Infinite Digression

Iavas,

Who knows what the Lady's name was prior to her assent?

I thought you would jump at this one.

I was not really suggesting a guess to the Lady's stats. Rather I would like to gather some impressions about who could be primordial enough, like Chaos, who could have been present from the beginning, but with enough power to instill such general rules for order like the number three's relation to pie and the irrational number of the circumference of a circle (wheel). The rule of three and the irrationality of the wheel: what mythical being, fictional of historical, could this be? Just looking for some speculation. I'm not trying to change the order, just understand it or at least make up some context to make it meaningful in the wake of the nothing.

P.S.
Neat Cheese - Nietzsche

That still (ha ha) begs the question, what is the lady? Is she the representation of man imprisoning himself? Does that make Aoskar the ideal of the ubermensche, free of boundaries? Is the lady even real, or is she just the most distilled reflection of Man's tendency to imprison himself (which leads to the conclusion that really, people are just imprisoning themselves)? Also, how does that gel with the Lady's active intervention in response to her worship, when you have to contextualize that within a setting that has Gods?

You're quote is an interesting one, and is close enough to the way I've sort of read the whole thing to suggest that Sigil is very probably a direct reference to the quote. I never quite made the final leap I think largely because of the degree of emphasis of the idea of Sigil being the City at the Center of All, which is a trope in and of itself that has a life of its own.

This is where I think any real analysis of stuff like this breaks down. Planescape itself isnt a coherent narrative or vision, so I think when you go beyond a certain point (making a Vecna-Aoskar link, which I think is stretching it due to previous non-PS vecna canon), you have to acknowledge that this stuff going on is plot driven, not concept driven.

I think conceptually that the Lady and Aoskar and so forth do represent an idea, but I think concretely, their involvement in the actual planescape canon once you start talking about campaigns like Faction War will tend to violate a real coherent conception because too many people are involved in the telling. Each author will have their own spin, which may not reflect overarching concepts.

But personally, if we are going with the Nietzsche reading, I don't think aoskar is literally an ubermensch, but is just a reflection of what an ubermensch is about. Complete unrestrained freedom of action. But again, with that reading, what does it mean that Aoskar is killed by the lady? The prison of the civilized man won? Is there no more room for Ubermensche in the world?

Ill take Hegel. He's easier to digest.

I'm not sure I would agree with that. Fated are more of a cross between libertarians and social darwinists.

I've never felt like there was a good Hegelian counterpart in Planescape, which has always struck me as kind of odd since Hegel is one of the Big Philosophers. He is vaguely a harmonium I guess, since he is big on soul transcending body, but only in the broadest sense. The particulars don't match up. Sign of One are just old fashion solopsists, which is not a label I would hoist upon Hegel.

I have a group called The Accordant Opposition in my campaign world which is a rough reflection of some parts of hegelian philosophy who explain the structure of the planes in terms of The Rule of Three and the Unity of All Things (which is a conflation of the "hegelian dialectic" stuff that is really mostly Marx, but which makes for great planescape material). They explain the planes as being composed of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Life is the struggle of opposites, and from these struggles, a common truth can be found that transcends the conflict. They encourage struggle and conflict because they see it as a pathway to enlightenment. Eventually, one who has an understanding of conflict and washed away all the untruth will know the nature of the multiverse.
They make excellent diplomats and negotiators, but have a hard time investing in a given side, since they seek only the higher resolution, not the battle.

Alright, new question!

Has anyone ever made rules for the effects an attractive well endowed woman fighting topless would have on straight male combatants and if not why not?

I was actually talking about the effects it would have on male opponents, so as boring as that answer was, it wasn't even relevant!

But hey, your game is actually the inspiration for this question. I was reading BoGR and I realized that the "female Drow of astonishing beautiful" is going to live for about as long as it takes Ar'Dru to deplete her hitpoints.

Maybe not, but I've made and sold a few in my life, and I have to say that while they may provide little or no protection, it would be one heck of a distraction, assuming the wearer was at least a little attractive.

There's a legend (who knows if it's actually true; it's a legend) that pirate Mary Read once did something similar. The "Battles" section in her Wiki entry describes the duel in question. Under that very situational set of circumstances, if the female character has rogue levels, it would probably work well as a feint (see the Bluff rules), potentially allowing for a sneak attack.

While that sort of thing might have worked well in early 18th-century Western pirate culture, that doesn't mean it would work in many places in the D&D universe.

'Dire Lemon' wrote:

Where exactly wouldn't it work and why not? Are all the males in many places in the D&D universe Eunuchs?

[Obligatory caution: I'm pretty sure I wrote this in a "does not violate the Grandma Rule" way, but this post does talk about nudity and topics of a birds-and-bees nature.]

Real-world Earth itself has (and has had) various societies, especially in warmer climates, where the women traditionally go around topless. I imagine the sight of "the girls" would be less dramatic to a man from such a society.

What do dozens of non-human D&D species consider attractive? Would a dwarf consider a human female a "hottie?" A troll? Some species likely find all (or some) humans quite repulsive.

Next, while males may indeed appreciate the sight of... uh, you know... many are not about to let a potential distraction like that get them killed in battle. The topless human female isn't "a hot babe," it's an enemy that really, really wants to kill me.

So, for this to work, it would be best used in a society with a strong nudity taboo, in a society where females are not usually regarded as threatening opponents. If those two prerequisites are met, it would also help for the opponent to not have a reasonable expectation that his opponent is actually female.

It's tempting to use githyanki as an example of a species that this might not work on. (Githyanki are so biologically distant from humans that they aren't placental mammals, and it's doubtful whether females even lactate. Psychologically they're conditioned to regard barbarian races as loathsome. They probably don't have a nudity taboo (compare ancient Sparta on Earth where both males and females did athletic exercises in the nude). They're used to regarding females as warriors (Gith the Liberator herself among them), and probably wouldn't have a chivalrous attitude about killing female opponents.)

Somehow, I have difficulty seeing Gy-Nath falling for the trick Mary Read used. :oops:

Dwarf women and orc and goblin women are unattractive, right? If the idea of female beauty is uniform, where do dwarf, orc and goblin babies come from?

If Ar'dru is one of the first generation of duthka'giths, then both his mommy and his daddy were Githyanki. The first generation were created when the Revered Queen had large numbers of eggs taken from the Githyanki egg-clutches and brought to her, then transformed the embryos inside the eggs into duthka'giths, via arcane spells.

If Ar'dru comes from a later generation, it is probable that both his parents were duthka'giths. (Dungeon #100 gives me the impression that the duthka'giths are a fairly new thing, so most of them may still be of the original generation. I don't think it's clear from canon how long they've been around.)

Female. It seems odd to me to believe that reptiles, dwarves, goblins, etc., would universally react to the sight of a topless human female, who's actively trying to kill them, with awestruck amazement.

There are real-world tribal societies where a man's female relatives, tribal elders, etc. go topless in public. I imagine it would be inconvenient in such a society to react with awestruck amazement, since a man would encounter such sights on a daily basis. That doesn't make him a eunuch.

Call me brutal, but if I saw a topless woman in battle who was my enemy, assuming this was a life or death situation, I wouldn't hesistate to run her through. I wouldn't find it particularly distracting. I don't find such things all that distracting to begin with. Attention drawing? Sure, for a second or two, mostly because its unexpected, but in battle the novelty would not be very relevant to me. Having gone to nude beaches without feeling the need to stare, or feeling particularly distracted, I'm fairly certain if I was in a battle, survival would be far and away my most pressing concern.

To give some vague analogy, I doubt that those popup ads with women in various states of undress are all that distracting to most people. In my case, it draws my eye for a split second, because hey, it's a naked woman, but after that split second I am pretty much back to doing what I was doing and don't really think about it anymore.

Also, to flip things on their head a bit, many men get "excited" in battles anyway, without females being involved at all, and it doesn't stop them from killing. It just adds a sexual component to things. Those who really enjoy war tend to think of it in sexual terms from what I understand. I wouldn't be that surprised if a naked woman with a weapon just drew fire first in alot of cases.

I doubt most straight women, gay men or bisexuals would hesitate against an attractive naked male in battle, especially when they're trying to kill them.

Same rule applies for straight men, lesbians and bisexuals against attractive half-naked female opponents. If someones trying to kill them, they won't hesitate no matter who it is. And when you've seen a bunch of naked breasts all around, it just doesn't seem special anymore.

If you really really have need for a mechanical implication in the described scenario, how about this?

A +2 circumstantial bonus on the first Bluff check to Feint in Combat, if the target would have felt lustful about the bluffer given a friendly atmosphere.

I wouldn't use a mechanic myself for many of the reasons already given, but that’s a suggestion if you're determined.

In any case, I'm not seeing how it should be applicable to our current battle in the Blades of Git'riban campaign. This is a group of githyanki where most are evil disciplined killers (at least I think that goes for Du, Ar, and Ii), battling their way to a nest of their ancestral enemies. A thrall swinging a pair of tits their way would not exactly be a hindrance.

I still have the original 1st ed unearthed arcana where comliness was introduced. I have used that particular statistics in games before. There was an oriental adventures game I ran where the PCs' comliness scores were important plot points. Scarred and homely General, 'Pretty Boy' samurai archer, Rough-looking backwoods archer, Plain Swordsmith/Kensai. The most beautiful was a river-spirit-folk samurai (female) who wore a mempo (mask) in battle to hide and protect her face. But no, she never took it off in battle to distract an enemy.

Well, this certainly makes me feel insecure. Maybe I'm somehow still in puberty at 21 or something, but I know I'd be allot more reluctant to kill a beautiful woman than I would an average man, and if one or the other were charging me with a sword and I had a gun I might just delay long enough for the woman to get to me. Maybe I'm just a closet chauvinist.

I gotta say, I don't really care about the mechanics, that was kind of a joke, like most of the questions in this thread from what I can tell. I was just curious to see why people think it's plausible for characters to not even hesitate in attacking someone who's really beautiful, since I would. :|

Can we explain interbreeding or at least fertile cross-species offspring in general through magic? Certainly dragons seem inherently magical (and may have some connection with the magical, artificial phaerimm).

Well, the discription would have to have been more complete. I could say " ... drow with soft features, tall and athletic, with a tatoo ... ", [and you know what that works better, thanks] but instead I used a single word and let the imagination of the Player take over, instead of stating what I find attractive.

Describing a person as attractive is always going to be relative anyway. Goblins like the goblin ladies. http://goblinscomic.com/temptsfate.html

Half-dragons are even worse. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html

But there you go, beauty is relative. And at that, I can say a member of another species is beautiful, in the sense of a beautiful specimen of respective species. I've seen some ugly dogs, and some really beautiful ones. I can only imagine that if I lived in a world with tieflings, orcs, lizardmen, etc, I'd see some really pretty ones of them too. But I'd probably only try to pick up the tiefling.

Of course, I'd have to agree that if said tiefling pulled a shiv on me, it wouldn't really matter how nice her tits were. Massed battle with plenty of alternative targets? Yes, it would be distracting, probably enough to make me aim at the greesy, hairy, sweaty guy next to her.

What are we talking about now? Do a lot of people run games with orcs but no magic?

If you want to talk about our world, Mr. Lemon, I feel compelled to remind you that you wouldn't kill anyone. Assuming you lack special training beyond target practice (and I think beyond hunting), you would miss the first time you tried to shoot a live human. Probably the next time too, if you got a second chance for some reason. Trained killers (to put it bluntly) would not necessarily hesitate for anyone.

Meanwhile (and please forgive me if y'all find this difficult to read) we don't need to explain why orcs might rape members of other races, because rapists don't necessarily look for the most attractive victim. They may go with whoever seems vulnerable or whoever they can catch. Nor for that matter do we need to explain attraction between some members of one species and some members of another species (Iavas already gave sufficient explanation). I'd like to know about a cross between two species producing fertile offspring, which contradicts itself if we go by the standard definitions of those words. (Though the definition of "species" may have a hole in it somewhere, and for all I know somebody has another scientific definition.) D&D does presumably let us change the definition of "fertile".

I feel compelled to say that I have never killed anyone, don't ever plan to, and would need a very compelling self-preservation motive to do so. That is quite different from runnig an RPG where the characters kill other sentient beings on a regular basis.

Which brings me to another point. If I was running a character who really was inclined to be distracted by suddenly revealed anatomy, I, as a player, would demand a circumstance penalty. Or intentionally flub the roll. Or intentionally choose another target even if it opens me up for an AOO. But that's just the kind of RP'er I am, the story and the character are more important to me than the plus on his sword or the gold in his bag.

Back to the killing: One of the reasons I wanted to run BoG'r is that I've always had a little problem with the whole "kill 'em they're orcs" mentality. This even after being a white male American my whole life (zing!). Ok, if your family was killed by orcs and/or there are orcs on the borderlands forever raiding and murdering and/or here they come now and its time to defend or die, then yes, my PC will every orc (goblin/troll/troglodye/etc/etc) he sees. But something about having an alignment with one of the words being "good" always said to me "genocide bad". Yes, even genocide of orcs and goblins. Running an evil party makes all the classic adventurer activities (tombrobbing, breaking and entering, assault, robery, murder, at least from the kobolds' point of view) much more OK. However, I also like the idea that being "evil" doesn't mean you have to eat babies, kick puppies, and craft a throne out of skulls for your living room.

Yes, but see, I love irony. Loads of it. So instead pf hack-first paladins, I've got a bunch of murderous killers who every now and then get put by the DM into situations where they'll say to themselves "did I just go too far?" And yes, sometimes they go too far. Sometimes the DM needs to reel them back in to keep the party from killing each other. I love it!

P.S. Don't want to question another person's game or whatever, but if I had been in you place, my PC would have probably stopped trusting the other one instantly, and started looking for a Harmonium to report the murder to.

Er, the stories I've seen involve someone rolling a natural 20, so to speak -- or else people firing into a crowd. See also "Police car stolen after officer runs out of ammo" (analysis).

Very interesting, Azure.

You don't live in the US do you? Or do you just make a point to ignore the numerous instances of tragic gun violence that happen regularly around this nation?

Simply the many school shootings should be a good example. Most of them didn't just fire into a crowd, they picked targets. They were all lunatics, so why wouldn't someone of sound mind be a better aim?