?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Oxymorons and a meme

The following are oxymorons in my opinion:

Leisurely jogging
Military intelligence
Beautiful supermodel
Sane Scientologist

I like this result, except that I think I'm a bit more heroic. Plus, I would be a techno-druid. Also, define "aberration." (I know what it means, FYI.)

I Am A: Chaotic Neutral Halfling Druid (3rd Level)


Ability Scores:

Strength-10

Dexterity-12

Constitution-11

Intelligence-12

Wisdom-15

Charisma-10


Alignment:
Chaotic Neutral A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal. However, chaotic neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it seeks to eliminate all authority, harmony, and order in society.


Race:
Halflings are clever, capable and resourceful survivors. They are notoriously curious and show a daring that many larger people can't match. They can be lured by wealth but tend to spend rather than hoard. They prefer practical clothing and would rather wear a comfortable shirt than jewelry. Halflings stand about 3 feet tall and commonly live to see 150.


Class:
Druids gain power not by ruling nature but by being at one with it. They hate the unnatural, including aberrations or undead, and destroy them where possible. Druids receive divine spells from nature, not the gods, and can gain an array of powers as they gain experience, including the ability to take the shapes of animals. The weapons and armor of a druid are restricted by their traditional oaths, not simply training. A druid's Wisdom score should be high, as this determines the maximum spell level that they can cast.


Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)

Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
dorkphoenyx
Mar. 13th, 2008 04:37 pm (UTC)
Aberrations: creatures that fall outside the boundaries of 'natural' or 'constructed'. Usually these creatures possess freakish appearances, unhumanoid powers, and they are usually neutral (at best. Many of them are some form of evil - check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illithid). These differ greatly from outsiders - abberations are not recognized by many races/classes as worthy of existence, where outsiders are recognized as nonhuman creatures. Also, outsiders contain at least some essence of planes beyond the Material Place, where aberrations are entirely material.
fayanora
Mar. 14th, 2008 05:28 am (UTC)
See now, there's the trouble. I'm essentially an animist, so EVERYTHING has a soul. Therefore, I recognize no abberations.
dorkphoenyx
Mar. 14th, 2008 02:14 pm (UTC)
No, that's the thing about abberations - they're called such because they either exist without one (as in the case of animated, nonliving objects - which have usually been animated for nefarious purposes) or because they exist in such a way that they betray the idea of 'soul' (normally by denying other races/creatures free will). So as an animist, I think this would appeal to you - the only creatures that are abberations are those which have perverted the idea of soul, or been forced into it by someone else who has. Same with the undead - they have souls, but have been forced to work against them, and no longer have consciousness. (not in all cases, of course, but you get the idea.)

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celadrin - I think they sound like your kind of Planetouched.
fayanora
Mar. 15th, 2008 06:45 am (UTC)
I still don't get it. "Perverted the idea of soul" or "Been forced into it by someone who has"...

*thinks*

*ponders*

*wonders*

Thoughts that occur to me:

1. How can one pervert the nature of soul? Soul is a spirit, a consciousness, and is essentially a piece of God. God made souls from Its spirit-flesh. How can this be perverted? How do you twist a God/soul? I doubt it's possible.

2. Given that souls are young Gods, how could one force someone to do something at the soul level? At the ego level, yes - happens all the time. But at the soul level?

Planetouched

*Attempts to read article*

*Eyes glaze over*

*Gives up*
beginnings_end
Mar. 13th, 2008 04:55 pm (UTC)
I don't know about D&D, but the oxymorons are great!
gkathellar
Mar. 14th, 2008 10:32 pm (UTC)
Aberrations in D&D are, historically speaking, stolen from H.P. Lovecraft and writers who used his Cthullu Mythos. And Lovecraft's Great Old Ones don't care if you recognize them as aberrations or not. They don't care about your petty idealism, they don't care about your petty conception of the soul. They were here before the universe, they will be here after the universe. They know the true, hollow nature of reality.

The point is that from the human perspective, and indeed from the perspective of everything right and good and sane in the universe, aberrations are fundamentally wrong. They exist in a frame of reference where triangles can equal 181°, where objects can be bigger on the inside than the outside, and where time's path is neither linear nor sane. Several of Lovecraft's can drive a person insane with their appearance alone. Ignorance is humanity's only defense against them, and that's a pretty feeble barrier.

Needless to say, D&D isn't quite so pessimistic about aberrations, and the creature type is usually used to group together anything too freaky to go anywhere else. But the history is still there.
fayanora
Mar. 15th, 2008 07:04 am (UTC)
They were here before the universe, they will be here after the universe. They know the true, hollow nature of reality.

Impossible. There is no "before" or "after" to the universe, or at least not to the omniverse. It was never created, but has Always Been, and therefore will never end.

I also do not believe in the concept of "Wrong." Especially not "fundamentally Wrong." How could anything occurring in the omniverse be Wrong? It's like the concept of complete emptiness: it does not exist. There is always SOME kind of energy there, whether you can sense it or not. Similarly, anything that exists is neither Right nor Wrong, it just Is.

They exist in a frame of reference where triangles can equal 181°,

Something that is so far out of our frame of reference that we can't even describe it or wrap our minds around it is still possible and is still part of the omniverse, if not a part of our specific universe. Therefore, it is not Wrong. Nor is it Right. Right and wrong are value statements, but in the omniverse all things have equal Absolute Value, and variable Relative Values.

where objects can be bigger on the inside than the outside,

I can't even begin to wrap my mind around how Mary Poppins's bag is Wrong.

and where time's path is neither linear nor sane.

Time does not flow. Time is not a river, it's an ocean. It is not time that flows through us, rather it is we who flow through time. Therefore, the flow of time is an illusion based on our perceptions and our movement through it. Other forms of time "flow" may not seem sane to a mind used to the illusion of linear time, but that does not make them Wrong.

In short, I do not understand this concept of Wrong. It is as alien a concept to me as though you were insisting that a triangle equaled 181 degrees. I can see it has reality for those who can grasp the concept and even think in those terms, but I just can't. The concept of Wrong is, to me, an "abberation." As is the concept of "linear time."
gkathellar
Mar. 15th, 2008 03:00 pm (UTC)
It's a fictional concept, not a philosophical argument. Still, I haven't had a good argument like this in a while.

Impossible. There is no "before" or "after" to the universe, or at least not to the omniverse. It was never created, but has Always Been, and therefore will never end.

For you. For human beings. You might be right for yourself. But not for the Old Ones. Not for the Outer Gods. They spit in the face of your continuity because they're not part of it. They spit in the face or reality because they're not part of it. These are monsters from outside your reality, however you define reality. They stand one step sideways from where you and everything else you percieve is standing.

I also do not believe in the concept of "Wrong." Especially not "fundamentally Wrong." How could anything occurring in the omniverse be Wrong? It's like the concept of complete emptiness: it does not exist. There is always SOME kind of energy there, whether you can sense it or not. Similarly, anything that exists is neither Right nor Wrong, it just Is.

Because they're not. They're wrong in the sense that they don't belong in your reality, in your perception of reality, or even in your perception of yourself. It's not a question. They're not asking you. They're not here to debate philosophy. You can't understand them, you can't question them, because they're from somewhere entirely outside your frame of reference. And this is why, when they're in the hands of a good author, they're so utterly terrifying: because they represent everything that couldn't possibly be wrong but backwards and way fucking scarier.

Something that is so far out of our frame of reference that we can't even describe it or wrap our minds around it is still possible and is still part of the omniverse, if not a part of our specific universe. Therefore, it is not Wrong. Nor is it Right. Right and wrong are value statements, but in the omniverse all things have equal Absolute Value, and variable Relative Values.

The 181° triangle is a literary device to scare the shit out of people. Lovecraft thought it was creepy, so he often described "non-Euclidean geometry" in reference to the Old Ones or their structures. And there's some evidence to back up that it really is that scary, because when people's sense of spatial orientation and perspective is played with it can really mess them up.

So while that and the other concepts I presented may not personally bother you, feel free to substitute other ideas that freak you out beyond all comprehension.
fayanora
Mar. 16th, 2008 06:28 am (UTC)
For you. For human beings. You might be right for yourself. But not for the Old Ones. Not for the Outer Gods. They spit in the face of your continuity because they're not part of it. They spit in the face or reality because they're not part of it. These are monsters from outside your reality, however you define reality. They stand one step sideways from where you and everything else you percieve is standing.

Allllllllllrighty then. :-)

So while that and the other concepts I presented may not personally bother you, feel free to substitute other ideas that freak you out beyond all comprehension.

People eating Miracle Whip and enjoying it... *shudders*
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

mourning
fayanora
The Djao'Mor'Terra Collective
Fayanora's Web Site

Latest Month

August 2019
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Taichi Kaminogoya