Page 489 - Terms of Disservice

4th Sep 2014, 6:00 AM in Sweet and Elite
<<First Latest>>
Terms of Disservice
Average Rating: 5 (2 votes)
<<First Latest>>

Author Notes:

Newbiespud 4th Sep 2014, 6:00 AM edit delete
Surprise, we have another Fallout is Dragons animatic up! It involves recursive roleplaying and one party member setting fire to another - a story I'm sure everybody can relate to.

Notice: Guest comic submissions are open! Guidelines here. Deadline: January 27th, 2023.



Guest 4th Sep 2014, 6:07 AM edit delete reply
Wait, Twilight's an Alicorn? Did she min-max offscreen?
Newbiespud 4th Sep 2014, 6:30 AM edit delete reply
Whoops! I fell into the Season 4 trap. I knew there was a reason I wasn't sampling screencaps from those episodes. Have a fixed page.
Guest 4th Sep 2014, 6:44 AM edit delete reply
Can we still see the wrong page somewhere?
Taco Belle 5th Sep 2014, 7:08 PM edit delete reply
can we see the old page?
Digo 4th Sep 2014, 6:55 AM edit delete reply
This is exactly why I restrict Polymorph-Self spells. ;)
Raxon 4th Sep 2014, 9:54 AM edit delete reply
But polymorph self is so great for parties!

Also, I like casting the homebrew baleful polymorf:random vegetation. Much lower DC to resist, but sometimes you get to eat the results!
Malroth 4th Sep 2014, 7:30 PM edit delete reply
I can think of some caster builds that could benefit from becoming tiny sized with plant immunities even if it meant being immobile with no sensory organs.
Raxon 4th Sep 2014, 8:59 PM edit delete reply
"I seem to be missing a testicle. Did anyone eat any of the fruit on me when I was a tree?"


"No answer, huh? Well, since my flesh is extremely poisonous, and it's far, far too late to induce vomiting, we'll know tomorrow."
Digo 5th Sep 2014, 4:47 AM edit delete reply
Unless you're vegetarian/vegan, you can eat any baleful polymorph result. ;)
Specter 4th Sep 2014, 6:08 AM edit delete reply
(Fallout is Dragons! YAY)

Anyway, after listening to the separation of contract, I can say it is NOT as bad as it could be (Fluttershy is right).

(Stories of worse situations dealing with guilds or the like?) I have had worse situations like being targeted by a mercenary guild for not paying protection money.

(I didn't survive. I didn't die by them, I died by the players who were part of it.)
Abraman 4th Sep 2014, 6:21 AM edit delete reply
I'm with Fluttershy on this, I really hope there's some way that Rarity can get back in the guild at some point in the story.

Likely? No, probably not.
Meet New ME! 4th Sep 2014, 8:46 AM edit delete reply
I think people are too quick to assume Rarity is depressed. I'm willing to bet she's crafting a new identity to re-join the guild.
Gden 4th Sep 2014, 10:09 AM edit delete reply
Are we about to see the emergence of country Rarity?
Raxon 4th Sep 2014, 3:26 PM edit delete reply
Rarity: Boy howdy, Ah cain't wait teh dig inna dirt and kick trees! Later, I think I'll go skinny dippin with Big Mac down at the crick, and then we kin go lynch us a colored!

Applejack: ...Rarity? We need to have a very serious talk.

Rarity: But Applejack, I haven't decided what kind of car parts I want to decorate my lawn with. And I haven't even perused my family tree for eligible bachelors. Oh! Here's one. Hayseed Turniptruck. He sounds delightful!

Applejack: NOW!
reynard61 5th Sep 2014, 1:29 AM edit delete reply
*spit-takes my White Lightning*
Digo 5th Sep 2014, 4:48 AM edit delete reply
I saw a preview of one of the newest MLP comic books, and this sounds familiar to that. XD
Tvtyrant 5th Sep 2014, 2:16 PM Tvtyrant edit delete reply
Raxon, I physically laughed for 5 minutes after that. I know because my song ended.

Thank you for your contribution to everything good in the world.
antiqueChairman 4th Sep 2014, 6:49 AM edit delete reply
I think Rarity is missing the point here by defaulting to despair. Couldn't this actually be a good thing? Rarity, Element of Generosity, certainly cant operate with the guild under Celestia's scrutiny, even with her support. Even if Celestia supports Rarity, she doesn't support the Thieves Guild, and this frees Rarity up. With Rarity, distanced from the Thieves Guild, Celestia has plausible deniability about whatever Rarity might do. This frees her up to rogue through Dainty Dove.

Now, I get why she's frustrated- she intended to be legit through Dainty Dove, and rogue as Rarity. But with Rarity attached to the Elements, doesn't it make much more sense for her to go legit as herself? Distanced from the guild, and possessing and Element of Harmony, Rarity could have everything she ever wanted out of high society under her own name. While Dainty Dove has already made contacts with Canterlot's rogueish elite through Fancy Pants. Celestia obviously knows theyre the same person, but she would have a lot more plausible deniability overlooking the actions of "Dainty Dove", vs the scandal of one of Equestria's defenders being a cutpurse.

Of course, she is losing a lot of resources. But maybe Elusive understands the situation entirely and is going to contact and recruit Dainty Dove.
Toric 4th Sep 2014, 10:09 AM edit delete reply
The problem here, however, is that a large part of Rarity's character is devoted to the guild and its connections. Even though this allows for Rarity to come back at some point, it is an indication from the DM that her character has abruptly changed and needs to move in a different direction. The "hint" was not subtle in this case. The message is "You're character is not going to be Guild material AND the destined Element of Generosity, so you have to choose." Not kind, but not necessarily wrong either.

The thing is, however, why would it take the guild so long to come to this decision when she's been under national scrutiny since the beginning? As for contacting Dainty Dove, he already knows that it is her persona. Dainty is not a rogue, Rarity is, and Rarity was the one the letter was addressed to.
Mykin 4th Sep 2014, 11:23 AM edit delete reply
"The thing is, however, why would it take the guild so long to come to this decision when she's been under national scrutiny since the beginning?"

Unless I am wrong in how I'm remembering past events, up until now there wasn't any hard evidence to suggest that Rarity's allegiance to the guild was in question. As silly as this might sound, I think the guild finally realized that her friends have a bigger influence than they first though. So much so that she was willing to risk exposing her fake persona in order to come to their aid. And if they can influence her to do that, eventually they can convince Rarity to abandon or undermine the guild if the time comes that the guild's goals and her friend's goals come into conflict with one another. I might be over thinking this but that's my reasoning so far.
The Old One 4th Sep 2014, 5:14 PM edit delete reply
That assumes that Rarity is actually defaulting to despair and not putting on a grand show for her watchers. In the meantime, I'd wager she was shoring up her Rarity cover, making plans, and somehow taking advantage of her blacklisting by making seem that she would no longer need Elusive. Dainty Dove is actually a hindrance to her now, since the guild knows about it and can use her true identity as blackmail should she come to rely on it.

Rarity is putting on a show, distracting the guild, and getting ready to make them regret making her go independent. As both a rogue with a party of adventurers and an element of harmony, the guild would have been wiser to keep her as a member but at arms length where they could watch her. Now they've given up control and Rarity could very well be clever enough to make that a terrible mistake.
DanielLC 4th Sep 2014, 2:09 PM edit delete reply
Dainty Dove is royalty. That's a huge advantage if you're legit, and doesn't matter much if you're rogue. She'd be better off making a new identity entirely to be rogue.
Taco Belle 4th Sep 2014, 3:09 PM edit delete reply
Actually, i this this is a Case of the DM severely misjudging how a PC will react...

Maybe he did want Rarity separated from the Guild for plot/moral reasons,but misjudged how it would effect Rarity as a character?

She WAS let off extremely lightly, I'm going with "Shit didn't happen like the DM Expected", which happens to me now and then, as my DM can't wrap his head around how i play, thinks he's doing something good, but really ruins everything.

As for the Rarity Plotting theory... I doupt it, honestly, I think it'd be funnier, honestly, if rarity, IC, had enough of a Breakdown the DM had to Retcon it, or make the letter be a forgery from Celestia to cut her off from the Guild...

Still think Celestia is/originally was Elusive, robbing her own treasury cuz she was bored, and shit kind of landslided from there.

TurretBot 16th Sep 2014, 12:18 PM TurretBot edit delete reply
Wow I think you might be overthinking this
Just a little

No? Okay
Digo 4th Sep 2014, 6:54 AM edit delete reply
You should keep a page with links to these animatics (unless you already do?) cause they're fun. :3

My players never cared to stay with guilds. Really, they're like... anti-guild. I guess my players think all guilds are out to cheat them out of dues and are too restrictive in an effort to screw over the PCs as much as possible (simply not true the way I run guilds).

I myself don't join guilds BECAUSE the other GMs make them cheat me out of dues and are too restrictive in an effort to screw me as much as possible.

In conclusion, I was probably playing with the wrong group.
Hariman 4th Sep 2014, 8:03 AM edit delete reply
Ugh. I know that slice of hell.

When you want a hack and slash campaign of good Vs Evil, run the other way when the DM says "I don't want a hack and slash campaign, actions will have actual consequences."
terrycloth 4th Sep 2014, 11:00 AM edit delete reply
Yeah, there was a PBEM that we kind of expected to be cartoony from the description, but the GM played as realistic.

"You're playing high school students, but during the prologue you get transformed into anything you want, so design your character that way." "Okay, I'll be a giant fire-breathing dragon."

Then, I accidentally burned down Kansas during the first battle. It didn't instantly end the campaign but there was really no good end to be had after that.
Zeeth 4th Sep 2014, 6:45 PM edit delete reply
Ugh. I once (ONCE) played with a GM who said "ANY character you want!" So I played an immortal, invulnerable reality-shaper. He threw Q from Star Trek at us, and started giving characters mental and physical problems every time he played certain notes on his music keyboard. Everything we did was forced to lead to the next stage after the guy let us muddle around a bit. All he really wanted was control of the story, and I didn't enjoy that at all.

I'm glad I've matured a bit, since that lets me GM a world instead of a plotline. Unfortunately, my joy in worldbuilding has fallen off quite a bit, so I'm not as much a GM anymore as I used to be.
Digo 5th Sep 2014, 4:50 AM edit delete reply
Did we have the same GM? I was in a Star Trek game once where the GM said "anything goes" and then proceeded to throw things like Q and campaign-ending mary sue characters at us.

It was the only time in my life I quit a campaign.
Zeeth 5th Sep 2014, 3:06 PM edit delete reply
Might have, Digo. I think that was in Columbus, OH? So yeah, we might have known each other, if briefly. I got the impression that was one of his standard campaign ideas.
Taco Belle 4th Sep 2014, 3:02 PM edit delete reply
Hariman, you and i know this... But have you ever had no choice BUT one of those DM's?
Jannard 4th Sep 2014, 8:30 AM edit delete reply
I sense a lot of reasoning bias here, haha...

Not that what you're saying isn't actually totally the case, mind you.
Digo 4th Sep 2014, 8:39 AM edit delete reply
I guess what it boils down to with my group was that I would be the GM who tailored the world around their characters and the only NPCs out to get them is the BBEG and his minions. Whereas when they GM'd, the whole world was out to get the PCs and we had to tailor the characters to survive the campaign.

It is two different GMing styles.
Disloyal Subject 4th Sep 2014, 8:52 AM Gruumlair Gro'Dok edit delete reply
Disloyal Subject
I'm rather partial to both, though I certainly wouldn't appreciate getting one when I wanted the other. The only thing that bugged me about the 'consequences' campaign I played in, aside from its premature death due to interplayer drama, was being forced to nerf my ability scores, because I rolled too well & the DM was worried that a divine caster with no stat below 14 at lv1 would destabilize things.
Raxon 4th Sep 2014, 10:04 AM edit delete reply
I generally don't involve myself in guilds in any game. They're often too restrictive. Very much like my beef against unions, they don't play fair, they use numbers to shout down rational arguments, and violence quickly ensues if you try to do any work but the job they give you. FYI, do not work with factory unions unless you absolutely have to. Or teamsters.
Evilbob 4th Sep 2014, 10:52 AM edit delete reply
Never been in a union before, so can't comment on their restrictivity. I have to say that unionization and the idea they represent definitely looks appealing though... when you're definitively being underpaid way below the market average and working for an employer who's got a reputation for being cheap and irrational...

As for actually roleplaying with a guild... I've surprisingly never had encounter with a gang, union, or guild in my games... Although I swear one of my fellow players is trying to start one with his "Stable Snakes Rule!"...
Raxon 4th Sep 2014, 11:20 AM edit delete reply
I don't deny that the unions were necessary when they started. Working conditions were unsafe, and men were worked for ten to twelve hour shifts with very little pay.

However, over time, the unions found they can demand unreasonably high wages. The unions threatened to strike if Hostess didn't raise their wages, but Hostess couldn't. In response, Hostess had to go bankrupt, because they couldn't pay the demanded wages.

Also, factory workers start at well over minimum wage, and can make upwards of $30 an hour. And they will still strike for more. Or they will strike in the union bosses tell them to. Or they get blacklisted from the union, and can't get work with that union again. You know, for going to work every day, even though he has a job with reasonable pay.

Now, I don't know exactly how high dues are for every union, but if you're paying enough in dues that you need to make more than fifteen or twenty dollars an hour, I don't think it's your employer who's screwing you over.

Then again, I've only watched this firsthand in a couple areas. Maybe not all unions are corrupt. Maybe they're not all tied to the mob. Maybe the teamsters will offer fair prices for their services and stop breaking kneecaps. Okay, probably not that last one.

Then again, I might be biased, since the last union I worked with left the job half done, a huge mess, and cost twice as much as a nonunion crew would have. And then had the nerve to file a lawsuit on the grounds we didn't provide meals for them.
2TAIL 4th Sep 2014, 4:32 PM edit delete reply
Hostess was going into bankrupts and asked the unions to deal so they would not have to. The unions did give up $110 million in annual wages and benefits.

Hostess then gave the executives big bonuses. It is sadly not uncommon for people to get bonuses for getting the unions to give up things, but it does piss off the unions.
They later (3 years) reentered bankrupt and asked the unions to give up more. They asked the unions to take a cut so big that many of the bakers would be better off leaving and working somewhere else. Other companies would pay better, and would not be hard to get the jobs.

In the US worker pay is very low. If AVG worker pay went up at the rate of executive pay, most workers would be making more then unions ask for.
This is less that Union workers need to be paid more and mostly executives should be paid less as they don't get paid based on performance. Maybe if they were paid based on their performance, they would try to do their jobs better.

Malroth 4th Sep 2014, 11:25 AM edit delete reply
Unions are Evil but so are Corporations, when they're working against each other it sometimes creates a little zone in the middle where the little guy can prosper. When they work together well everybody is F%**&$ed
Raxon 4th Sep 2014, 11:30 AM edit delete reply
I get what you're saying. I would argue, however, that literally anyone can own a corporation. I think you mean big business. A corporation is just a legal maneuvering term. Usually has to do with how taxes are paid on the business.
terrycloth 4th Sep 2014, 4:16 PM edit delete reply
Never, ever work in a factory without a union. Factory owners will literally kill you to save a few bucks.

They'll also deliberately bankrupt their own companies to bust unions, though. It's all a game to them, and they don't care about external costs because they're not the ones that have to pay them.

They are some of the most evil people on the planet.
The Old One 4th Sep 2014, 5:27 PM edit delete reply
Speaking as a guy with a union job (though not in a factory), they're pretty good to work for. With the union, I have a decent but not extravagant wage, health care for me and mine, reasonable hours and vacation time and paid sick leave as long as I'm sick for more than 3 days.

Without the union, I'd be making minimum wage, have to get health care though the exchanges, probably have little to no vacation time and sod all sick leave, only get paid overtime as the law required, and probably be having my meals be government subsidized because my wage was so low. (or, in short, Walmart)

Yeah, any organization can be corrupted, although the guys holding the big bags of cash are much more likely to be corrupt than the guys waiting to get paid
Raxon 4th Sep 2014, 6:13 PM edit delete reply
I dealt with a builders union. They sent twenty guys to set a statue in place. It was about ten feet tall, weighed around 600 lbs. They also had a crane and a forklift. The crane and forklift, I get. Only eight of them actually did anything. There was an operator for the forklift, and one for the crane. Fair enough. There were four guys with ropes making minute adjustments as the statue was being placed. Reasonable. There was a guy directing the crane operator. Sure. There was a dude keeping gawkers away, and especially keeping kids from trying to play on the equipment. Okay, I admit I didn't expect that to be a problem.

This left twelve guys who just hung out in the break room, drank all the coffee, and amused themselves with the tv in the lobby.

We got billed for the full workforce, even though we had a union guy show up beforehand and tell us they'd only need eight guys, and that it would be a quick job. There was a platform. All they had to do was put the statue on the platform. They had one job. The statue was left leaning against the platform at the end of the day. They claimed they did the work we agreed on and sued us for for not providing proper facilities(IE, they wanted us to provide meals for all twenty of them), and their demand? One hundred thousand dollars, for 'undue stress and creating a hostile and unsafe work environment.' You know, because eating all the food in the break room fridge wasn't enough.

I was not the one in charge at the time, so all I knew was what we could all plainly see and the fact this situation had the boss ranting about it up and down the hallways. We never did business with that union ever again. Six half hour breaks over an eight hour period, for a job that should have taken an hour, tops. For five dudes.

This is what happens when people get greedy.

EDIT: I should clarify. I was not the one handling the deal. I was assigned to the union dudes as a gofer. I suspect they had orders to draw out the job as much as possible, since they were charging us by the hour.
The Fish King 4th Sep 2014, 9:05 PM edit delete reply
I worked for UPS for a short time which required me to be a member of Teamsters. All I ever got from them was a bill for my union dues. No other services provided.
Scribejay 4th Sep 2014, 12:38 PM edit delete reply
I bet Rarity spending those several days schemin' a way back to the top. It's what Michael Westen would do.
Taco Belle 4th Sep 2014, 3:13 PM edit delete reply
Douptful, considering how much a RPer Rarity is, she's gonna play up the Drama and Depression something feirce, make use of all those Dramarity and Dispairity Screenshots they skipped so far! >:D

her Player could also be playing the Guilt Card to get the Dm to Undo/Fix this, as going by the DM's reaction... this SO isn't his expected reaction.
2tail 4th Sep 2014, 4:37 PM edit delete reply
Better yet. She could be planing to take over the guild for their backstabbing.
I wounder how Celesta would react to having the guild ran by Rarity.
Makes me think of "steal from the rich and give to the poor... and me."
Specter 5th Sep 2014, 11:49 AM edit delete reply

Rarity, an overreaction like that is just sad...

But an overreaction like this is hilarious.