazy and violent, like a mixture of Romero´s film "the crazies", Danny Boyle´s  "28 gays later" and Garth Ennis´s comic "Crossed".

Other D&D who like warcraft can create orcs like noble savages, like green hyper drug enchaced na´vi cousins with nasty bad temper.

*I don´t like bugbear. Ogres are enough muscle without brain. I like hogoblin like a mixture of klingons (Star Treck) and gorilles caste from Planet of Apes. Imperialist invadir but with sense of honor.

* For me canon gnoll background make me rebember the African warlords´ squadrons. 

I would like sometimes "evil" monsters can be no so bad to allow monsters PCs or because DM wants PCs can find other options to avoid the fight or conflict, reasons to try diplomatic ways. 

* For me homebreed settins gnolls had link with werehyenas and other canines creatures (like jackals). Their famous terrorific laugh would be their warcry.

They could be human with werehyena blood because a crazy(?) tried create the perfect soldier (or a failed magic experiment with gnomes and trolls).

Other option gnolls are descendent of canomorphs (Fiend Folio, 3rd Ed), canines creatures with power to change to humanoid shape. (a mixture shifters and tieflins PC races), or they got that mixture of infernal blood later.

And their had got links with their brother race, the lupines from Savage Coast.



"28 gays later"

I hope you meant to hit "D".




I´m sorry. I wanted to say "28 happy/fun/cheerful days later". What were I thinking about?

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 



This time, you're very much the one that's wrong.



You're too late.  He already agreed with me twice.  




What part of bravery is not equal to stupidity do you no understand?
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


This time, you're very much the one that's wrong.



You're too late.  He already agreed with me twice.  




What part of bravery is not equal to stupidity do you no understand?



Probably the part where I didn't say it was.  Twice now you've posted agreement with exactly what I originally posted.


This time, you're very much the one that's wrong.



You're too late.  He already agreed with me twice.  




What part of bravery is not equal to stupidity do you no understand?



Probably the part where I didn't say it was.  Twice now you've posted agreement with exactly what I originally posted.



Yeah, you originally posted that bravery was stupidity. I'm refuting that part of what you said...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Yeah, you originally posted that bravery was stupidity.


I think a quote of Maxperson saying that would be useful.


This time, you're very much the one that's wrong.



You're too late.  He already agreed with me twice.  




Explain to me how that matters, even if true? You're wrong, whether he's right or not.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Enough about how girly-hair demon dogs look.  What kind of phat lootz dems got?

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey



This time, you're very much the one that's wrong.



You're too late.  He already agreed with me twice.  




Explain to me how that matters, even if true? You're wrong, whether he's right or not.



Prove it.  Prove to me that there is no conceivable way for bravery to ever be the stupid choice or for cowardice to be the smart choice.


This time, you're very much the one that's wrong.



You're too late.  He already agreed with me twice.  




Explain to me how that matters, even if true? You're wrong, whether he's right or not.



Prove it.  Prove to me that there is no conceivable way for bravery to ever be the stupid choice or for cowardice to be the smart choice.



I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. I said not all Bravery is stupid. That's what you said...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.



So for the second post in a row you have agreed with what I said pages ago.  There are times when being brave is stupid, and there are times when being cowardly is smart.  Why are you arguing again?



I attribute it to the fact that you just bring out the best in folks max :P
 


So I assume I bring out the best in Max? Given his reaction when he put me on ignore :P


This time, you're very much the one that's wrong.



You're too late.  He already agreed with me twice.  




Explain to me how that matters, even if true? You're wrong, whether he's right or not.



Prove it.  Prove to me that there is no conceivable way for bravery to ever be the stupid choice or for cowardice to be the smart choice.



By definition bravery and foolhardyness are different things. If someone faces grave danger to no benefit to anyone, or anything of that sort, it is foolhardy, not brave.

Cowardice is a completely seperate issue from how smart an action is, because the coward is not making an intelligent choice. You can't be smart by accident. You're still stupid, you're just also lucky. Using intelligent strategy like ambushing and the like is not cowardice if it is simply the best strategy to get done what must be done. Running from a battle you could conceivably win isn't cowardice, either, unless something is at stake that is more important than the lives of the combatants. Staying in a fight that could kill you when there is nothing signifigent at stake is just stupid, not brave.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome


I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. I said not all Bravery is stupid. That's what you said...



From post 1, I have maintained the exact same thing and this is the third time you have agreed with me.  Since you are falsely claiming that I said all braver is stupid, how about you back it up with a quote?
There is a false dichotomy when it comes to D&D monster bravery. It assumes you are a fight-to-the-death berserker or a cheating dirty coward.



Not in any game that I've been in since high school.  In high school it was like that, and then we grew up.

That said, if a creature is known for ambushing, attacking the weak, and not standing the ground unless they have a clear advantage, that creature is cowardly. 



I wouldn't call that cowardly I'd call that smart. That's generally how wizards play...



A great many intelligent people are also cowards.  Bravery is often referred to as being stupid or foolish. 



Here you call bravery stupid or foolish...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Bravery is often referred to as being stupid or foolish. 



Here you call bravery stupid or foolish...


You may have missed the adverb "often", which means Maxperson was not saying bravery is stupid or foolish.  He was describing correlation not identity.
This is why I hate the false dichotomy of bravery and cowardice in D&D. Because it D&D, both are actually rarer than you think.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Bravery is often referred to as being stupid or foolish. 



Here you call bravery stupid or foolish...


You may have missed the adverb "often", which means Maxperson was not saying bravery is stupid or foolish.  He was describing correlation not identity.



Thanks Wrecan
Bravery is often referred to as being stupid or foolish. 



Here you call bravery stupid or foolish...


You may have missed the adverb "often", which means Maxperson was not saying bravery is stupid or foolish.  He was describing correlation not identity.



Yes it is referred to as stupid or foolish, which it is not. I can't help it if they are referencing bad sources...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Yes it is referred to as stupid or foolish, which it is not. I can't help it if they are referencing bad sources...




What "soucres" would those be?
Yes it is referred to as stupid or foolish, which it is not. I can't help it if they are referencing bad sources...




What "soucres" would those be?



I have no clue, you'd have to ask Maxperson. I'm simply referring to the actual dictionary definition which doesn't say anything about 'stupid'...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I have no clue, you'd have to ask Maxperson. I'm simply referring to the actual dictionary definition which doesn't say anything about 'stupid'...



That sounds about right, as usual, very good, just doing your usual, I presume (though I hate to assume/preume, people get fired that way)?

Really, really not constructive, please save it,

Now; where were we?