TNE and centaurs: A moral tangent

[Avoraciopoctules]

Since the OP of http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49205 asked for posters to avoid pursuing tangents, I'm starting this thread to avoid side-tracking things there any more than I already have. Here are the relevant posts from http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49205 in the order they were made (I might have missed a few, but I think I've got most of them here):

None of this really seems to indicate that centaurs as a race add an element that a bunch of guys riding on horseback doesn't do just as well.

I'm not a centaur lover...Greek myth monsters in general are too mutant for my tastes. But what do they add that would benefit the story(stories)?

Is there some "I'm a centaur, I can ______." that we can't do with horsemen as distinct from horse-men? Is there some personality or alignment or whatever foible?

I mean, it would probably not be a good idea to have a group that's like the Mongols, but a million times worse. But centaurs as a monsterous "race" like that would work fine.

So what do you get from "playing a centaur" that requires you to be attached to a horse's butt?

The main thing I like about having centaurs in a setting is that it lets me take domesticated horses out. I don't like having situations where attacking or hurting domesticated animals is a good idea that advances the goals of a character in my games. I feel particularly strongly about this when it comes to animals used for transport.

If I have a race that fills the roles otherwise filled by humanoid cavalry, I don't have to worry about people poisoning a warband's mounts to gain an advantage in a chase, riding horses to death to move a message faster, or killing and eating their mounts after they move deep into barren terrain (the mounts pay for the stupidity of the riders).

So, put simply, I feel less guilt when poisoning a centaur than when poisoning a horse. Centaurs are sentient, so they'd likely share at least some of the blame for a situation where harming them becomes a good idea. That makes doing unpleasant things to them easier to justify.

So you feel less guilty about cannibalism than eating horse. (if I didn't completely miss your point)

As someone struggling to find a way to disagree with that , I have to say that's the best arguement for using centaurs I've seen.

So you feel less guilty about cannibalism than eating horse. (if I didn't completely miss your point)

As someone struggling to find a way to disagree with that , I have to say that's the best arguement for using centaurs I've seen.

Pretty much, yeah. If the horse is dependent on civilization, not sentient, and it provides a valuable service already, I feel it should get treated fairly nicely and not killed as soon as it lacks usefulness or when doing so is expedient.

If I had to choose between killing and eating a domesticated horse or eating the already-dead body of another person, the choice would be easy. I don't see cannibalism as bad if you are just utilizing a pile of meat that would otherwise just rot. It's a bit distasteful (no pun intended), and there might be some disease problems, but it's really just a form of recycling.

No, no. I mean instead of killing your horse for food, you kill your centaur mount.

And that would be better.

That was why I was ing.

The idea that killing the centaur for food is better than killing a horse for food.

But yeah, the horse never signed up to be chow.

Pretty much, yeah. If the horse is dependent on civilization, not sentient, and it provides a valuable service already, I feel it should get treated fairly nicely and not killed as soon as it lacks usefulness or when doing so is expedient.

I like how listing "not sentient" seems to imply sentience's a crime.

If I had to choose between killing and eating a domesticated horse or eating the already-dead body of another person, the choice would be easy. I don't see cannibalism as bad if you are just utilizing a pile of meat that would otherwise just rot. It's a bit distasteful (no pun intended), and there might be some disease problems, but it's really just a form of recycling.

Of course the choice should be easy: one involves killing and the other doesn't, and otherwise both boil down to "eating meat". And we really should make the concept of eating your relatives being honoring them popular.

I am not sure there exists a ledge that is narrow and dangeorus for humans but passable by ogres.

There are lots. An Ogre is less than twice as tall as a human. In fact, they are about 50% taller than a human. In any particular dimension they are at most twice that of a normal human. A ledge that is very dangerous for a human is any one that approaches the shoulder breadth of the human - anything around half a meter or so. But if the human turns sideways and creeps along that way then their silhouette is fixed by their foot length - generally about 26 cm.

So if the Ogre had feet that were twice as long a human's (not unreasonable as they are often pictured with oversized feet compared to their size), it would be able to pass sideways on a trail that scarcely fit a human walking forwards.

---

And seriously: if you have less problem killing actual sapient people then domestic dumb animals you are fucked up and I have no desire to write anything to cater to you. You are morally offensive to me and are a horrible person. What the fucking hell?

-Username17

I commented (less than 45% serious) that I find the implication that killing a centaur for chow instead of your horse (if one rides centaurs instead of horses) is more acceptable (poor horse etc.) hillarious.

But I think interpeting

So, put simply, I feel less guilt when poisoning a centaur than when poisoning a horse. Centaurs are sentient, so they'd likely share at least some of the blame for a situation where harming them becomes a good idea. That makes doing unpleasant things to them easier to justify.

as capable of being taken to the point of being pro-cannibalism and anti-horse eating might be a little extreme, after thinking it over.

But that's how it came up, at any rate.

As for the ledge: If humans are forced to turn sideways, then yes. But something like that is pretty nearly "accessible? Not so you'd notice."

And seriously: if you have less problem killing actual sapient people then domestic dumb animals you are fucked up and I have no desire to write anything to cater to you. You are morally offensive to me and are a horrible person. What the fucking hell?

-Username17

Perhaps I should clarify my position a bit.

I presuppose that in this situation, the killing advances my goals. I also assume that these goals are worth killing for in this case. This will generally mean that the person made choices during the course of their life which brought them into the situation (I.E. "I'll join the army!", "I'll not try to get dishonorably discharged when a war starts!", "I'll take guard duty for the prisoners!").

Since the horse doesn't possess free will or sentience, it had no choice of whether to take a lifepath that would put it in danger. I'd feel the same way about people who had chips in their heads controlling their actions.

So, 2 example situations:

1. My warband is being chased by armored knights on unarmored horses.
2. My warband is being chased by centaur knights wearing armor we can pierce with our arrows.

I feel more guilt about shooting the horses of the knights to slow them than I do simply shooting the centaurs to stop them chasing me. This is because the horses didn't choose to place themselves at risk, but the centaurs did.

Perhaps I should clarify my position a bit.

No. I got you the first time. That's fucked up.

You sir, are a monster.

If you think that killing an actual sapient being for any reason is less abhorrent than killing a non-sapient being for no reason at all, then your morals are fucked.

Sometimes people eat other animals. Sometimes people even take perfectly good meat and just throw it away. And that's messed up. But it's messed up because it is wasteful, not because it is a heavy moral burden. I would be entirely willing to kill Nkunda. Right now, give me a gun and an escape route I'd do it. But it would be with a heavier heart than I would slap a mosquito. And if you can't say that about yourself you are one messed up dude.

-Username17

Hmm. Perhaps I should rethink my position then.

Either that, or I might be defining guilt the wrong way.


Are you saying that whether or not something is sentient is more important in terms of the value of its life than the actions and choices it has taken?

Are you saying that whether or not something is sentient is more important in terms of the value of its life than the actions and choices it has taken?

Yes. Unless you think there's some difference in the value of the life of a mosquito that has bitten a human than the life of a mosquito that has not.

-Username17

Well, if the mosquito has bitten a human, it has caused society some trouble. I might even extend that to mosquitos that threaten to bite humans, forcing the humans to take action to ward them off.

I'd value the lives of mosquitos that bit or troubled humans less with my current outlook.

Since the horse doesn't possess free will or sentience, it had no choice of whether to take a lifepath that would put it in danger. I'd feel the same way about people who had chips in their heads controlling their actions.

Horses don't have free will? Should I ask you what decides what wild horses do, or whether blacks didn't have either just because at one time whites bossed them?

When did Frank say that he doesn't plan on making any kind of tauroid? I would think the ormigans have some kind of non-bipedal form.

Original ormigans were bipedal IIRC (source: Hive Acatl), but they could be made into something like the legged zerg shown, for example.

Also, most of the other listed difficult features can usually be responded to with, "i have wings. they let me fly."

That, technically, isn't true. In a narrow vertical space, you're gonna have to be able to do the same as everyone else (though, of course, birdfolk wings <<< actual horse body).

If people wanted a tauric creature that was all bendy and could handle corners, they'd accept a bendy tauric form. The fact that they keep insisting on specifically non-bendy forms and making us handwave the corners anyway is straight fucked. Saying "Imagine a man with wings flapping them slowly and hovering in mid-air" is fine for a cooperative storytelling experience because I can imagine that. I can send it to the special effects department and they can make it look good. On the other hand, saying "imagine a 2m long creature navigating a 90 degree turn in a 75 cm corridor without bending" is just not reasonable. I can't imagine that, and I can't even have the special effects department make it look good. The best that could possibly be done is simply cutting the scene just before reaching the corner and starting the scene up again with them on the other side.

What about the fact that one could re-imagine them as: smaller, bendy, or able to walk around reared? Not that I want centaurs in: in fact, I want them specifically outta the default setting/game. Also, I'm well-aware that tells the source material to fvck itself, but it wouldn't be the first time people do it for the sake of their own crap.

And you didn't even fucking notice, because it doesn't hurt the game that they are gone.

I was agreeing up to this. Not having decent rules for pike walls and artillery actually does hurt the game, if you think the game can happen outside of a dungeon.

We fight and kill to protect tigers not because the life of a tiger means anything individually. We don't even do it because of the quite compelling ecological research that tells us that losing the tigers would end up screwing us more than is reasonable. We protect tigers because the world is beautiful and it has tigers in it. The world is beautiful in some small part because it has tigers in it.

Is that your own POV?

- - - - - - - - -
Responding to

Since the horse doesn't possess free will or sentience, it had no choice of whether to take a lifepath that would put it in danger. I'd feel the same way about people who had chips in their heads controlling their actions.

Horses don't have free will? Should I ask you what decides what wild horses do, or whether blacks didn't have either just because at one time whites bossed them?

I think I used the wrong term here. What I mean to say is that the horse is stupid, so I don't hold it as responsible for its actions as I do something smart enough to choose differently and more effectively.
- - - - - - - - -

A key point to my current view of things is the connection I see between the choices someone makes and the amount of responsibility they bear for what happens as a result.

The more control you have over your actions and thoughts (and the better-informed you are), the more responsibility you bear for their consequences.

If I travel to another country, then insult someone and face consequences for it, I view myself as less at fault if the following are true:
- I didn't properly understand the culture I was traveling into, and I didn't realize my action would cause offense until too late
- I lacked the sensitivity to detect social cues that might have alerted me to the fact that I was treading on dangerous ground even without knowing the culture
- Traveling to this county was not my conscious choice (Or it was the best of a set of unappealing options)


I view myself as more at fault if the following are true:
- I avoided learning about the culture I was traveling into.
- I didn't choose to speak with more care, knowing that etiquette might work differently in a new culture (regardless of how much I knew about the culture itself).
- My profession was one that emphasized "people skills"

[Elennsar]

Okay, a note to ensure my position is clear from the begining.

1) Humanity is not a species I'm not particularly fond of, though I'm not really sure I want to see it anhiliated.

2) Morality applies whether we like it or not.

From there.

If I travel to another country, then insult someone and face consequences for it, I view myself as less at fault if the following are true:
- I didn't properly understand the culture I was traveling into, and I didn't realize my action would cause offense until too late
- I lacked the sensitivity to detect social cues that might have alerted me to the fact that I was treading on dangerous ground even without knowing the culture
- Traveling to this county was not my conscious choice (Or it was the best of a set of unappealing options)


I view myself as more at fault if the following are true:
- I avoided learning about the culture I was traveling into.
- I didn't choose to speak with more care, knowing that etiquette might work differently in a new culture (regardless of how much I knew about the culture itself).
- My profession was one that emphasized "people skills"

#1: If you're not sure if you'd offend someone by doing something, then you should be damn careful about what you do. And if you're not, you're damnable for that on its own merits.

#2: Is your own damn fault. Yes, you may be insensitive for reasons beyond your control, but you should try to work around that.

#3: Has nothing to do with the situation. Being in France by mistake or because people are threatening to kill you doesn't remove any obligation to understand French culture.

#4 and #5: Definately.

#6: Indeed.

However, regarding the issue of horses vs. centaurs and morality (as opposed to courtesy)...

My feelings are that if we can justify shooting a dog for being a rabid incurable menace, the same applies to a human.

Supposedly, however, humans are capable of being cured or dealt with through other methods more easily than dogs.

Supposedly, killing sapients somehow hurts something that we're supposed to care about.

And that is why Frank is acting like you did say you would rather slaughter centaurs for food than horses.

Personally, I've never understood how the presence of Joe Average on this planet is something I'm supposed to be particularly interested in protecting over his dog.

But in regards to centaurs and horses...while the horses may not have "chosen to enter the situation", the following are true.

1) If it is acceptable at all to order a runner to run (even if that means to his death) to warn the king, it is acceptable for a messenger to do the same thing with his horse assuming equally urgent circumstances.

2) Warhorses are as much warriors as their knights. They are not innocent noncombatants caught up in a war zone.

3) By the same logic as point #1, horses are servants. And ultimately, they live to serve. Does that mean we should go to all reasonable lengths to preserve their health and comfort? Yes! Does that mean that we should sacrifice ourselves to buy them a short additional time (since if its down to eating horse or dying, the horses aren't doing too well either)? Not really, no.

Now, slitting a horse's throat to keep it from being captured and used by the enemy is something I'm not particularly comfortable with. On the other hand, I'm not particularly comfortable with giving the enemy a gift of trained horses as spoils of war.

So in that case, I have to reluctantly support sacrificing the horses.

Horses, thusly, are one of two/three things:

Servants/allies.
Resources.

As the former, one should go to all reasonable lengths for them. And that's the way smart cavalrymen (or knights) act...you take care of your horse first, then yourself.

As the latter, one should not feel any more shame about poisoning a horse than puncturing a car's tires.

If you're really upset by people using poison on horses, then make it a dishonorable practice to "cheat" (which one can argue poison is doing) and thusly only scum will do it.

So, if you say that's the case, and that PCs aren't scum, you get all the benefits of horses as loyal companions and servants, but none of the slaughter. At least not by people who you have any interest see winning.

Sorry if this came out rambling-like, its how my thoughts flow. If you have any questions, ask.

[Crissa]

I thought it was killing slaves vs killing soldiers.

Killing the porters would certainly grind an evil army to a halt... But is something someone Good should do?

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

If liberating them is not a viable option...yes.

[Talisman]

Interesting topic, this. While I can understand Frank's position I don't necessarily agree with him.

First in general, I value sentient (human) life more highly than non-sentient (assuming, of course, that we're not talking about a Mel Ignatow or someone similar). I would kill a horse or dog to save a human, but that doesn't mean I would be happy about it - I empathize with animals very much.

This doesn't mean that I agree with Frank's position that killing an animal for "no reason" (his words, not mine) is better than killing a sentienr human for any reason. It is sometimes necessary to kill, usually in defense of one's own life. I have no issue with killing a predator that's trying to eat you, or killing a rabid dog. I also have no issue with killing a murderous criminal who's trying to kill you, for whatever reason - self-defense, or defense of innocents, justifies this. However, that doesn't mean it's good. That's why we refer to such deeds as "necessary evils."

Killing animals for food is a non-issue - every animal species lives by killing another species, be it animal or plant. I'm vegetarian by choice, but I don't claim that that makes me morally superior to my carnivorous friends - I simply prefer not to eat meat.

Now, things get more interesting when we get into a typical fantasy RPG setting. Here, we run into four basic categories of creatures:

~Sentients who hate you and want to kill you.
~Nonsentients who want to kill and eat you
~Sentients who don't wish you any harm.
~Nonsentients who don't wish you any harm.

Obviously, if something is trying to kill you there is justification for killing it. Obviously if something is not trying to kill you (food animals aside), there is less justification for killing it. The fuzzy parts come when we mix the two, as in the centaur/mounted knight example above. (I am deliberately ignoring those edge cases of a sentient wishing to kill you, but later swicthing sides or whatever - they are extremely rare and irrelevant to the main point).

Elennsar's point on trained warhorses is well-taken, but the irrefutable fact is that the horses did not make a conscious choice to chase you down and kill you. The horses are doing what they're told; the knights are the ones making a conscious decision to end your life, for whatever reason. Therefore, the knights have deliberately decided to risk death in an effort to kill you; the horses, war-trained or not, had no say in the matter. Thus, I can completely understand a reluctance to kill the horses vs. the knights.

The situation is even clearer with noncombatant animals - say, a highwayman mounted on a non-war-trained horse. The horse wishes you no ill - it would be just as happy to work for you, or anyone else. By contrast, the highwayman wants to kill you for your silver. IMO, killing the highwayman is a less morally repugnant act than killing the horse, because - again - the highwayman chose to endanger himself in order to kill you. The horse did not. The horse is Indifferent to you at worst.

Now, cannibalism is a whole separate area, and one I choose not to go into ATM.

[Elennsar]

The horse did not. The horse is Indifferent to you at worst.

While I agree with you in regards to riding horses (including cavalry horses and what the highwayman probably has but not a knight's warhorse), a knight's warhorse is Unfriendly towards anyone other than the knight.

That's a fact of the disposition of good warhorses. They're not tolerant and easy going animals.

Other than that, I think you sum it up pretty well. But I'd say a warhorse on the battlefield is making a conscious effort to kill me when it lashes out with a hoof to break my skull.

So in the heat of the encounter, and until you convince the warhorse that you are now the master (good luck pal), it is not Indifferent.

But other than that...I think you've covered the reasons why having an issue with killing horses makes sense.

Even if warhorses are mean spirited and aggressive, they won't seek you out to hurt you. They'll just hurt you if you cross the wrong line/s.

But I would certainly be willing to poison your warhorse (assuming poison is a legitimate tactic for purposes of this statement) the same way I'd be willing to shoot holes in the tires of your jeep.

And for exactly the same reasons. The horse being alive does not grant it special moral status where I should do penance for killing it (though I wouldn't say it should be done lightly...if you must, do it with all your might, but that if must be respected).

[Talisman]

The horse did not. The horse is Indifferent to you at worst.

While I agree with you in regards to riding horses (including cavalry horses and what the highwayman probably has but not a knight's warhorse), a knight's warhorse is Unfriendly towards anyone other than the knight.

That's a fact of the disposition of good warhorses. They're not tolerant and easy going animals.

Agreed 100%

Other than that, I think you sum it up pretty well. But I'd say a warhorse on the battlefield is making a conscious effort to kill me when it lashes out with a hoof to break my skull.

So in the heat of the encounter, and until you convince the warhorse that you are now the master (good luck pal), it is not Indifferent.

Agreed, and this falls under the "nonsentient trying to kill you" category. Kill the damn horse as quickly as possible.

But I would certainly be willing to poison your warhorse (assuming poison is a legitimate tactic for purposes of this statement) the same way I'd be willing to shoot holes in the tires of your jeep.

And for exactly the same reasons. The horse being alive does not grant it special moral status where I should do penance for killing it (though I wouldn't say it should be done lightly...if you must, do it with all your might, but that if must be respected).

I'd say it's certainly a moral gray area...killing a helpless nonsentient to inconvenience an enemy. I personally would feel guilt about poisoning a horse, for whatever reason...it may be justified, but it should never be the first club out of the bag.

[Elennsar]

I can agree with that. If the choices are killing the horses or having worse things happen, the horses are dying, however.

And I have relatively little difficulty saying I'd consider that 100% morally okay.

Trick is figuring out what those "worse things" are. Killing of anything, even to eat, should not be done without due consideration of the consequences.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Sorry for the delay in my response but it looks like we've got things more or less understood, even if some of us might disagree on one or more points.

All I can really see as needing addressing are the cases of harming animals in order to eat them or as part of combating other sentient beings.

I can definitely agree that there are cases where harming an animal is the best of the choices you have (or at least the ones you are willing to consider). In many of these cases it is better to act with alacrity, since time is limited. However even in such cases, though I would act, I would feel some guilt and know that I would have preferred finding some magical solution that solved the problem in a less objectionable way.

Though I certainly don't object to killing animals for food, I might face a moral quandary if science advanced to the point where you could grow perfectly healthy meat in a nutrient vat without giving it a nervous system.

[Cynic]

The horse did not. The horse is Indifferent to you at worst.

While I agree with you in regards to riding horses (including cavalry horses and what the highwayman probably has but not a knight's warhorse), a knight's warhorse is Unfriendly towards anyone other than the knight.

That's a fact of the disposition of good warhorses. They're not tolerant and easy going animals.

Do they come with Katanas these days? I hear they cut through SOLID STEEL!

[Talisman]

You could strap katanas to their hooves and have the ULTIMATE KILLING MACHINE!

[Avoraciopoctules]

There is an element missing from this idea.

[JonSetanta]

You could strap katanas to their hooves and have the ULTIMATE KILLING MACHINE!

No. I got you the first time. That's fucked up.

You sir, are a monster.

If you think that killing an actual sapient being for any reason is more apt to become some sort of arbitrary katana-hybrid than a non-sapient being for no reason at all, then your morals are fucked.

[flare22]

The horse did not. The horse is Indifferent to you at worst.

While I agree with you in regards to riding horses (including cavalry horses and what the highwayman probably has but not a knight's warhorse), a knight's warhorse is Unfriendly towards anyone other than the knight.

That's a fact of the disposition of good warhorses. They're not tolerant and easy going animals.

Other than that, I think you sum it up pretty well. But I'd say a warhorse on the battlefield is making a conscious effort to kill me when it lashes out with a hoof to break my skull.

So in the heat of the encounter, and until you convince the warhorse that you are now the master (good luck pal), it is not Indifferent.

But other than that...I think you've covered the reasons why having an issue with killing horses makes sense.

Even if warhorses are mean spirited and aggressive, they won't seek you out to hurt you. They'll just hurt you if you cross the wrong line/s.

But I would certainly be willing to poison your warhorse (assuming poison is a legitimate tactic for purposes of this statement) the same way I'd be willing to shoot holes in the tires of your jeep.

And for exactly the same reasons. The horse being alive does not grant it special moral status where I should do penance for killing it (though I wouldn't say it should be done lightly...if you must, do it with all your might, but that if must be respected).

But your forgeting that a horse has no chioce in its chosen prefession a warhorse did not choose to be a war horse any more then a plow horse chose to be a plow horse and while people in the middle ages had little influence over there careers horses had none those knights purchased or trained those horses.

Now granted I have no qualms about killing in self defence I would at least make an effort to keep the horse alive if possible for the same reason that you try to aviod killing people who are mind slaves.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Ah yeah, return of the centaur thread. Has it really been 5 years? Damn.

[Juton]

Perhaps the most epic necro I've seen yet on the den. I appreciate that flare22 responds as if no time has passed and as Elennsar hasn't stopped posting 4 years ago.

[flare22]

Yeah ok I'm new I read the centaur thread and the long dead embers of this unholy debate called to me to say my piece

[Avoraciopoctules]

It was a pretty interesting discussion. And I still stand by my opinion that poisoning a bunch of conscripts or animals to advance the cause is not something I would want to do as a player.

[flare22]

Here's a interesting question though I'm sure someone thaught of it before me is eating a centaur canibalism? I mean sure the look human on top but if a human or other sentient race other then a centaur eats a centaur is it canibalism?

[Avoraciopoctules]

In a game with as much species variation D&D, a reasonable definition of cannibalism would probably be kind of tricky. Keep in mind that this is a setting with super-intelligent dragons that are smarter than humans in the same way humans are smarter than animals.

I'd probably define cannibalism in a utilitarian fashion. Ghouls are basically undead cannibals. What do they want to eat? The flesh of intelligent humanoids. If centaurs count as intelligent humanoids, then a human eating them is cannibalism. Otherwise, it is something else. Still kind of creepy, though.

[Ted the Flayer]

Here is how I rule it in my game:

If it's sentient, it's cannibalism. If its intelligence is below 3, it's not cannibalism.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Here is how I rule it in my game:

If it's sentient, it's cannibalism. If its intelligence is below 3, it's not cannibalism.

Do you count dragon steaks as cannibalism?

[Maj]

Yeah ok I'm new I read the centaur thread and the long dead embers of this unholy debate called to me to say my piece

Yeah. It's hard to resist the stupidity. Reading what Elennsar wrote about war horses makes me want to post, too. Resist!

[flare22]

I think it would depend on culture some humans say eating sentient non humans is canibalism some would not

Also you can bet good monney that omnivores like humans have differant ideas about it then carnivores like dragons and herbavores like minotaurs

Wait I'm not sure are centaurs herbavores or omnivores I could see arguments for both

[Avoraciopoctules]

I read a book like 10 years ago where centaur diets were pretty weird because they had 2 stomachs, and had to eat both horse food and regular person food. Was it a Narnia book? Maybe, it's been so long I really don't remember any more.

But I definitely agree that having sentient species of obligate herbivores and carnivores makes for interesting cultural clashes. There's a pretty interesting scene in Digger ( http://www.diggercomic.com/ ) based on that.