Her conscience is probably going to force her too, though. She pretends to be an asshole, but I think we all know by now that she’s really a bleeding-heart do-gooder.
N0083rP00F
And we hate that …… But wait! There’s cookies right? … We can still be grumpy and complain about it right?
I’m fairly sure you guys need your humor and “inner lies we tell ourselves” sensors checked, because Ana’s comment indicates fondness for Carla and her current mental state to me.
void
I think you may need your verbal irony sensor checked.
Stuck doing broken-hearth-courrier jobs between Ruth (which is something close to a friend. With their interactions, I assume they’ve known each other outside what we’ve seen on panel) and some kid she barely know.
Resident SnipeFish
Broken-Hearth Couriers: the premier alert system for at-risk fireplaces.
Is there a compendium somewhere of the characters of DOA? I only know what little I do from this strip. I have no idea what all the other universes are that many people refer to (walky-verse et al)
But true neutral means you’re not excessively one thing or the other in any regard, not that you can do whatever you want so long as you balance it out later.
Doctor_Who
“You’re neutral, why are you burning down that orphanage?!”
“Don’t worry, I’ll give some money to charity later.”
Incidentally, this is one of my favorite Pathfinder images ever.
Besides, that orphanage attacked me! You all saw it!
Roborat
I will vouch for you.
Schpoonman
Please tell me you picked that gravatar specifically for this response.
void
True neutral can mean allot of things. As long as you don’t comfortably fit under good or evil and don’t comfortably fit under lawful or chaotic you’re true neutral.
Yeah, but generally speakin’ Chaotics don’t have to deal with collateral damage the same way Lawfuls do. Depends on the DM.
Disloyal Subject
There was a rather lovely essay I read once that pointed out what each alignment was capable of at its worst, but I can’t seem to find it now. Their take on Neutral Good involved someone so dedicated to their ideals they were all but blind to collateral damage and willing to make some pretty questionable calls.
Me too, but the creation of undead is an inherently evil act, so the GM was unimpressed with my plan to cast Command Undead on some wights, give them each a tube of Sovereign Glue, and make them spread it on themselves and grapple anyone I don’t like.
void
Remember: creating undead is evil but commanding them is fine and dandy.
Doctor_Who
Yeah, but anyone I have them kill becomes a wight too.
Deanatay
Yeah, but they’re sovGlue’d to another wight, so you essentially still only have one wight. Two wights don’t make a universal solvent.
There’s a test to find out what kind of character you would be IRL. I came out as a ChG Wizard7. I guess because the test didn’t have the Warlock class. 😀
Here: http://www.easydamus.com/character.html
There were some others, but nothing that would allow being a Warlock. I keep testing as either a Wizard or Cleric.
Disloyal Subject
Well, Easydamus’ test was around before the Warlock class was made, and Warlock wasn’t a core class until 4E.
I usually test as a muticlass Ranger/Sorcerer. The suboptimal build makes me want to scream.
AndieStardust
Woah I got true neutral bard/wizard. Human.
It surprised me to see I answered like 4 questions with the “evil” option. I wish I knew which they were.
Deanatay
Lawful Good Elf Wizard. No evil, although almost equal in Law and Chaos (very few Neutral, strangely). Leaned heavily towards monk and sorceror, but wizard was strongest.
Belle
That’s really cool! 🙂 I got Neutral Good Elf Wizard, Level 4. 😀
I got away with trying to kill the whole party as a good-aligned character by using a Sword of Berserking. I pointed out to the DM that although I knew the sword was cursed, my character wasn’t aware of the curse and still thought it was a +5 bastard sword, and therefore it wouldn’t make sense for my character to avoid using what she thought was her best weapon.
At least I think it taught them to think twice before trying to prank me with cursed gear again.
The Other Mike
I think you managed to metagame by avoiding metagaming. (My head hurts…)
I generally go Chaotic Neutral because it provides the most leeway for telling the DM to fuck off when he starts trying to tell me my character wouldn’t do things because of my alignment.
I’ve said it before: Alignment is the single worst concept ever introduced to role-playing.
Alignment isn’t the worst concept. D&D alignment is.
Okay, I’m a tabletop game designer, this is going to be a rant. Brace yourself.
D&D has an axis of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. This is utterly, completely ridiculous. It’s ridiculous on the surface. What is goodness? What is evil? What is lawfulness? What is chaotic? That which tears down the law of man enforces the law of nature. That which tears down the law of one nation enforces the law of another. That which creates chaos by freeing the slave enhances the moral law of equality.
And Good/Evil is even worse.
It’s not that we can’t define these terms. Personally I’d define anything that helps people as good, anything that harms them as evil. But that definition is so vague, and any given situation in reality is so full of nuanced degrees of these things, that in a game setting they become useless.
Is it good to destroy the civilization of the Drow, to slaughter their warriors and leave them defenseless against the beasts of the Underdark, simply because we have deemed certain aspects of their primary society evil? What about the Drow children made vulnerable by such an act? What about the Drow civilians left without warriors to defend them from Illithids that would enslave them in turn? What about the free will of Drow to establish their own sovereign nations in the Underdark, however oppressive their laws?
John Wick, one of the best game designers out there, shows the folly of D&D alignment with a simple question: What alignment is Batman? The answer is ALL OF THEM. Yes, even chaotic evil. And I’m not just talking about the way he’s written by different authors, I mean a case can be made that Batman’s core motivation is chaotic evil. He is a vigilante, inherently unlawful, and his core motivation is vengeance through the use of violence, which is evil.
And, of course, he’s also lawful good. And everything else.
Alignment can work. But you can’t just toss out axes like “Good” and “Evil”, or “Paragon” and “Renegade”.
So what can you do? You can set up a more clearly defined ideal. Take the Force, for instance. In The Empire Strikes Back, we get a pretty good explanation for the axis of the Force. The Light Side is for knowledge and defense. The Dark Side is for attack. When you are at peace, passive, you are of the Light Side. Anger, fear, aggression, the Dark Side are they.
Note that every single Star Wars video game gets this completely wrong. They just make it a standard Good/Evil axis, and it’s horrible. And also the Prequels pretty much fail to follow these rules, but I like to think that’s because of the corruption in the Jedi Order.
Anyway, think of the axis as originally presented. Does it work? Oh yes. It works great. But is it good/evil? No. There are times when anger can be righteous. There are times when attacking can be necessary. There are times when passivity works great evil. There are times when pure defense causes disaster.
The Light Side can be evil. The Dark Side can be good. But we have a clear picture of how the Light Side works, and how the Dark Side works. That makes it a valuable axis for alignment in a game.
Here’s another example: Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar. There is no Good/Evil dichotomy here. Instead, you have virtues. Virtues like Compassion, Justice, and Honor. These are more clearly defined. A man steals bread to keep his children from starving. The law of the land demands that he lose his hand and be forever branded for his crime. Should that unduly harsh sentence be carried out? There is no “good” answer. There is no “evil” answer. There might be an answer that I think is good, or that you think is good, but any answer will have elements of both good and evil.
But there is certainly an answer that serves Justice: Yes he should be punished as the law demands. That is justice. There is also an answer that serves Compassion: No he shouldn’t, because the law is too harsh and he stole out of necessity. That is Compassion.
In this instance the virtues are opposed to each other. In another instance, Justice and Compassion might be on the same side. Unlike Good/Evil, they are easier to define. These definitions are still not perfect, and there is some quibbling room (can an unjust law truly serve Justice? Is it compassionate to allow a baker’s bread to be stolen for any reason?), but they are easier to define than Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos.
Alignment mechanics are wonderful. I’m a firm believer that you should have mechanics for anything in your game you want to promote, and the exploration of morality, of virtue, is one of the most powerful things you can promote in a game.
But Good/Evil is ridiculous. Law/Chaos is ridiculous. And don’t even get me started on spells that are contingent on alignment, or “Always Evil” races.
Honestly, for D&D I say scrub alignment altogether, and instead go with piety. Good? Evil? Law? Chaos? Doesn’t matter. What are the tenets of the god, or if you do not serve a god the ideology, that you swear to. How PIOUS are you. That works great for a high fantasy campaign where gods play such a huge role. A follower of Tyr and a follower of Bane will have very different ideas on what is good and what is evil, but they can be judged by how closely they adhere to the tenets of their god.
I’ve seen certain campaign settings based off DND kind of do this for divine spellcasters, with each god having a list of tenets that have to be followed to keep your power, but they still keep the alignment on top of that. Why not get rid of it? It’d still serve the same purpose. If you are typically heroic, then you’d consider a high piety score toward a god that upheld heroic ideals a good thing, and a high piety score toward, say, the god of murder an evil thing.
Plus it gets rid of Detect Evil, the bane of GMs everywhere.
In a world of Detect Alignment, “Disguise Alignment” Amulets are very popular.
AndieStardust
In my tabletop group, we kinda dropped the alignments altogether. We detailed a good enough amount of our characters and the world around them so we can call bs on an action, though we rarely have to. Instead our alignment can be something descriptive of the personality like unmapped seas or ditzy snake. We just do those for fun. Same with classes although those tend to be more accurate.
EvilWriter
Something I’ve done is said that people don’t have alignments, but gods do. Gods are stronger than people, but they are also less than people. They are constrained by their natures, unable to act in ways that contradict their purpose. So gods have alignments. When people worship gods, particularly divine spellcasters, they develop an aura of alignment and become susceptible to spells that affect that alignment.
So the secret polymorphed ogre infiltrating the castle doesn’t detect, but a Cleric of Shar would, because Shar’s divine alignment would taint the Cleric’s aura.
I didn’t come up with the idea, it was used in the Arcanis setting (although their gods didn’t have alignments, rather alignments were assigned by the aspect of the god worshiped, nor did they get rid of alignments altogether, they just had detect spells and the like fail to work unless their was a divine aura), but I’ve taken it further and used it with a degree of success. The downside is it makes alignment spells weaker and less useful, but not completely so.
trlkly
Not following the law has nothing to do with the good/evil alignment. That just makes the character chaotic.
Except when Batman is portrayed as a bad guy, he is Good. Unless he’s working for the police ala the 30s serials or the 60s TV show, he’s Chaotic. He is Chaotic Good–the alignment for vigilantes.
Don’t get overly caught up in the minutia. Alignments are broad overviews. And that’s why they don’t really work as ways to shackle characters into acting certain ways. No character is 100% consistent with their alignment.
Consider real life. You probably consider yourself to be basically a good person. But do you ever do jerkish things? Do you ever get so angry that you hurt someone? You can’t be perfectly good all the time, now can you?
Alignment should be a tool–a broad outline for player characters and important NPCs. And a way to have lesser NPCs have motivations without having to get deep inside their heads.
And, sure, make it a mechanic to “detect evil” or something. Or as a way to see how much you follow your god. But let the characters move around the chart. Let the characters grow.
Ana Chronistic
I agree with most of what you say. Curious how your stance would change with my personal definitions of “good” = prioritizing others and “evil” = prioritizing self. I could also add “lawful” = deliberate and “chaotic” = arbitrary (approximately, society vs. “natural order”).
seems like that would be Charity/Selfishness and Intention/Disarray (but perhaps with better words)
though, admittedly, even with that modification, it’s still a pointless stat set
247 thoughts on “Morlock”
Ana Chronistic
fuckin’ do-goodin’ and charitableness and shit takin’ time out of my immature bullshitting
Wheelpath
No one said she has to, jeez! Would be great if Carla did, but no one’s forcing her.
Wublub
Her conscience is probably going to force her too, though. She pretends to be an asshole, but I think we all know by now that she’s really a bleeding-heart do-gooder.
N0083rP00F
And we hate that …… But wait! There’s cookies right? … We can still be grumpy and complain about it right?
gkheyf
that’s what i’m talkin’ about! why don’t people get that, man??
Falcon
I’m fairly sure you guys need your humor and “inner lies we tell ourselves” sensors checked, because Ana’s comment indicates fondness for Carla and her current mental state to me.
void
I think you may need your verbal irony sensor checked.
DarkoNeko
wouldn’t really wanna be in Carla’s shoe–rollers right now.
DarkoNeko
Stuck doing broken-hearth-courrier jobs between Ruth (which is something close to a friend. With their interactions, I assume they’ve known each other outside what we’ve seen on panel) and some kid she barely know.
Resident SnipeFish
Broken-Hearth Couriers: the premier alert system for at-risk fireplaces.
Cerberus
Making me care, racksafrackin’. Don’t they know I’ve got a paper-thin mask of “too cool for school” rebel to maintain?
Kamino Neko
Her and Sal have much more in common than a fondness for beer and toleration of Malaya.
StClair
and then there’s Sarah…
Kamino Neko
I somehow suspect Sarah would not tolerate Malaya.
Slartibeast Button, BIA
Sal and Carla are bitter misanthropic opponents of the System, leaning up against a wall and sneering at it.
Sarah is bitter and misanthropic, but she basically supports the System and is trying rise in it.
quarktime
They fight crime!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Aeron
And now Ana Chronistic needs a new avatar.
Deanatay
Oh, Carla. You’re such a sucker.
raul tsi
Is there a compendium somewhere of the characters of DOA? I only know what little I do from this strip. I have no idea what all the other universes are that many people refer to (walky-verse et al)
Amazi-Stool
Well, it’s not official, but there’s Walkypedia.
Doctor_Who
Panel 2: Me choosing my D&D character’s alignment.
Panel 7: Me after my character had to turn down doing something awesomely evil.
MM
Which is exactly why I play True Neutral.
Disloyal Subject
Yeah, but in my experience a whole party of Neutrals inevitably leads to weird shit happening, even when they have clear goals and motivations.
Pantheon the Mantheon
But true neutral means you’re not excessively one thing or the other in any regard, not that you can do whatever you want so long as you balance it out later.
Doctor_Who
“You’re neutral, why are you burning down that orphanage?!”
“Don’t worry, I’ll give some money to charity later.”
Incidentally, this is one of my favorite Pathfinder images ever.
Historyman68
Carbon Offset!
Deanatay
Besides, that orphanage attacked me! You all saw it!
Roborat
I will vouch for you.
Schpoonman
Please tell me you picked that gravatar specifically for this response.
void
True neutral can mean allot of things. As long as you don’t comfortably fit under good or evil and don’t comfortably fit under lawful or chaotic you’re true neutral.
Tunaro
That’s why I always swing Chaotic Good. You can get away with everything if ya say it’s just followin’ your own definition of right and wrong.
Disloyal Subject
Lawful Good can do that too.
Tunaro
Yeah, but generally speakin’ Chaotics don’t have to deal with collateral damage the same way Lawfuls do. Depends on the DM.
Disloyal Subject
There was a rather lovely essay I read once that pointed out what each alignment was capable of at its worst, but I can’t seem to find it now. Their take on Neutral Good involved someone so dedicated to their ideals they were all but blind to collateral damage and willing to make some pretty questionable calls.
Loki
I suppose that is not what you meant, but it at least contains one cautionary sentence on each: http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html
Slartibeast Button, BIA
So, Groo, then?
Doctor_Who
Me too, but the creation of undead is an inherently evil act, so the GM was unimpressed with my plan to cast Command Undead on some wights, give them each a tube of Sovereign Glue, and make them spread it on themselves and grapple anyone I don’t like.
void
Remember: creating undead is evil but commanding them is fine and dandy.
Doctor_Who
Yeah, but anyone I have them kill becomes a wight too.
Deanatay
Yeah, but they’re sovGlue’d to another wight, so you essentially still only have one wight. Two wights don’t make a universal solvent.
Skeptible
So you’re saying two Wights don’t make a Wrong?
Clif
Wight you are.
Opus the Poet
There’s a test to find out what kind of character you would be IRL. I came out as a ChG Wizard7. I guess because the test didn’t have the Warlock class. 😀
Opus the Poet
Here: http://www.easydamus.com/character.html
There were some others, but nothing that would allow being a Warlock. I keep testing as either a Wizard or Cleric.
Disloyal Subject
Well, Easydamus’ test was around before the Warlock class was made, and Warlock wasn’t a core class until 4E.
I usually test as a muticlass Ranger/Sorcerer. The suboptimal build makes me want to scream.
AndieStardust
Woah I got true neutral bard/wizard. Human.
It surprised me to see I answered like 4 questions with the “evil” option. I wish I knew which they were.
Deanatay
Lawful Good Elf Wizard. No evil, although almost equal in Law and Chaos (very few Neutral, strangely). Leaned heavily towards monk and sorceror, but wizard was strongest.
Belle
That’s really cool! 🙂 I got Neutral Good Elf Wizard, Level 4. 😀
Tawdry Quirks
I got away with trying to kill the whole party as a good-aligned character by using a Sword of Berserking. I pointed out to the DM that although I knew the sword was cursed, my character wasn’t aware of the curse and still thought it was a +5 bastard sword, and therefore it wouldn’t make sense for my character to avoid using what she thought was her best weapon.
At least I think it taught them to think twice before trying to prank me with cursed gear again.
The Other Mike
I think you managed to metagame by avoiding metagaming. (My head hurts…)
John
I generally go Chaotic Neutral because it provides the most leeway for telling the DM to fuck off when he starts trying to tell me my character wouldn’t do things because of my alignment.
I’ve said it before: Alignment is the single worst concept ever introduced to role-playing.
EvilWriter
Alignment isn’t the worst concept. D&D alignment is.
Okay, I’m a tabletop game designer, this is going to be a rant. Brace yourself.
D&D has an axis of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. This is utterly, completely ridiculous. It’s ridiculous on the surface. What is goodness? What is evil? What is lawfulness? What is chaotic? That which tears down the law of man enforces the law of nature. That which tears down the law of one nation enforces the law of another. That which creates chaos by freeing the slave enhances the moral law of equality.
And Good/Evil is even worse.
It’s not that we can’t define these terms. Personally I’d define anything that helps people as good, anything that harms them as evil. But that definition is so vague, and any given situation in reality is so full of nuanced degrees of these things, that in a game setting they become useless.
Is it good to destroy the civilization of the Drow, to slaughter their warriors and leave them defenseless against the beasts of the Underdark, simply because we have deemed certain aspects of their primary society evil? What about the Drow children made vulnerable by such an act? What about the Drow civilians left without warriors to defend them from Illithids that would enslave them in turn? What about the free will of Drow to establish their own sovereign nations in the Underdark, however oppressive their laws?
John Wick, one of the best game designers out there, shows the folly of D&D alignment with a simple question: What alignment is Batman? The answer is ALL OF THEM. Yes, even chaotic evil. And I’m not just talking about the way he’s written by different authors, I mean a case can be made that Batman’s core motivation is chaotic evil. He is a vigilante, inherently unlawful, and his core motivation is vengeance through the use of violence, which is evil.
And, of course, he’s also lawful good. And everything else.
Alignment can work. But you can’t just toss out axes like “Good” and “Evil”, or “Paragon” and “Renegade”.
So what can you do? You can set up a more clearly defined ideal. Take the Force, for instance. In The Empire Strikes Back, we get a pretty good explanation for the axis of the Force. The Light Side is for knowledge and defense. The Dark Side is for attack. When you are at peace, passive, you are of the Light Side. Anger, fear, aggression, the Dark Side are they.
Note that every single Star Wars video game gets this completely wrong. They just make it a standard Good/Evil axis, and it’s horrible. And also the Prequels pretty much fail to follow these rules, but I like to think that’s because of the corruption in the Jedi Order.
Anyway, think of the axis as originally presented. Does it work? Oh yes. It works great. But is it good/evil? No. There are times when anger can be righteous. There are times when attacking can be necessary. There are times when passivity works great evil. There are times when pure defense causes disaster.
The Light Side can be evil. The Dark Side can be good. But we have a clear picture of how the Light Side works, and how the Dark Side works. That makes it a valuable axis for alignment in a game.
Here’s another example: Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar. There is no Good/Evil dichotomy here. Instead, you have virtues. Virtues like Compassion, Justice, and Honor. These are more clearly defined. A man steals bread to keep his children from starving. The law of the land demands that he lose his hand and be forever branded for his crime. Should that unduly harsh sentence be carried out? There is no “good” answer. There is no “evil” answer. There might be an answer that I think is good, or that you think is good, but any answer will have elements of both good and evil.
But there is certainly an answer that serves Justice: Yes he should be punished as the law demands. That is justice. There is also an answer that serves Compassion: No he shouldn’t, because the law is too harsh and he stole out of necessity. That is Compassion.
In this instance the virtues are opposed to each other. In another instance, Justice and Compassion might be on the same side. Unlike Good/Evil, they are easier to define. These definitions are still not perfect, and there is some quibbling room (can an unjust law truly serve Justice? Is it compassionate to allow a baker’s bread to be stolen for any reason?), but they are easier to define than Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos.
Alignment mechanics are wonderful. I’m a firm believer that you should have mechanics for anything in your game you want to promote, and the exploration of morality, of virtue, is one of the most powerful things you can promote in a game.
But Good/Evil is ridiculous. Law/Chaos is ridiculous. And don’t even get me started on spells that are contingent on alignment, or “Always Evil” races.
Honestly, for D&D I say scrub alignment altogether, and instead go with piety. Good? Evil? Law? Chaos? Doesn’t matter. What are the tenets of the god, or if you do not serve a god the ideology, that you swear to. How PIOUS are you. That works great for a high fantasy campaign where gods play such a huge role. A follower of Tyr and a follower of Bane will have very different ideas on what is good and what is evil, but they can be judged by how closely they adhere to the tenets of their god.
I’ve seen certain campaign settings based off DND kind of do this for divine spellcasters, with each god having a list of tenets that have to be followed to keep your power, but they still keep the alignment on top of that. Why not get rid of it? It’d still serve the same purpose. If you are typically heroic, then you’d consider a high piety score toward a god that upheld heroic ideals a good thing, and a high piety score toward, say, the god of murder an evil thing.
Plus it gets rid of Detect Evil, the bane of GMs everywhere.
/rant off
Resident SnipeFish
…
This is the greatest thing I never knew I needed.
Charles Phipps
In a world of Detect Alignment, “Disguise Alignment” Amulets are very popular.
AndieStardust
In my tabletop group, we kinda dropped the alignments altogether. We detailed a good enough amount of our characters and the world around them so we can call bs on an action, though we rarely have to. Instead our alignment can be something descriptive of the personality like unmapped seas or ditzy snake. We just do those for fun. Same with classes although those tend to be more accurate.
EvilWriter
Something I’ve done is said that people don’t have alignments, but gods do. Gods are stronger than people, but they are also less than people. They are constrained by their natures, unable to act in ways that contradict their purpose. So gods have alignments. When people worship gods, particularly divine spellcasters, they develop an aura of alignment and become susceptible to spells that affect that alignment.
So the secret polymorphed ogre infiltrating the castle doesn’t detect, but a Cleric of Shar would, because Shar’s divine alignment would taint the Cleric’s aura.
I didn’t come up with the idea, it was used in the Arcanis setting (although their gods didn’t have alignments, rather alignments were assigned by the aspect of the god worshiped, nor did they get rid of alignments altogether, they just had detect spells and the like fail to work unless their was a divine aura), but I’ve taken it further and used it with a degree of success. The downside is it makes alignment spells weaker and less useful, but not completely so.
trlkly
Not following the law has nothing to do with the good/evil alignment. That just makes the character chaotic.
Except when Batman is portrayed as a bad guy, he is Good. Unless he’s working for the police ala the 30s serials or the 60s TV show, he’s Chaotic. He is Chaotic Good–the alignment for vigilantes.
Don’t get overly caught up in the minutia. Alignments are broad overviews. And that’s why they don’t really work as ways to shackle characters into acting certain ways. No character is 100% consistent with their alignment.
Consider real life. You probably consider yourself to be basically a good person. But do you ever do jerkish things? Do you ever get so angry that you hurt someone? You can’t be perfectly good all the time, now can you?
Alignment should be a tool–a broad outline for player characters and important NPCs. And a way to have lesser NPCs have motivations without having to get deep inside their heads.
And, sure, make it a mechanic to “detect evil” or something. Or as a way to see how much you follow your god. But let the characters move around the chart. Let the characters grow.
Ana Chronistic
I agree with most of what you say. Curious how your stance would change with my personal definitions of “good” = prioritizing others and “evil” = prioritizing self. I could also add “lawful” = deliberate and “chaotic” = arbitrary (approximately, society vs. “natural order”).
seems like that would be Charity/Selfishness and Intention/Disarray (but perhaps with better words)
though, admittedly, even with that modification, it’s still a pointless stat set
Disloyal Subject
So… does she eatthe femurs, or..?
Doctor_Who
She carves them into flutes, on which her orchestra of the damned will soon play the song that ends the earth.
Opus the Poet
Another awesome example of why we need an upvote system.
Needfuldoer
They’re already practicing!
quarktime
Don’t be silly.
Everyone knows THAT tune will be played on the Bone Violin of Erich Zann.
Now, The Laundry…THAT’S an RPG for REAL paranoid maniacs…
Kalosec
now begin the adventures of Carla the babysitter
Historyman68
So does she give her a key, or…?
Cerberus
She just directs her to the secret shed filled with a week’s worth of copies.
Ana Chronistic
“HEY HEY HEY, STAY OUT OF MY SHED”
Slartibeast Button, BIA
Looks forward to the appearance of Thor.
quarktime
Nobody leaves until they sing the Blues.
AnvilPro
Wow, I guess Carla really is human
Mr. Mendo
And thus, the transition of Carla into a gruff but lovable mentor figure begins!
Cerberus