What is a Deus Ex Machina? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

NerdyKris

2013-03-02, 06:41 PM

It comes out of nowhere and, and this is important, is not foreshadowed or in any way related to the plot or characters. It literally refers to the greek gods coming down from the heavens to solve the plot's problems. NOT just any surprise.

If it's a surprise that makes sense in retrospect, it's not a Deus Ex Machina. It's just a surprise.

Even Thor helping in this instance wouldn't be a Deus Ex Machina, as it's been established that he does personally help Durkon.

So if, say, an epic level party that just happened to be wandering around the world showed up and killed Xykon and Redcloak, saving the day, that would be a Deus Ex Machina.

Nale and Tarquin using magic items to compensate for class weaknesses, however, is not, as it would make sense for them to do so.

The insinuation of Deus Ex Machina is usually negative. As in the author has written himself into a corner and HAS to use this to wrap up the plot, regardless of how little sense it makes. Something that has been planned, foreshadowed, and fits with the character is just a surprise.

FujinAkari

2013-03-02, 06:43 PM

Yeah. A Deus Ex Machina is when something completely random happens that gets the heroes out of a bind. However, when a plot-twist occurs which you didn't see coming (but is entirely logical and within the world that had been established) it isn't a Deus Ex Machina.

Mike Havran

2013-03-02, 06:44 PM

There's the head of zombie dragon killing the Death Knight...

FujinAkari

2013-03-02, 06:47 PM

There's the head of zombie dragon killing the Death Knight...

Did the head of the zombie dragon fall from the sky randomly, or did someone within the comic chop it off?

le Suisse

2013-03-02, 06:51 PM

A Deus ex Machina is a theatrical, later literal device where the problem of the story is resolved by an event that seem to come from nowhere (refering of the habit of some Greek dramathurges to use a divine intervention to do so).

Exemple (not in media, sorry)
-If Bob is a martial art master and beats Aikido Bear on single combat, it's not a Deus ex Machina.
-If Bob is seen training with a martial art master, and it help him beats Aikido Bear, it's a Checkov's Gun (it was foreshadowed).
-If Bob is said to be a martial art master, but never throw a punch in the story, it's an Informed Attribute.
-If during the duel to the death with Aikido Bear, Bob is badely outmatched, and the invincible Aikido Bear is going to win, but a random martial art master we never heard of appear and save Bob's skin, resulting in the end of the story, it's a Deus ex Machina

Exemple in Media:
Expelliarmus can apparently make Death Curse go back to the one who cast it, allowing the hero to win without really killing someone.

NerdyKris

2013-03-02, 06:54 PM

Did the head of the zombie dragon fall from the sky randomly, or did someone within the comic chop it off?

Indeed. Again, set up in the story. A surprise, but a logical outcome of the battle.

Mike Havran

2013-03-02, 07:03 PM

Did the head of the zombie dragon fall from the sky randomly, or did someone within the comic chop it off?

Yeah, it was chopped off and at the time it was chopped of, not a singe damn was (in-universe) given where it may land. V even called it.

A surprise, but a logical outcome of the battle.

Yes, it was a surprise, but it wasn't a !logical! outcome at all.

Don't make me bring up the Fruit-pie Sorcerer :smalltongue:

ti'esar

2013-03-02, 07:03 PM

I think a lot of people (not just in relation to OOTS) also confuse "deus ex machina" with "anticlimax".

Gift Jeraff

2013-03-02, 07:05 PM

Julio Scoundrel's airship.

zimmerwald1915

2013-03-02, 07:09 PM

A deus ex machina is another name for a plot development of which the speaker doesn't approve. :smallwink:

ThePhantasm

2013-03-02, 07:10 PM

I think a lot of people (not just in relation to OOTS) also confuse "deus ex machina" with "anticlimax".

And some also seem to think anticlimax is always bad. (It isn't - it can be used to great comedic effect)

Incom

2013-03-02, 07:14 PM

A deus ex machina is any plot development I don't lik--

A deus ex machina is another name for a plot development of which the speaker doesn't approve. :smallwink:

Awwww. :smallfrown:

Yendor

2013-03-02, 07:16 PM

Julio Scoundrel's airship.

It was already shown there were airships in Cliffport (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html). It's not a DEM to have a captain willing to take Elan to Azure City show up.

Stormlock

2013-03-02, 07:22 PM

Well, having the head land on and instantly defeat a powerful enemy is more than a little silly. I'd say MitD teleporting V + Ochul away from their certain doom is a good example though. There's no reasonable foreshadowing of that (even team evil has no idea that MitD could do that it seems.) It was an overwhelming, unforeseeable power that abruptly solved a huge plotline.

By comparison, the IFFC showing up to get V there in the first place, although a completely unexpected plot twist, was foreshadowed by the imp being there and offering his services, and it being a well known trope, V's willingness to go to great lengths for arcane power, etc. And far from abruptly resolving things, it entangled and extended the plot.

NerdyKris

2013-03-02, 07:24 PM

ti'esar

2013-03-02, 07:24 PM

I'd say MitD teleporting V + Ochul away from their certain doom is a good example though. There's no reasonable foreshadowing of that (even team evil has no idea that MitD could do that it seems.) It was an overwhelming, unforeseeable power that abruptly solved a huge plotline.

I feel reluctant to call anything a deus ex machina when it is directly plot-relevant (that is, not just in the sense of "saving the characters so there can be a plot).

Gift Jeraff

2013-03-02, 07:28 PM

Douglas

2013-03-02, 07:28 PM

Exemple in Media:
Expelliarmus can apparently make Death Curse go back to the one who cast it, allowing the hero to win without really killing someone.
That was not a result of Expelliarmus, but a result of the combination of several additional factors, all of which had been foreshadowed and built up through the rest of the book and series. Not a DEM.

FujinAkari

2013-03-02, 07:30 PM

I feel reluctant to call anything a deus ex machina when it is directly plot-relevant (that is, not just in the sense of "saving the characters so there can be a plot).

That is another key point. By definition, Deus Ex Machina resolves the story. Nothing in OOTS can -be- DEM since the story has not yet been resolved.

Porthos

2013-03-02, 07:33 PM

If we wish to call a Deux Ex Machina a trope then I would gently remind that Tropes Are Not (Necessarily) Bad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools).

People have gotten into their heads that DeM's are automatically bad. But they need not be in the hands of the right storyteller. For instance, the (accused) DeM with the dragons head? It set up a joke. And a damn funny one at that.

Now if a DeM is handled badly, which to be fair it usually is that would be one thing. But it need not be is what should be remembered.

FujinAkari

2013-03-02, 07:35 PM

If we wish to call a Deux Ex Machina a trope then I would gently remind that Tropes Are Not (Necessarily) Bad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools).

People have gotten into their heads that DeM's are automatically bad. But they need not be in the hands of the right storyteller. For instance, the DeM with the dragons head? It set up a joke. And a damn funny one at that.

Now if a DeM is handled badly, which to be fair it usually is. But it need not be is what should be remembered.

DeM is bad, it represents a writer who isn't properly planning his own story. However, as mentioned, the Dragonhead -cannot- be a DeM since it was set-up.

Also: Who was calling it a trope?

Porthos

2013-03-02, 07:51 PM

DeM is bad, it represents a writer who isn't properly planning his own story. However, as mentioned, the Dragonhead -cannot- be a DeM since it was set-up.

Rich has called the resolution to the original Roy/Xykon battle as something that 'amounts to a cheap deus-ex-machina' (WaXP commentary) . Yet even though I understand his point about wanting to do the next (and presumably future) Roy/Xykon battles 'straight' I personally think it still works. So do many other people.

So even if that initial Roy/Xykon battle scene can be viewed as something that is (almost but maybe not quite) a DeM, I still think it works properly within the story. Especially for the tone that was set at the time.

Also: No one was mentioning tropes... I think you just wanted to link that site :smallannoyed:

Maaaaaaybe. :smallamused:

Stormlock

2013-03-02, 07:54 PM

That is about as much of a setup as 'the gods exist and might give 2 cents about the hero of the story'. To avoid being a DeM, the event in question has to be something within reason. If V pulled out those orbs that were used for a joke some 600 strips ago, and revealed them to be artifact orbs of dragon enslavement and used them to destroy team evil, it'd have been caused by something shown in the comic- but not something anyone could have foreseen. There is 0% chance someone saw the zombie dragon and thought 'Hey! Maybe a piece will fall off and crush a Hecuva instantly.'

I mean, if you were playing a game of DnD, and chopped a head off a dragon, would you really insist the DM roll to see if it lands exactly on a foe far below? It's about as likely as a random earthquake opening up a fissure and swalling the goblin army up. You don't get to do that and remark 'Well, the ground shook before and maybe it was an earthquake and not the giant monster walking around'.

As stated though, it made for a good joke, and for a better comic than that enemy simply not being around/as powerful in the first place.

jere7my

2013-03-02, 07:55 PM

DeM is bad, it represents a writer who isn't properly planning his own story.

Deus ex machina is just a storytelling device; it can be used badly or well. One example of a well-regarded deus ex machina ending is that of the Oscar-nominated film Magnolia. Another would be H.G. Wells's The War of the Worlds.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-03-02, 08:00 PM

I'd say MitD teleporting V + Ochul away from their certain doom is a good example though. There's no reasonable foreshadowing of that (even team evil has no idea that MitD could do that it seems.)

Wrong. If you believe Rich when he says that he has known what MitD is since strip 100, then MitD always had the ability. It was foreshadowed that he was powerful multiple times, just not in any specific way, but this is D&D. A lot of powerful creatures can teleport, so it wasn't so completely out of the blue that this one could have.

Also, you may notice that the most knowledgeable member of Team Evil was conspicuously absent from the key moment. RC would almost certainly have been able to pinpoint the origin of the teleport as MitD. That was too carefully orchestrated not to have been the original storyline. Roy got a shot at pure might against Xykon, got killed. V got a shot at pure magic against Xykon, and would've been killed - but since we were in the middle of "dead party member" storyline, a second death was unnecessary to drive the point home.

Grey Wolf

Porthos

2013-03-02, 08:05 PM

And here we come to the real problem. There isn't a commonly accepted EXACT definiton to what deus-ex-machina means. Yes, there is broad definition that most of us can agree to (ignoring the 'surprise one doesn't like 'definition'' :smalltongue:). But it's that last 1% that causes problems.

If the storyteller planned the event in advance, can it ever be a DeM? That's where the real debate starts.

I personally fall on the side of 'if the storyteller already planned for it to happen, it can't be a DeM'. But it appears that others disagree. :smallsmile:

ThePhantasm

2013-03-02, 08:08 PM

Wrong. If you believe Rich when he says that he has known what MitD is since strip 100, then MitD always had the ability. It was foreshadowed that he was powerful multiple times, just not in any specific way, but this is D&D. A lot of powerful creatures can teleport, so it wasn't so completely out of the blue that this one could have.

In addition, it was quite heavily foreshadowed for awhile that MiTD, an extremely powerful being, liked O-Chul and wanted for him to escape from Xykon.

toughluck

2013-03-02, 08:09 PM

Deus ex machina is just a storytelling device; it can be used badly or well. One example of a well-regarded deus ex machina ending is that of the Oscar-nominated film Magnolia. Another would be H.G. Wells's The War of the Worlds.
(Emphasis mine.)

No. No, no and no! Regarding The War of the Worlds (spoiler tags for the five people who do not know the story):
The microbes that killed the aliens did not randomly appear and were not suddenly put on Earth by other extraterrestrials. They were something that the invaders did not account for and did not defend against.
If you insist, then I would insist on saying that Napoleon's army's defeat in Russia was caused by Deus ex Machina and that winter came out of nowhere.

jere7my

2013-03-02, 08:17 PM

They were something that the invaders did not account for and did not defend against.

In that case, in a world with active and well-known Greek Gods, Athena descending in a chariot is also not a deus ex machina. Your definition is overnarrow.

Anyway, I don't want to argue the point; Google ["war of the worlds" "deus ex machina"] for a sufficiency of arguments on the subject.

Yendor

2013-03-02, 08:17 PM

In addition, it was quite heavily foreshadowed for awhile that MiTD, an extremely powerful being, liked O-Chul and wanted for him to escape from Xykon.

"I hoped really, really hard, and he still didn't escape." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html)

TheYell

2013-03-02, 08:19 PM

We know OF Deus et Machina but I don't think we have any saved examples of the plays where they operated. Probably a strong sign those plays weren't very good.

Key to the DEM is that it's God in the basket. Why did the hero get the girl? God wanted it that way. How did the bad guy's army vanish? God wanted it that way.

Most examples of modern fiction that employ supernatural interventions, like Ben Hur or Lord of the Rings, take the tale up a notch by shifting to focus to the impact such intervention has on the characters. I don't think we're allowed to suffer the anguish of a real DEM.

jere7my

2013-03-02, 08:25 PM

We know OF Deus et Machina but I don't think we have any saved examples of the plays where they operated. Probably a strong sign those plays weren't very good.

Wrong on both counts. Euripedes' Medea survives (to be staged frequently today), and is widely considered an excellent example of Greek tragedy (though not by Aristotle, who criticized it for this very reason). Other Greek examples from Euripedes and Aeschylus also survive. Shakespeare, too, ends several plays with dei ex machina.

Kish

2013-03-02, 08:38 PM

Don't make me bring up the Fruit-pie Sorcerer :smalltongue:
Fruit Pie the Sorcerer was a pure joke. The party's situation would not have changed at all had that strip not existed.

Now, if Fruit Pie had smashed Xykon instead of Roy doing it, that would be a fruit pie ex machina.

teratorn

2013-03-02, 08:40 PM

Sometimes when something unexpected is used by an author doesn't necessarily mean there weren't other venues to solve the issue. The dragon head is good example, there were easy ways to circumvent the situation. I think it's there more for its nonsense value than as a means to really save V.

By the way, isn't this thread a little bit outside of the framework of the OOTS forum?

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-03-02, 09:22 PM

dei ex machina.

I think the plural should be Deus ex machinas (or machinae, if you want fake-ish latin plural). Dei suggests, to me, that its two of them in the same play, rather than two plays each with one DEM.

By the way, isn't this thread a little bit outside of the framework of the OOTS forum?

No, it was an honest question with a difficult answer. DeM are tricky concepts. To take the example above, if Athena came in at the end of a Greek play and untangled all the thread are successfully resolved the play, it would be a DeM. Unless, of course, she had been involved in the story all along (gifting magic objects to the hero and so on): that wouldn't be a DeM. Unless, that is, she had specifically said she could not get involved - and nevertheless, she did in the end (back to DeM land).

Rich hasn't used any DeMs (outside of jokes) in this comic, in my opinion. It is hard to pull a DeM once you have established that the actual Gods are involved, actually. If Thor stepped in next comic and saved Durkon's literal neck, it wouldn't be a DeM since Thor has been established as a character, and we know he likes to bend the rules when it amuses him (control weather incident).

Grey Wolf

jere7my

2013-03-02, 09:39 PM

I think the plural should be Deus ex machinas (or machinae, if you want fake-ish latin plural). Dei suggests, to me, that its two of them in the same play, rather than two plays each with one DEM.

It depends on what you mean by "machine". Dei ex machina is "Gods from the machine"; if you think of the machine as a big vending machine of various plot solutions, then that makes sense. If you want individual machines dispensing individual gods, "gods from (various) machines" would be dei ex machinis (ex takes the ablative; thus machinis instead of machinae). Deus ex machinis would be "a/the god from (various) machines", which, while sounding badass, doesn't make quite as much sense.

I've always seen dei ex machina, which is the same construction as "brothers-in-law."

Yendor

2013-03-02, 09:58 PM

If Thor stepped in next comic and saved Durkon's literal neck, it wouldn't be a DeM since Thor has been established as a character, and we know he likes to bend the rules when it amuses him (control weather incident).
It would break established rules that the gods can't intervene outside their respective areas (see the battle of Azure City (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html)).

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-03, 02:15 AM

It has to solve the story. It has to be at the end of the story. The actual characters in the story have to become useless. It has to solve an otherwise unsolvable problem. Otherwise its just plot fodder.

It doesn't have to be a surprise. When the planet-god in Avatar saved the blue people from the humans it wasn't surprising since the technobabble set up the possibility and the hero specifically prayed for intercession. Still a Deus Ex Machina

Since the story of Oots isn't over yet there can be no Deus ex machinas. To use troper terminology any DEM-like thing that has appeared would be an 'Ass Pull'.

ti'esar

2013-03-03, 02:17 AM

It doesn't have to be a surprise. When the planet-god in Avatar saved the blue people from the humans it wasn't surprising since the technobabble set up the possibility and the hero specifically prayed for intercession. Still a Deus Ex Machina

Again, I think that's an outright distortion of what a deus ex machina was originally supposed to be.

aberratio ictus

2013-03-03, 02:33 AM

(Emphasis mine.)

No. No, no and no! Regarding The War of the Worlds (spoiler tags for the five people who do not know the story):

Yes. Yes, yes and yes.

The alien's vulnerability to the microbes did appear randomly.
The vulnerability of Napoleon's soldiers to cold, on the other hand, should be commonly known to most people who have experienced winter at least once in their life.
Actually, The War of the Worlds is one of the best examples of a Deus es machina. In the original greek plays, people knew/believed that gods existed, just as well as we know that microbes exist. That gods got elevated up into the theatre to resolve the conflict is easily comparable to the microbes suddenly showing up, killing the aliens and resolving the conflict.
Mind you, I'm not saying that it's a bad story. Quite the contrary, I think it's one of the instances where a deus ex machina was used well.

Vargtass

2013-03-03, 02:34 AM

I sm with Yoham on this issue ... (Points to sig).

FujinAkari

2013-03-03, 02:57 AM

rodneyAnonymous

2013-03-03, 03:17 AM

The phrase is usually used in a derogatory way. It is especially insulting to be accused of doing that erroneously.

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-03, 04:12 AM

If it was set up, it was not Deus Ex Machina.

It was vaguely hinted at. Enough so that I wasn't shocked when it happened. But it doesn't mean that it wasn't a Deus Ex Machina. It was almost literally one, except it was a plant instead of a machine and a genius loci rather than a god.

Again, I think that's an outright distortion of what a deus ex machina was originally supposed to be.

Ok I looked back at your previous comment and Im certainly not calling what happened in Avatar an anticlimax. It was awesome. Still a DEM. But specifically which part of what i said is a distortion?

Clertar

2013-03-03, 04:14 AM

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-03, 04:21 AM

Also, a deus ex machina is a storytelling-level phenomenon, not a plot-level one. That might be hard for some people to differenciate, though.

The MitD magicking V and O'Chul away was mentioned in the first page as an example of a deus ex machina in the story, but it clearly isn't: what is more, it's probably one of the main reasons Rich put V and O'C in that situation in the first place, so that he could make that reveal. It was unexpected plot-wise, but storytelling-wise it was not a last minute way to save the story from a dead end the writer had written the themselves into.

Hrm. I can see your point but I think DEM's are just commonly referred to as writers getting themselves out of corners rather than that being part of the criteria. The War of the Worlds DEM (if thats what it was) was (as i understood from the Tom Cruise movie :smallyuk:) the entire point of the story. Wells was all "We EARNED this planet through evolution!". I still think it counts as a DEM even though its plot level not story telling.

But then again Im not even sure i understand the difference

Clertar

2013-03-03, 04:21 AM

It was vaguely hinted at. Enough so that I wasn't shocked when it happened. But it doesn't mean that it wasn't a Deus Ex Machina. It was almost literally one, except it was a plant instead of a machine and a genius loci rather than a god.

Come on, no it wasn't. It was the equivalent of the Rohan army saving the day at Minas Tirith.

Clertar

2013-03-03, 04:24 AM

(Sorry about all the cross-posting xD)

The War of the Worlds DEM (if thats what it was) was (as i understood from the Tom Cruise movie ) the entire point of the story. Wells was all "We EARNED this planet through evolution!". I still think it counts as a DEM even though its plot level not story telling.

That's another bad example. Just remember how much alien-related science fiction has been compared with the European colonization of the Americas. Good (or bad) storytelling, and good (or bad) presentation of plot twists does not make somehting a deus ex machina.

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-03, 04:32 AM

Screw Quotes. @Clertar
If you could offer a definition of DEM that would help. I said earlier
"It has to solve the story. It has to be at the end of the story. The actual characters in the story have to become useless. It has to solve an otherwise unsolvable problem."

I will rescind the end of the story criteria to be honest. And it doesn't have to be a huge surprise but it can't have been used in the story before otherwise its a Chekovs Gun. So it has to be a solution, it has to solve an otherwise unsolvable problem, and by doing so it makes the main characters useless, and it only really happens once per film/novel/play etc usually at the end.

Avatar: The god-planet summoning the forces of nature solved the war between Humans and Smurfs. Smurfs would have lost otherwise. The main characters both smurf and human-smurf avatars, were suddenly inconsequential to solving the problem. More importantly it really wasn't that well foreshadowed or set up. Just cos sentient beings can store memories as electrical data in a bio electric system doesnt mean the planet is itself sentient and even if it did shouldnt mean that it can control the animals.
Pretty solid DEM by my standards.

And honestly i've only seen the Tom Cruise movie War of the Worlds so im not gonna argue it.

But please point out which parts of my definition are wrong, lacking or dont apply to my example
EDIT for spelling

Chantelune

2013-03-03, 04:38 AM

A guy fall of a bridge, you can see that there's no way he can survive the fall, he wears rather thin clothes that wouldn't conceal anything helpfull, he's doomed. Next, you see that same guy wearing a parachute that he didn't have and couldn't have when he was falling off the bridge and use it to fall safely in the water.

Typical deus ex machina where the author set up a dramatic, inescapable situation just to make a cliffhanger, then pull out something that couldn't be next but just happen to be so the situation is solved.

The dragon head falling is hardly one as when you cut a dragon's head while he fly over a battle of the scale of AC's one, it would almost been weirder for it not to fall on anything. That it landed right on the death knight at this time is convenient, but still resides within the "possible" realm and it was also made to contradict Xykon's statement that Roy's head cutting had absolutely no effect at all in a funny way.

In the current situation Durkon is, V coming to help would not be a DEM, just a loop of the previous situation where Belkar was saved by Durkon. What would be a DEM right now would be if Durkon happened to have a counter-counter password to reactivate his MDW. Malack putting one is logical and sensible, but Durkon showed that he didn't knew nor expect it and given he had such difficulties making up the spell that he needed Malack's help, him having a counter to this should be impossible. If Durkon had prepared one, he would have already used it before Malack starts biting and draining him. This fight is difficult enough for him to that point for him not to use his trump card already.

Clertar

2013-03-03, 05:03 AM

IRT Lvl45DM:
(dear lord, complicated username ;P)

I assume what you call your definitions is this part:
"It has to solve the story. It has to be at the end of the story. The actual characters in the story have to become useless. It has to solve an otherwise unsolvable problem."

Any dictionary definition will work for me, to be honest. Take this, for instance: "Any active agent who appears unexpectedly to solve an insoluble difficulty"
Now, remember that this is a storytelling phenomenon, not a plot phenomenon (otherwise, half of the plot twists in the world would have to be considered deux ex machina, which they aren't).

Let's analyse a little your Avatar example. Just like the MitD faux deux ex machina, the allegedly "insoluble" situation is just a detail of the plot: just make the aliens deploy a weaker first-line force, backed up by all the rest of the clans in a much bigger showdown; or, just let them win straight ahead, etc. The script writers didn't have to resort to the planet sending help to force a solution to a hard to solve situation.

What is more, that was probably a big item in the plot from the very beginning: it's said over and over that the whole planet, including the animals and even the humanoid aliens, works like a brain network. We are also told that this planetary mind never takes sides, only being worried about keeping the balance. We also know that this network actually exists, it's not just a hypothesis: by the time the battle takes place, we have seen the protagonist accessing it in that sacred tree, and we've also seen the aliens access it together to try to transfer the doctor's mind to her avatar.

Well, there you have it: the whole point of the film was that it's not only the lives or culture of "tribes" that matter, but also the harmony with which they live in their environment. At the same time, Cameron was really involved trying to stop the Belo Monte reservoir in the Amazon, so this can hardly be a deux ex machina:
1) it has been foreshadowed
2) we have been given first hand evidence of its existance
3) it fits the film's theme like a tight sexy glove
4) we actually saw the protagonist asking the planet for intercession! wouldn't it have been lame surprising if the film had completely ignored the issue during the battle?
5) it's not a forced way to get out of an insoluble situation

That's my two cents about it :smallwink:

[Edited for spelling... damn ESL ù_ú ]

Bulldog Psion

2013-03-03, 06:12 AM

To me, it would be a deus ex machina if a previously unknown group of epic level good aligned adventures teleported into the pyramid, killed Malack and Tarquin, gave V a +1000 staff of Xykon smiting, and then teleported out again, never to be seen or mentioned again.

That would be a deus ex machina for me.

(And man, am I sick of the term, too :smallsigh: )

Morty

2013-03-03, 06:41 AM

The crux of the issue here is that the term "Deus Ex Machina" has been so overused that what meaning it had has been diluted. It doesn't help that it was originally used to describe a form of fiction quite different than online comics.

Mantine

2013-03-03, 06:52 AM

Honestly I don't buy most of the arguments here, they seems to be much too narrow and precise in definition, to the point where almost nothing can fit as DE.
To me a Deus Ex Machina is a contrived, unplausible and totally sudden solution to an unescapable problem.
It doesn't have to be "outside the realm of possibilities", it can be "technically possible" and still exist as a DE.
The fact that someone mentioned something along the lines doesn't change its DE status (a meteor falling down and crushing Xykon to dust: you cold go as much as you want saying that meteorites fall down anytime of the year, it'd still be a DE).

Bedinsis

2013-03-03, 06:57 AM

I think the problem with establishing what is and isn't a deus ex machina is dependent upon the reader. Basically any writer worth their salt nowadays knows that she must set things up beforehand, however vague this set up may be. Therefore what is a deus ex machina really falls upon your ability to accept a resolution given what you have heard before in the story.

It was a few years ago since I saw the film last time, but Raiders of the lost Ark had an ending that I believe was deus ex machinaic. The content of the Ark destroyed the nazis, ensuring that Indy would live and the Ark wouldn't get in the hands of the movie's bad guys, meanwhile Indy did nothing aside from ensuring he wouldn't incur the wrath of the Ark's content. The only set up was that the Ark would apparently make armies unstoppable, and some imagery with beams emitting from the Ark destroying enemies.

A better example is perhaps the Asterix album Asterix and Obelix All at Sea: the set up is that Obelix at long last tries out the magical potion, after having been denied the opportunity for many years. This turns him to a stone statue, and after additional treatment by Getafix he turns into a ten-year-old version of himself (minus the super strength). The rest of the album he is stuck in this form and the gang is trying to find a cure for his predicament.

At the end of the story, a Roman galley has caught up with their ship, Getafix is unavailable, Asterix is knocked out and the child Obelix is kept at bay by two Roman soldiers. The Roman admiral decides to throw Asterix overboard to his death by drowning. Obelix, frustrated and frightened by the prospect of losing his best friend shrieks out "ASTERIX!!" ...and then the deus ex machina occurs: not only do Obelix suddenly and inexplicably grow back to his adult form, he also regains his superhuman strength, easily defeating the Romans holding him captive and proceeding to save Asterix from his death. No set up, solved the main conflict of the story. (Though one could say he was saved by "the power of friendship" or whatever, but honestly the resolution came out of nowhere)

Capt Spanner

2013-03-03, 07:14 AM

It's worth looking at the historical context.

The name deus ex machina refers to the Ancient Greek tragedies where, at the end, one of the gods would show up (lowered by a machine - hence "god from the machine") and sort everything out.

The playwright Euripides was known for his frequent use of this device* and was even parodied by Aristophanes who, in Thesmophoriazusae, lowers Euripides in by crane to sort everything out.

Of course, given that it only applies to endings deus ex machina is much harder to apply serials such as OOTS** and modern storytelling often lacks literal Gods.

For many of things I've seen accused of being deus ex machina in OOTS the worst any of them could be charged with is breaking rule 19 of Pixar's Rules of Storytelling (http://io9.com/5916970/the-22-rules-of-storytelling-according-to-pixar)*** and frankly in a story such as this you've got to throw some help the heroes' way once in a while.

* Pun not intended.
** At least until the story is finished.
*** Which you should read.

Morty

2013-03-03, 07:21 AM

Honestly I don't buy most of the arguments here, they seems to be much too narrow and precise in definition, to the point where almost nothing can fit as DE.

And the problem with this is...?

Mantine

2013-03-03, 07:23 AM

and frankly in a story such as this you've got to throw some help the heroes' way once in a while.

Actually I find it favoured the villains most of the time.

Gurgeh

2013-03-03, 07:51 AM

I'm seeing a lot of conflation of terms here. A Deus Ex Machina is not in any way connected to foreshadowing - a bull**** resolution can be heavily hinted at but still be arbitrary and indiscriminate.

Foreshadowing is not a hallmark of good writing, nor is it something that can magically make it okay to use bad devices - it's simply another technique available to storytellers, and one that's far too often used in a clumsy or retroactive fashion. If a story goes in a stupid direction then it doesn't matter whether or not the storyteller has led the audience to expect that it would go that way: the direction is still a stupid one.

I believe a little more clarity would be warranted in further discussion.

Capt Spanner

2013-03-03, 08:30 AM

Actually I find it favoured the villains most of the time.

Oh, it is. But sometimes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0389.html) they (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html) get (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0226.html) lucky (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0798.html). (Temporarily anyway.)

Another thought that occurred to me:
Imagine this plot:
- Act 1: Hero is shown to have a normal mix of good and bad fortune in his life. He takes credit for the good luck and blames the goddess Tyche. After taking her name in vain too many times she descends and tells him it's offensive and to clean up his act.

- Act 2: Our hero earnestly tries to clean up his act and act charitably towards people, helping out strangers in tight spots. He is rewarded with good fortune until someone takes advantage of his charity and robs him blind. He curses against Tyche who warns him that if he does so again he will face harsh consequences.

- Act 3: Our hero is scared of the consequences and, refusing to take any risks that might lead to bad fortune, sinks into despair. He enters plans so half-heartedly they are doomed to fail. He gets drunk and blames Tyche for this. Tyche shows up, angry, and turns him into spinning top. The end.

This story - despite everything being obvious - could accurately be described as having a deus ex machina resolution.

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-03, 08:56 AM

Snip

1st off I think my user name is hilarious. :smalltongue:

Lets get into the meat here. You still havent explained what you mean by storytelling vs. plot. No idea what you mean.
In reply to each point
5) If the Smurfs beat the technologically superior Humans in a fair fight that wouldn't make sense. So yeah they really did need the magic planet-god to come save them. Likewise V could've gotten lucky with a disintegrate but it would be damn lucky and wouldn't make much sense. Indiana could've taken the Nazi's in a fight for the Ark, but it wouldn't make much sense. So it really does seem to me to be an otherwise unsolvable situation for the 'good' guys

4)It could've helped the Smurfs not totally decimated the Human army. Seriously, the only thing a main character did after that was kill one psychotic badass. If Colonel psycho had lived instead of dying it wouldn't change the ending much. It would've changed the sequel but not the ending. Aside from the ending sucking more cos that was an awesome fight

3)The fact that it fits the theme like a sexy sexy glove doesn't matter. If the theme of your work is "You need have faith in God" and God comes and solves your problems its still (usually not always) a Deus Ex Machina. If the theme of your work is Friendship is awesome and the power of friendship magically turns your hero back into his awesome self its a Deus Ex Machina. Themes don't change the rules of the world and the rules of the Avatar world don't exactly support the animals being under the control of the genius loci. At the least they'd need to have all been plugged into some tree or whatever to get the orders. Unless the planet had wireless uploads.
See if the planet had wireless uploads it would've been (I'm sorry for troper talk) an Ass Pull to justify the Deus Ex Machina

1&2) Basically the same point here as the last chunk of 3. The foreshadowing doesn't support what happened well.

Now I thought the ending to Avatar was awesome. It was narratively beautiful, if simplistic. A line of dialogue explaining it would've been pointless really. Nothing wrong with a DEM.

But it fits my definition.

Seriously though explain your storytelling vs plot thing. As far as I get it, since the author was always intending to use the God-planet to cast Empowered Maximized Animal Summoning its not a DEM? Which i just dont think is the case. You can use one deliberately, consciously or not. Doesnt change what it is.

This is fun :smallbiggrin:

Shivore

2013-03-03, 09:00 AM

Just throwing out a quick comment regarding the reference to Raiders of the Lost Ark... Taking the movie by itself with no other source I'd be inclined to agree that it was a Deus Ex Machna, but they specifically said that it was the Ark from the Old Testament, and there it's said that any who look on the ark will die (except in certain circumstances such as High Priests in certain ceremonies).

Now given the extra knowledge from that other source that predates the stry, it isn't longer a Deus Ex in my eyes. Makes me wonder if there was a deleted scene somewhere explaining this?

Bedinsis

2013-03-03, 09:07 AM

Now given the extra knowledge from that other source that predates the stry, it isn't longer a Deus Ex in my eyes. Makes me wonder if there was a deleted scene somewhere explaining this?

As a matter of fact there was as seen at entry #5 (http://www.cracked.com/article_19962_6-crucial-movie-scenes-that-never-made-it-out-script.html).

Sir_Leorik

2013-03-03, 09:58 AM

It was already shown there were airships in Cliffport (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html). It's not a DEM to have a captain willing to take Elan to Azure City show up.

Julio Scoundrel was never mentioned before the strip where Elan is trying to concoct his zany scheme to get on an airship. He's just sitting in a bar, listening to Elan describe his plan, and says "Kid, I'm an airship captain. Wanna lift?"

Remember, the original Deux ex Machina always involved the Greek gods. The audience had more info about Zeus than the readers of OotS had about Julio Scoundrel, yet there was no reason for Zeus to just show up and bail the protagonists out. Julio gets Elan to Cliffport and teaches him to be a better hero (or at least a more Optimized Character). If Elan had tricked Julio Scoundrel into letting him on his airship, it would not have been a Deus ex Machina. If he'd asked Julio to teach him the secrets of the Dashing Swordsman it would not have been a Deus ex Machina. But Julio does both without any prior foreshadowing.

The Zombie Dragon head destroying the Death Knight is a Chekov's Gun, not a Deus ex Machina.

The_Tentacle

2013-03-03, 10:06 AM

Ok, this is for people who have seen the Hobbit:

You know that scene where everyone (including Gandalf) is trapped on the edge of a cliff by all the orcs? Well, when the eagles come then, that is a Deus ex Machina. Actually its more like Deus ex Eagles...:smalltongue:

Often in the Lord of the Rings, if people need a Deus ex Machina: Gandalf. But if Gandalf needs a Deus ex Machina: eagles. And if the eagles need a Deus ex Machina, then you should probably just pledge undying loyalty to Sauron right there and save yourself the trouble.

Poppatomus

2013-03-03, 10:22 AM

I had always thought the biggest difference, as alluded to in the Giant's comment on the topic, I think, is the power of whatever it is that leaves its machina to end the story. The reason it seems tied in with something like foreshadowing is that, at least in common usage, a real Deus ex Machina involves introducing an element that plays by its own rules and had the power, at any time, to solve all the problems of the story.

It's a DeM because the "Gods" could have intervened at any point, and their reasons for intervening at the moment they do aren't integrated into the story. Think of it as an X-Y chart for describing decisive plot moments, with X being surprise, and Y being Power.

1. ) The upper right corner is a clear deus ex. A thing, heretofore unmentioned or hinted at, arrives, and solves the whole problem of the plot, likely at no cost to itself. This can be good story telling or not, depending on genre and skill, but will likely feel at least a little like a cheat.

2.) the lower right corner is an unexpected turn. it might involve a new character or an old character doing something unexpected, but the things power is totally context dependent. Think Gollum "destroying" the ring. He could have solved almost none of the other problems in the plot, but he solves the biggest right at the end. Scoundrel might be close to here too.

3.) top left is something like an earned victory. The hero works hard, follows the rules, and wins by changing the elements of the game so they are in their favor in some plot relevant way. There aren't as many examples here, because usually a plot ending has some bit of surprise to it, but something like, say, the story of Purim might fit in this quadrant. It's not completely surprising that the king would intercede, and he certainly has the power to do so, and he's ultimately swayed by the actions of the main characters.

4.) bottom right is probably the rarest. an example might be a purely MacGuffin based plot, where a known quantity simply has to be brought to a certain place at a certain time in order to defeat a big bad. Maybe the 5th element would end up here, at least with regard to its main plot. Leloo is a badass fighter, but she can only defeat the bad guy if they get her to the right place at the right time, something you know they are going to do (given the genre) which then largely happens as expected, at least with regard to the elements of the story. There's no need to introduce some new dynamic to get the plot to resolve itself.

TLDR - I like meta discussions too much. :smallsmile:

Poppatomus

2013-03-03, 10:23 AM

Shale

2013-03-03, 10:36 AM

I'm seeing a lot of conflation of terms here. A Deus Ex Machina is not in any way connected to foreshadowing - a bull**** resolution can be heavily hinted at but still be arbitrary and indiscriminate.

Deus ex machina is connected to a lack of foreshadowing (or worldbuilding, or any other kind of setup for the eventual resolution). A "bull**** resolution" can still be foreshadowed or set up in advance, but not every bull**** resolution is a deus ex machina. Why is that so difficult for people to grasp?

Razanir

2013-03-03, 10:45 AM

Expelliarmus can apparently make Death Curse go back to the one who cast it, allowing the hero to win without really killing someone.

The way I understood it, the Elder Wand just refused to kill its master

Maaaaaaybe. :smallamused:

What have you done?! TV Tropes will ruin your life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife)!

Deus ex machina is just a storytelling device; it can be used badly or well. One example of a well-regarded deus ex machina ending is that of the Oscar-nominated film Magnolia. Another would be H.G. Wells's The War of the Worlds.

On the other hand, bad examples would be:
-Cunegonde surviving multiple stab wounds in Candide
-The Inquisitor failing at tying knots, thus allowing Pangloss to live
-Pangloss surviving surgery
-Someone finding Maximillian at the monastery after Candide stabbed him

Remind me why people like that book?

Often in the Lord of the Rings, if people need a Deus ex Machina: Gandalf. But if Gandalf needs a Deus ex Machina: eagles. And if the eagles need a Deus ex Machina, then you should probably just pledge undying loyalty to Sauron right there and save yourself the trouble.

May I sig this?

The_Tentacle

2013-03-03, 10:55 AM

Deus ex machina is connected to a lack of foreshadowing (or worldbuilding, or any other kind of setup for the eventual resolution). A "bull**** resolution" can still be foreshadowed or set up in advance, but not every bull**** resolution is a deus ex machina. Why is that so difficult for people to grasp?

Usually, most Deus ex Machina endings are epic battles that are going badly for the protagonist, and then something happens (like the ents). It's not always like this, but usually. They often are bull****, but just as often, they dramatic finishes that really don't make much sense.

Originally Posted by The_Tentacle
Often in the Lord of the Rings, if people need a Deus ex Machina: Gandalf. But if Gandalf needs a Deus ex Machina: eagles. And if the eagles need a Deus ex Machina, then you should probably just pledge undying loyalty to Sauron right there and save yourself the trouble.
May I sig this?

Sure.

Sir_Leorik

2013-03-03, 11:00 AM

Sir_Leorik

2013-03-03, 11:18 AM

Getting back to the crux of the problem, how much foreshadowing is necessary to prevent a solution being a DEM? For example, Roy tossing Xykon into (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0114.html) Dorukon's Gate, destroying Xykon's body (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html). Is that a DEM? On the one hand, the comic had already (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0095.html) foreshadowed that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0096.html) the wards on the gate would destroy Evil creatures (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0097.html). On the other hand, Roy solved the OotS's problems in one fell swoop by tossing Xykon at a rune he had no reason to otherwise suspect would destroy the Lich. So is that a DEM because Roy didn't know the rune would destroy Xykon, or is it a Chekov's Gun because the readers knew that it could destroy Xykon, even if Roy didn't?

This strip, on the other hand is a complete Deus ex Machina. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0091.html) I mean, so were all of the strips that it parodied. Except for the one where the Hulk just rips up a street and wraps it around a group of bikers, and then the kids eat pie. That's probably the only fruit pie ad where the pies don't serve as a Deus ex Machina, and the hero uses his actual super-powers to beat the bad guys. ("Bah! Puny Marvel executives not tell Hulk he can't eat fruit pies! Hulk smash!")

Poppatomus

2013-03-03, 11:34 AM

. So is that a DEM because Roy didn't know the rune would destroy Xykon, or is it a Chekov's Gun because the readers knew that it could destroy Xykon, even if Roy didn't?

I don't think it's DeM. Not because Roy didn't know about what the Rune would do, but because I think DeM should be considered narrowly and has to involve something that has some amount of agency or capacity for action. Every unforeshadowed surprise can't be a DeM, otherwise any surprise near a climax would be one. As above, I think part of the cheat feeling of DeM's comes from one of their essential elements, which is that the whole of the plot could usually be resolved by the action.

A true DeM in that scene wouldn't be throwing him into the rune. The fight was going to end. We had no reason, at that point, to think that they were so outmatched or outgunned that they wouldn't be able to think of something to enable them to win. There was no new character, or act-of-god type event like an earthquake-introduced that just suddenly had the power to put everything in the protagonists favor.

Getting back to the crux of the problem, how much foreshadowing is necessary to prevent a solution being a DEM?

See, I think it's a sliding scale. The more powerful the Deus, the more obvious the Machina must be (to both the characters and the audience) to avoid being a DeM. The less powerful (or more tailored to the situation) the Deus, the more hidden the author can keep the machinery.

Sir_Leorik

2013-03-03, 11:46 AM

See, I think it's a sliding scale. The more powerful the Deus, the more obvious the Machina must be (to both the characters and the audience) to avoid being a DeM. The less powerful (or more tailored to the situation) the Deus, the more hidden the author can keep the machinery.

Which do you think is more important when considering whether an ending is a DEM: the characters are taken by surprise or the audience? I think the latter is probably bigger requirement.

Poppatomus

2013-03-03, 11:57 AM

I think that depends on which party---characters or audience---has more information about the world of the story. Usually though, I think it matters more if it's a surprise to the characters than the audience.

To me, the defining characteristic of a DeM is that it involves an unknown entity/force suddenly introduced that just solves an unsolvable problem. So, in the original Greek plays, the audience may well have expected the Gods to swoop in at any moment once the going got tough, but that didn't make it any less a DeM, because it was still a move independent of character actions and the plot of the story. You could have something where the audience, but not the characters, are the one's who don't understand that the dynamic world is/works that way, (something like Gandalf summoning the eagles), but it's harder and less common, I think, because if the characters know about it, it will almost always be foreshadowed and factor into their plans/actions.

Trixie

2013-03-03, 12:54 PM

That is another key point. By definition, Deus Ex Machina resolves the story. Nothing in OOTS can -be- DEM since the story has not yet been resolved.

Pardon me? :smallconfused:

By that standard, nothing ever would be DEM. No, DEM can be used to resolve any plot point, not matter how minor. That is even in the definition of the beginning of the thread.

Indeed. Again, set up in the story. A surprise, but a logical outcome of the battle.

Eh, flimsy excuse doesn't erase DEM. Is DEM not one, when randomly dropping rock from the sky killing the villain turns out to be caused by chain of events started by girlfriend of hero's former roommate? Of course not. It's still DEM.

A deus ex machina is another name for a plot development of which the speaker doesn't approve. :smallwink:

I see it mostly the other way around, an event definitely isn't DEM even if it's pretty blatant and big one if the speaker approves of it :smallcool:

The alien's vulnerability to the microbes did appear randomly.
The vulnerability of Napoleon's soldiers to cold, on the other hand, should be commonly known to most people who have experienced winter at least once in their life.
Actually, The War of the Worlds is one of the best examples of a Deus es machina. In the original greek plays, people knew/believed that gods existed, just as well as we know that microbes exist. That gods got elevated up into the theatre to resolve the conflict is easily comparable to the microbes suddenly showing up, killing the aliens and resolving the conflict.

Yes, microbes exist, therefore we can see them coming. Author of War of the Worlds goes out of the way to point out Martians were evolved to a such point and so advanced they probably erased any and all Martian pathogens thus leading them to no longer see it as a possibility. It was unexpected, yes, but unlike random whims of the gods or lopped dragon heads it's omnipresent, constantly working factor, like need to breathe or see.

Poppatomus

2013-03-03, 01:09 PM

Pardon me? :smallconfused:

By that standard, nothing ever would be DEM. No, DEM can be used to resolve any plot point, not matter how minor. That is even in the definition of the beginning of the thread.

I think that swings the pendulum a little too far the other way. The definition also notes that it must be "a seemingly unsolvable problem". This is open to interpretation, but I think that it is instructive. A character winning a difficult bar fight because they unexpectedly kick instead of punch is not DeM, even if the move is unexpected, because even a hard fight is not "unsolvable."

For it to be DeM, I think it rightly has to be the kind of plot point where the author goes out of their way to show that something is impossible, and then inserts some new dynamic that resolves it that breaks (rather than merely reminds us of) the rules of the game.

FujinAkari

2013-03-03, 01:10 PM

Eh, flimsy excuse doesn't erase DEM.

Yes it does.

Is DEM not one, when randomly dropping rock from the sky killing the villain turns out to be caused by chain of events started by girlfriend of hero's former roommate? Of course not. It's still DEM.

It depends. Is the chain of events actually foreshadowed so the girlfriend caused a catapult to misfire two chapters before the battle in question from nearby mountain?

A DEM -must- be something which had no set-up. Just because the plot twist is unexpected, if it is actually grounded in something (logic, foreshadowing, or psychology) then it isn't a DEM. A DEM is something happening to resolve a major plot arc out of nowhere.

Now, sure, if it was "Oh, well after the girlfriend talked to the professor he flew to south america and continued his research on boulder displacement, and there was a random power surge that caused the experiment to dislocate a boulder and it just happened to appear over the battlefield!" then, assuming none of that was revealed until AFTER the battle, it would still be a DEM since foreshadowing cannot occur afterwards :P

Wargamer

2013-03-03, 01:14 PM

FujinAkari

2013-03-03, 01:18 PM

Absolutely. If there was no set-up of Bob having a teleport orb, it would be DEM.

If Bob had been established to have personally triumphed over Melvin the Mage, specialist in teleportation who had made a series of personal translocators and had been plotting to bring an army into the throneroom, then it would be logical that Bob might have that, but otherwise no :P

Poppatomus

2013-03-03, 01:22 PM

I find myself wondering about when something is a Deus Ex or not. There's one in particular that has come up in a few places, so I'd like to get your thoughts on it by giving it a D&D spin.

Bob the Fighter is an NPC escorting the player party up Ice Mountain. As they reach the peak a White Dragon flies over and slams him off the mountain. He is last seen approaching terminal velocity as he plummets through the cloud cover.

Later, the party are trapped in a collapsing cave, when suddenly Bob reappears and shoves aside a large rock to open up an escape route. When queried as to how he survived, he simply states "I had a teleport orb in my pocket", despite the fact that he has never been seen using any kind of magical item before (nor could any be detected).

I would consider this a Deus Ex Machina, but I'd like to know if others agree with me. :P

It's an edge case, in my mind. Could easily go either way depending on the tone of the story in other areas (are magic items so rare almost no one has them? Did they try to detect magic items on him and fail? Is this a comic book, were characters come back from the dead all the time thanks to various methods of resurrection/death prevention?). However, I think that it should mostly be considered not DeM, because it doesn't involve the intervention of some new force (assuming a D&D setting). It might seem like too much a cheat for the story to bear, but I don't think it's DeM.

To make it DeM, you could do something like this. The cave is collapsing, the characters have done everything they can and suddenly the bard has the strength of the great dead fighter, despite having no magic items, and no such strength transfer having happened in the past. After it happens, it is handwaved as a blessing from the Gods. Now, that might make for a better story, and a plausible one in a world full of magic, but now it seems more like a DeM (because some author stand in just made it happen, without bothering even to find a "real" mechanic to make it plausible.)

just my opinion though.

Closet_Skeleton

2013-03-03, 01:49 PM

Foreshadowing doesn't stop a Deus Ex Machina.

The flaw of a Deus Ex Machina is that it takes the resolution of the plot out of the hands of the characters. If the audience knows the characters are going to win without even trying because of foreshadowing, that's a terrible story telling because it destroys all suspense. Adding foreshadowing doesn't stop anything from being a Deus Ex Machina, it just makes the story even worse in this case.

War of the Worlds is a Deus Ex Machina because the heroes are not the microbes, therefore the characters are helpless. However its not really a story about humans having a chance against Martians to start with but an exploration of how they cope with the invasion so the Deus Ex Machina isn't really that important.

Raiders of the Lost Arc is a Deus Ex Machina because the protagonists are reduced to spectators at the conclusion. The villains destroy themselves with their own greed and the hero doesn't truly win. This does not come out of nowhere, that would require the villains to be shown as charitable people who don't want the Arc for power suddenly changing their mind, turning into idiots and opening the Arc without planning to. The fact that some of the foreshadowing requires you to be knowledgeable of biblical lore not mentioned in the film doesn't mean it isn't there.

The original Euripedes examples don't have gods come out of nowhere without foreshadowing. His play Phaedre starts opens with Venus giving a speech to the audience about how she hates this guy who favours Artemis over her. It ends with Artemis coming down to reveal Venus' intervention and reconcile the characters. This is not 'out of nowhere', the entire plot only happens because of divine intervention and the characters are essentially helpless throughout.

To use a Deus Ex Machina properly without harming the story, you merely have to focus the story's dramatic questions so that the event resolved by the Deus Ex Machina isn't really important to the audience's experience.

Mantine

2013-03-03, 02:37 PM

And the problem with this is...?

Giving it restrictions so narrow that it becomes practically impossible to use it makes the whole thing moot and devoid of purpose.

FujinAkari

2013-03-03, 02:37 PM

Foreshadowing doesn't stop a Deus Ex Machina.

The flaw of a Deus Ex Machina is that it takes the resolution of the plot out of the hands of the characters.

What you are describing isn't Deus Ex Machina. It is bad writing to be sure, but DEM has a very narrow definition. It requires the thing which resolves the conflict to have -not- been set up.

Giving it restrictions so narrow that it becomes practically impossible to use it makes the whole thing moot and devoid of purpose.

No, using a term to mean what the term was coined to mean doesn't make it moot, it makes it honest.

Snails

2013-03-03, 03:42 PM

To use a Deus Ex Machina properly without harming the story, you merely have to focus the story's dramatic questions so that the event resolved by the Deus Ex Machina isn't really important to the audience's experience.

I think your definitions are useful.

I think your point about War of the Worlds is a good one. The point of the story is a horror tale about how humans react to their unfolding doom, and what that tells you about humanity. Whether the martians win is a secondary issue to the central dramatic theme.

By my interpretation, the only possible example of DEM in OotS might be the falling dragon head.

From the point of view of in universe logic, it was perfectly possible for V to have defeated that enemy by hir own means. Disintegrate is the hyperoptimal tactic for wizards dealing with powerful undead. V happened to have one Disintegrate that failed, and used a second against the mount. It would not hurt the story logic for V to employ a third, or pull out a scroll and vaporize the enemy. It would not have hurt the story for the first spell to succeed in vaporizing the foe. Rich did not paint himself into a corner here in the usual sense of such things.

What is the point of this sub-plot? The important point is not whether V survives, he could simply cast Invis and skulk away. The point is that V both survive and be completely humiliated along the way. The head falling out of the sky is a means of humiliating V, and its comic nature is the author twisting the knife.

As I see it, the author is simply bending the plot route slightly, using already established comic rules of the universe, to enhance the intended dramatic effect on the character development. V's survival was never really at stake here, so the falling head is not even solving an important plot point.

Morty

2013-03-03, 03:59 PM

Giving it restrictions so narrow that it becomes practically impossible to use it makes the whole thing moot and devoid of purpose.

Then don't use it. Why is it important that the term Deus Ex Machina is useful? There's plenty other terms around. Deus Ex Machina was used to describe a specific situation in a very specific subset of fiction a long time ago. I don't get why people are so bent on making it work instead of just using terms which don't spawn multi-page threads.

ti'esar

2013-03-03, 04:33 PM

Mantine

2013-03-03, 04:36 PM

No, using a term to mean what the term was coined to mean doesn't make it moot, it makes it honest.

Terms and definitions evolve and adapt with times.
Sticking to its literal, archaic and largely outdated iteration doesn't make it honest, it makes it blind.

Wardog

2013-03-03, 06:14 PM

I find myself wondering about when something is a Deus Ex or not. There's one in particular that has come up in a few places, so I'd like to get your thoughts on it by giving it a D&D spin.

Bob the Fighter is an NPC escorting the player party up Ice Mountain. As they reach the peak a White Dragon flies over and slams him off the mountain. He is last seen approaching terminal velocity as he plummets through the cloud cover.

Later, the party are trapped in a collapsing cave, when suddenly Bob reappears and shoves aside a large rock to open up an escape route. When queried as to how he survived, it turns out he's actually a Phasewalker; a species who can perform short ranged teleports.

I would consider this a Deus Ex Machina, but I'd like to know if others agree with me. :P

I think that depends on when this happens in the story.

Assuming no foreshadowing (and no reason to expect Bob would come back for them much later but not right away), thne if it happens at the end, to resolve the story and provide a completely unexpected way to ensure the party survives and has a happy ending, then yes, it is a DeM.

(Similarly, if it happened part way through the story, and then Bob disappeared never to play a significant role again, then it would be a DeM).

A way for it not to be a DeM (IMO) would be if it happened early in the story, as a part of the "building the party" plot, as a way to demonstrate Bob the Phasewalker's powers, and show how he came to be a friend/member of the party.

Gurgeh

2013-03-03, 06:44 PM

Not sure why people are getting so bent out of shape here; the literal definition isn't even the most important thing. DEM is a contrivance, and contrivance is something that I think we all agree ought to be avoided in storytelling, at least when it comes to matters of character and resolution.

The classical Deus Ex Machina was almost wholly predictable - Euripides certainly wouldn't have attracted so much flak if he'd been more sparing or varied in his employment of it.

The problem with some insurmountable force arriving at the 11th hour and rescuing everyone isn't the fact that this force hasn't been heard of, it's the fact that it's rendered most of what has come before meaningless. I see people throwing around "foreshadowing" like a get-out-of-jail-free card; I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Showing your work in advance isn't worth squat if the work itself is silly. (http://ferretbrain.com/articles/article-149.html)

Soylent Dave

2013-03-03, 07:27 PM

To use troper terminology any DEM-like thing that has appeared would be an 'Ass Pull'.

The phrase is usually used in a derogatory way. It is especially insulting to be accused of doing that erroneously.

The flaw of a Deus Ex Machina is that it takes the resolution of the plot out of the hands of the characters.

I've quoted these because I think they get to the core of the issue.

It's relatively easy to define a Deus Ex Machina - and to either include to discount events in OotS because of how it's worded ("Ah, but did THE GODS come down and resolve the story?" etc. (Thor doesn't count... :smalltongue:))

But that's not really what people are getting at when they bring up a DEM.

It's the ass-pull. They're asking "Did Rich just pull that scene right out of his arse?"

And the answer to that is usually apparent from the storytelling (which is where all the stuff about foreshadowing has come from) - although part if it is sometimes 'faith in the author'.

Really it boils down to Do you think Rich is writing his characters into a corner, and then quickly pulling a 'random' solution out of the aether?

Did HG Wells end War of the Worlds that way because he couldn't think of an ending? Or was "humans are powerless" the theme all along?

I don't think we've seen any evidence of ass-pulling - there are plenty of 'random' events, but they're played pretty obviously for laughs (e.g. Fruit Pie the Sorcerer).

BRC

2013-03-03, 07:41 PM

I've quoted these because I think they get to the core of the issue.

It's relatively easy to define a Deus Ex Machina - and to either include to discount events in OotS because of how it's worded ("Ah, but did THE GODS come down and resolve the story?" etc. (Thor doesn't count... :smalltongue:))

But that's not really what people are getting at when they bring up a DEM.

It's the ass-pull. They're asking "Did Rich just pull that scene right out of his arse?"

And the answer to that is usually apparent from the storytelling (which is where all the stuff about foreshadowing has come from) - although part if it is sometimes 'faith in the author'.

Really it boils down to Do you think Rich is writing his characters into a corner, and then quickly pulling a 'random' solution out of the aether?

Did HG Wells end War of the Worlds that way because he couldn't think of an ending? Or was "humans are powerless" the theme all along?

I don't think we've seen any evidence of ass-pulling - there are plenty of 'random' events, but they're played pretty obviously for laughs (e.g. Fruit Pie the Sorcerer).

This is basically correct.

A DEM is considered bad because it robs the audience of the expected payoff. We show up to see how the characters resolve the problems with the tools they have been given, the Deus Ex Machina means that the problem is resolved by some external force.

For example.
Detective Finderson is hot on the trail of the Killer. The audience wonders "how will Finderson stop the Killer?". They picked up the book, or tuned into the TV show, in order to see Detective Finderson stop the killer.
Suddenly, Finderson gets a call from the FBI saying "Hey, we've been tracking the Killer for months. We just caught him. Thanks for the help."

In the end, the conflict is not resolved by the characters we expected to see resolve the conflict.

Example: Some people say the arrival of the Eagles at the end of LoTR was a Deus Ex Machina. I disagree, at the core of the DEM is robbing the audience of a satisfying way for the heroes to overcome some big obstacle. In LoTR, escaping from Mordor was certainly a big obstacle, but destroying the ring was the real goal. We got to see how that happened, so unless you were eagerly waiting for a harrowing tale of Frodo and Sam sneaking back OUT of Mordor, it was not a big deal. Getting OUT of Mordor was a secondary goal, the main conflict was still solved by the main characters.

Earlier somebody mentioned the arrival of Julio Scoundrel as a Deus Ex Machina. I disagree once again. Julio Scoundrel did two things
1) he got Elan to Azure City
2) he trained Elan, allowing him to defeat Nale.

Remember, the whole purpose of a DEM is that the Audience is robbed of an expected payoff. We saw Nale infiltrate the Order and Elan get thrown in jail. We expected Elan to escape the prison (He did), make his way to Azure City (he did), and stop Nale (He Did).
The fact that he had some help along the way does not change the fact that those were Elan's actions, neither does the fact that a new element (Julio Scoundrel) was introduced.

So yeah, basically a DEM is when two things happen.
1) A new element is introduced.
2) The new element solves some major issue that the main characters were expected to solve, thus robbing the audience of their expected payoff.

dps

2013-03-04, 01:46 AM

That is another key point. By definition, Deus Ex Machina resolves the story. Nothing in OOTS can -be- DEM since the story has not yet been resolved.

"The story" need not be the overall plot of the comic. Arcs and subplots are stories, too, and some of them have been resolved.

For example, Nale's attempt to kill Haley while impersonating Elan was a story, which was resolved by Elan, Thog, and Sabine suddenly appearing on the scene. That wasn't a DEM because we saw it coming (and even Nale admitted that he should have seen it coming, minus the Leprechaun suit). Another example would be the trial of the Order for weaking the fiber of reality, which was resolved by the "Being of Pure Law and Good" being Eugene (and the whole trial a sham). Whether that was a DEM or not is open to interpretation.

Snails

2013-03-04, 11:58 AM

Another example would be the trial of the Order for weaking the fiber of reality, which was resolved by the "Being of Pure Law and Good" being Eugene (and the whole trial a sham). Whether that was a DEM or not is open to interpretation.

I would say it really is not open to interpretation there.

The "Being of Pure Law and Good" gave a result which was perfectly plausible by the expected means. The reveal was that Shojo was such a cunning scam artist -- but once we understood that it would be apparent that a faked result was possible by many different means. It is not as if a dishonest ruler orchestrating a trial verdict should be a bizarre concept.

This was not a DEM but simply a well written reveal: a result the audience already believed the protagonists earned was achieved by known other factors by means that were a surprise.

TheYell

2013-03-04, 04:44 PM

Often in the Lord of the Rings, if people need a Deus ex Machina: Gandalf. But if Gandalf needs a Deus ex Machina: eagles. And if the eagles need a Deus ex Machina, then you should probably just pledge undying loyalty to Sauron right there and save yourself the trouble.

It's more clear if you read the Silmarillion that Eagles, and Horses, and running rivers, are totems of interventionist Valar. As I said earlier, LOTR uses supernatural intervention, but not as a resolution of the story. The story after this intervention is about the characters interpreting the moral lessons of the intervention and behaving accordingly.

Frodo and Sam, having sacrificed themselves beyond hope of recovery, are rewarded with an Eagle rescue, just as the Rohirrim got a boost for being valorous and trusty. Tolkien extends the story to show how this nobility of spirit alters all the hobbits as they return home, where their correct virtues benefit the whole community. This takes some of the cheesiness out of using supernatural beings to resolve plot points.

The_Tentacle

2013-03-04, 06:30 PM

Yeah, the gods intervene a lot, and this explanation does take some of the cheesiness out. Some.

Still, characters are busted out of trouble a lot by event that have... less of a reasonable explanation. The Eagles, Ents, Gandalf, etc., are still Deus ex Machinas because it's just like:
"Oh gods! We're about to die!"
/enter eagles stage left
"Yay everything's better!"

Soylent Dave

2013-03-04, 08:34 PM

"Oh gods! We're about to die!"
/enter eagles stage left
"Yay everything's better!"

I think another part of the reason for the eagles turning up to save everything is Tolkien myth-building; at the time of writing there was a very good chance that Golden Eagles would soon be extinct in Britain - what better creature to turn into a mythological hero?

(and to be fair, the Eagles arriving at the end of LotR is an explicit callback to the Battle of the Five Armies.

That they can take down winged Nazgul is a bit WTF, of course)

Closet_Skeleton

2013-03-05, 06:25 AM

What you are describing isn't Deus Ex Machina. It is bad writing to be sure, but DEM has a very narrow definition. It requires the thing which resolves the conflict to have -not- been set up.

No it doesn't, Deus Ex Machina is not a term with a very narrow definition. Its a term with almost no definition at all. That's why people argue about it.

Wikipedia uses 'unexpected' in its description but its wikipedia. Checking its sources, things are not so clear. Wiktionary doesn't mention surprise in its definition at all.

No, using a term to mean what the term was coined to mean doesn't make it moot, it makes it honest.

So what does defining a term so that it doesn't apply to the example that inspired it do?

Case in point. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henge#Etymology)

But that's not really what people are getting at when they bring up a DEM.

It's the ass-pull. They're asking "Did Rich just pull that scene right out of his arse?"

That may be an important part of what annoys some people, and people noticing it is an important part of whether or not something is bad storytelling, but I really don't think that the author's internal thought process during writing is that important afterwards.

If an author sets out to write a story that ends in a Deus Ex Machina that doesn't mean he can't because that term only applies to unplanned devices.

Jubal_Barca

2013-03-05, 07:00 AM

That they can take down winged Nazgul is a bit WTF, of course)

I believe that someone once did some maths and worked out that given carrying capacity etc Tolkien's eagles were the size of medium sized aeroplanes. These were certainly not the kinds of eagles we get in our lesser, later world. :smalltongue:

Soylent Dave

2013-03-05, 07:10 AM

I really don't think that the author's internal thought process during writing is that important afterwards.

Ah, now we're going into "death of the author" territory, which is an entirely new (and massive) debate.

Personally, I don't like abandoning authorial intent entirely, but nor do I think it's be-all and end-all.

In this case, the authorial intent matters at least inasmuch as the story would suffer if it felt like Rich was just making it up as he went along (and then crowbarring in elaborate 'escapes' for the main characters when it gets too scary).

It doesn't actually matter, for the purposes of story enjoyment, whether he is or not - just what it seems like he's doing.

I believe that someone once did some maths and worked out that given carrying capacity etc Tolkien's eagles were the size of medium sized aeroplanes. These were certainly not the kinds of eagles we get in our lesser, later world. :smalltongue:

Haha! So the end of LotR is basically the end of Top Gun.

"Gwaihir, you've got a bogey on your six"

Snails

2013-03-05, 12:46 PM

No it doesn't, Deus Ex Machina is not a term with a very narrow definition. Its a term with almost no definition at all. That's why people argue about it.

Nonsense. The original meaning is very clear.

It's original meaning was to have an actor playing the role of a god (Deus) step out of a box (Ex Mechane) that was lowered onto the stage to resolve a big pile of critical plot points that the important characters had no apparent hope of resolving themselves, due to poor planning and weak writing on the author's part.

Every other definition bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that it can be understood in a useful manner.

I am afraid we have a jumble of confused would be definitions that seem to boil down to "I am not 100% satisfied with this plot twist so I am going to be pretentious and use a term I do understand to denigrate the author's work".

If one wants to be understood, it would be logical to simply say "I found that plot twist to be awkward" and leave it at that.

Snails

2013-03-05, 12:54 PM

In this case, the authorial intent matters at least inasmuch as the story would suffer if it felt like Rich was just making it up as he went along (and then crowbarring in elaborate 'escapes' for the main characters when it gets too scary).

And I would argue vehemently that is a perfectly wrong characterization of the Giant's intent.

The Giant plans these reveals long in advance. The evidence for that is obvious for those who care to look.

In every case, it would have been trivial for the Giant to arrange other means of escape. He chose those particular means of escape because it enhanced that journey of the characters' arcs by increasing the emotional pressure on the characters in the scene. He could have chosen a more pedestrian means of escape, and the character arc would have still been adequately intact IMO. He made an artistic choice to suffer some minor risk of dissatisfying less attentive members of his audience in order strengthen the character driven aspects of the tale.

EmperorSarda

2013-03-05, 01:45 PM

You know, V himself did say that the dragon head falling was a 'thinly veiled deus ex machina (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0504.html)'.

Snails

2013-03-05, 02:04 PM

You know, V himself did say that the dragon head falling was a 'thinly veiled deus ex machina (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0504.html)'.

V is indulging in an egocentric rant. While s/he has reasons for saying those things, we the audience are expected to know better than to believe hir analysis.

On the particular point, V could have just cast Invisibility and stepped off the battlements to float to safety by means Feather Fall. It is provable that V had easy means on hand of escaping the death knight. V's fate was not changed one iota by the falling dragon head, only hir level of humiliation.

Fish

2013-03-05, 02:51 PM

I agree that a DEM is an external solution: the characters, having got themselves into a mess, cannot (or have not) by their own power extract themselves. The foundation of Western literature is that the choices of the protagonist and antagonist drive the action. DEM explicitly removes choice from them and produces a solution.

I would not say it is always bad writing, or serves no purpose. The underpinning of most stories is conflict. Conflict is interesting. Solving the conflict early leads to anticlimax. DEM prolongs the conflict and, often if not always, surprises the audience. DEM exchanges a strong middle for a weak ending.

I would say this is especially used when both alternatives are unpalatable. For instance, Iason fighting Herakles, or Alien Vs Predator. You couldn't have either "win" without angering the audience, or part of it. DEM allows a solution to be forced. (Not that AVP is an example. I'm just saying, both sides have fans.)

Wardog

2013-03-06, 06:01 PM

It's more clear if you read the Silmarillion that Eagles, and Horses, and running rivers, are totems of interventionist Valar. As I said earlier, LOTR uses supernatural intervention, but not as a resolution of the story. The story after this intervention is about the characters interpreting the moral lessons of the intervention and behaving accordingly.

On top of that, in the books the Eagles' presence tends to be better explained (even ignoring the Silmarilion where they are shown to be the agents of Manwe).

Their initial appearence in The Hobbit is out of the blue, but given that TH is quite a whimsical, fairy-tale style story, that doesn't seem too jarring (IMO). And after they turn up, they explaine what they were doing there and why, so the reader then realises it all makes sense in context. (Assuming they can accept giant talking eagles, that is).

In LotR, Gandalf had already met the Eagles, who knew he was going to Orthanac, and so it was only natural that they would go an look for him there when he didn't show up later. (Unlike the film, where we have a moth-mediated eagle-taxi show up for no reason).

The eagle's intervention at the end of LotR could I suppose be a bit of a DEM (given that it involves a god the agents of a sort-of-god showing up unexpectedly to solve a problem that couldn't be solved without them. But they were not "solving a plot problem that would otherwise be unsolvable" - they were just ensuring that the heroes who had already completed their task and saved the world got a happy ending rather than a sacraficial one.

(I'm not sure if that really needs spoiler tags, but I'll just err on the side of caution, seeing everyone else is).

Snails

2013-03-06, 06:28 PM

Their initial appearence in The Hobbit is out of the blue, but given that TH is quite a whimsical, fairy-tale style story, that doesn't seem too jarring (IMO). And after they turn up, they explaine what they were doing there and why, so the reader then realises it all makes sense in context. (Assuming they can accept giant talking eagles, that is).

Agreed. The Hobbit was intended as a fairy tale to be read aloud to children around 9 years of age. It is a marvelous success, that reads well in the eyes of older audiences as well.

It has "peculiarities" when we shift expectations and declare that it is a prequel to a larger mythic (pseudo) history. Well, yes and no. It is "good enough" as a prequel, but it really is unfair to think of it that way. It was not written with that intention.

Ghost Nappa

2013-03-06, 07:50 PM

Since there's already one troper in here, let's take it a step further (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UpToEleven).

A "Deus Ex Machina (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina)" is an ending to a story. It has history in Greek theater that has already been discussed elsewhere, So I won't touch it.
It is characterized by three additional things:

1. A Deus Ex Machina is a solution to a problem that the characters are facing. Since the ending of the story is typically when the remaining problems are wrapped up, it has a strong association with endings.

2. A Deus Ex Machina is sudden or unexpected. It DOES NOT matter if it has been foreshadowed in advance. A single throw-away line about the existence giant fire-breathing whales does not make their sudden appearance any less jarring.

3. A Deus Ex Machina must be unsolvable, unwinnable, and/or hopeless by the protagonists. They simply cannot solve the problem themselves, and someone else (that the audience is just meeting) must fix it.

What does this mean in relation to other story-telling devices?

If the authors introduce a plot-relevant detail without any foreshadowing and violates the Law of Conservation of Detail (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfConservationOfDetail?from=Main.LawOfConser vationOfDetail), it's an Ass Pull (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssPull). If an Ass Pull is used to resolve the story, it's a Deus Ex Machina.
Examples from Spider-Man: The Clone Saga.

If the authors introduce a plot-relevant detail (that seems insignificant at first) such that the audience feels the Law of Conservation of Detail has been satisfied, it's a Chekhov's Gun (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun). Examples from Harry Potter: Harry's Scar and Invisibility Cloak.

If the solution is unexpected but not hopeless, it's probably a Twist Ending. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TwistEnding) The main difference being that the conclusion still logically comes from the rest of the story in a fulfilling way. A Deus Ex Machina is unfulfilling because it renders the journey of the rest of the story mute. A Twist Ending can be identifiable by a Chekhov's Gun.
Example from Toy Story: The Sadistic Boy in Toy Story is attacked by the toys.

If it feels like a Deus Ex Machina, but comes at the end of a story arc rather than the entire story, it's a Wham Episode (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhamEpisode). Example from Order of the Stick: Roy's Death and (Possibly in the future) Darkon's Undead-ification.

Edit: Example of a Deus Ex Machina: The Axman in some versions of Little Red Riding Hood. Originally he didn't appear at all, when he did first show up, there was little or any reason for him to suddenly be there. It's a bit of a bad example because newer versions of the story (Hoodwinked) will try to pay more attention to him, and it's a Foregone Conclusion (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForegoneConclusion)for readers who are expecting it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeenItAMillionTimes).

Trixie

2013-03-18, 10:18 AM

Yes it does.

Nope. Flimsy excuse still means plot point was resolved from outside, without input of people that should be doing it. Only when it's believable outsider's motivation, visibly tied to something protagonist or antagonist did before it stops being DEM and becomes valid part of a story.

Protagonist firing arrow where he thinks he saw someone and killing enemy isn't DEM - there is clear tie. The same protagonist firing arrow blindly and randomly killing Big Bad is DEM, because there is no tie between hero action and death, except for God of Chance (or whatever else) stepping in. It's still DEM even if author established protagonist likes to fire arrows blindly.

What you are describing isn't Deus Ex Machina. It is bad writing to be sure, but DEM has a very narrow definition. It requires the thing which resolves the conflict to have -not- been set up.

Um, original Deus Ex Machinas were set up, as the Greek gods didn't appeared from nowhere and intervened pretty openly, so even the very first DEM usage proves the above wrong. No, it's still resolving the plot point by outside means.

No, using a term to mean what the term was coined to mean doesn't make it moot, it makes it honest.

So, according to you, 'personal computer' is a servant performing calculations for his master?

Because that's precisely what the words mean. Calculating in binary machines? That's silly, there were no machines like that when the term was coined, so such usage is 'dishonest'. Really? :smallconfused:

From the point of view of in universe logic, it was perfectly possible for V to have defeated that enemy by hir own means. Disintegrate is the hyperoptimal tactic for wizards dealing with powerful undead. V happened to have one Disintegrate that failed, and used a second against the mount. It would not hurt the story logic for V to employ a third, or pull out a scroll and vaporize the enemy. It would not have hurt the story for the first spell to succeed in vaporizing the foe. Rich did not paint himself into a corner here in the usual sense of such things.

What is the point of this sub-plot? The important point is not whether V survives, he could simply cast Invis and skulk away. The point is that V both survive and be completely humiliated along the way. The head falling out of the sky is a means of humiliating V, and its comic nature is the author twisting the knife.

No, the point of that subplot was removal of dangerous enemy tearing part Azure City's defences. V's survival or even death wasn't important - it was stopping DK before it makes huge hole in defences. V casting more spells than she could would be a bit of an ass pull, but something outside doing it is straight DEM as outside force resolved the plot. Had it been, say, Roy observing where dragon flies and cutting head at right time, it would still be Team Good's effort, but as it is, it was just God of Chance deciding to step in. Especially seeing dragon wasn't anywhere near V when we last saw it.

Then don't use it. Why is it important that the term Deus Ex Machina is useful? There's plenty other terms around. Deus Ex Machina was used to describe a specific situation in a very specific subset of fiction a long time ago. I don't get why people are so bent on making it work instead of just using terms which don't spawn multi-page threads.

Again, personal computer above. Language isn't dead, it evolves to match the needs. Clinging to dead term when modern understanding changed is not only counter-productive, it's pointless.

hamishspence

2013-03-18, 10:29 AM

Had it been, say, Roy observing where dragon flies and cutting head at right time, it would still be Team Good's effort, but as it is, it was just God of Chance deciding to step in. Especially seeing dragon wasn't anywhere near V when we last saw it.

Roy does look down, note that they're heading out toward the battlefield, and start trying to make Xykon land the dragon, before he chops off its head.

Trixie

2013-03-18, 11:12 AM

If it feels like a Deus Ex Machina, but comes at the end of a story arc rather than the entire story, it's a Wham Episode (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhamEpisode).

I wouldn't say typical Wham Episode has anything to do with DEM - more often than not, it doesn't solve a problem, it replaces it or makes completely new one. It might be Ass Pull, but Wham Episodes being DEM at the same time are rare, IMHO.

Roy does look down, note that they're heading out toward the battlefield, and start trying to make Xykon land the dragon, before he chops off its head.

Except, they were flying in front of the walls, and the Death Knight was already behind them. For Roy and Xykon to be flying anywhere near V it would mean dragon was not only in range of bored archers on the wall of inner castle, they would constantly maneuver between or near the inner wall towers.

Not only the above makes no sense, it's also contradicted a few strips later - Xykon blasts the dragon then flies over the same hole DK made (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html) in wall indicating he was away from it outside of walls.

hamishspence

2013-03-18, 12:59 PM

The dragon was flying in circles, as Roy points out.

It was close enough to V for an arrow to ricochet of it, to the castle wall, to V, here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0436.html

The_Tentacle

2013-03-18, 02:53 PM

Man, who knew it would take four pages to answer a relatively simple question...

Since there's already one troper in here, let's take it a step further (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UpToEleven).

A "Deus Ex Machina (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina)" is an ending to a story. It has history in Greek theater that has already been discussed elsewhere, So I won't touch it.
It is characterized by three additional things:

1. A Deus Ex Machina is a solution to a problem that the characters are facing. Since the ending of the story is typically when the remaining problems are wrapped up, it has a strong association with endings.

2. A Deus Ex Machina is sudden or unexpected. It DOES NOT matter if it has been foreshadowed in advance. A single throw-away line about the existence giant fire-breathing whales does not make their sudden appearance any less jarring.

3. A Deus Ex Machina must be unsolvable, unwinnable, and/or hopeless by the protagonists. They simply cannot solve the problem themselves, and someone else (that the audience is just meeting) must fix it.

What does this mean in relation to other story-telling devices?

If the authors introduce a plot-relevant detail without any foreshadowing and violates the Law of Conservation of Detail (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfConservationOfDetail?from=Main.LawOfConser vationOfDetail), it's an Ass Pull (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssPull). If an Ass Pull is used to resolve the story, it's a Deus Ex Machina.
Examples from Spider-Man: The Clone Saga.

If the authors introduce a plot-relevant detail (that seems insignificant at first) such that the audience feels the Law of Conservation of Detail has been satisfied, it's a Chekhov's Gun (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun). Examples from Harry Potter: Harry's Scar and Invisibility Cloak.

If the solution is unexpected but not hopeless, it's probably a Twist Ending. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TwistEnding) The main difference being that the conclusion still logically comes from the rest of the story in a fulfilling way. A Deus Ex Machina is unfulfilling because it renders the journey of the rest of the story mute. A Twist Ending can be identifiable by a Chekhov's Gun.
Example from Toy Story: The Sadistic Boy in Toy Story is attacked by the toys.

If it feels like a Deus Ex Machina, but comes at the end of a story arc rather than the entire story, it's a Wham Episode (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhamEpisode). Example from Order of the Stick: Roy's Death and (Possibly in the future) Darkon's Undead-ification.

Edit: Example of a Deus Ex Machina: The Axman in some versions of Little Red Riding Hood. Originally he didn't appear at all, when he did first show up, there was little or any reason for him to suddenly be there. It's a bit of a bad example because newer versions of the story (Hoodwinked) will try to pay more attention to him, and it's a Foregone Conclusion (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForegoneConclusion)for readers who are expecting it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeenItAMillionTimes).

I like this explanation. It takes most of the good ideas we've had in this thread and puts them together. It also helps that the entirely professional, reasonable, and realistic TVTropes is referenced. Thanks Ghost Nappa!

FLHerne

2013-03-18, 03:41 PM

"Any active agent who appears unexpectedly to solve an insoluble difficulty"This is my favourite definition so far, but I'm not really convinced. Can I try? :smallbiggrin:

"Any agent or event that [re]enters the storyline and rapidly solves a problem that didn't seem immediately soluble, without a reasonable in-story cause and mechanism for doing so".

So, according to my definition:
In the case of a battle, currently being lost by Side A;

- If another, previously unmentioned army arrives and wins the battle for Side A: Deus ex Machina.

- If another army, previously known to exist and to have sufficient force, turns up and wins for Side A without any explanation of why they arrived then, and fought on that side: Deus ex Machina.

- If there's a previously-known army, that for some in-story reason could be expected to be on Side A and to know of the battle taking place, but that couldn't be reasonably expected (from previous appearances or foreshadowing) to actually have the force to win; and they turn up with more numbers or some new tech/magic and win the battle anyway: Deus ex Machina.

- If an army that we know to exist and be able to win turns up and wins the battle for Side A without an explanation of how they knew the battle was occurring, or else why they were there; and in either case why they decided to support that side: Deus ex Machina.

- If an earthquake shatters the ground under Side B, and there's no reason given for why an earthquake should occur at that time and place: Deus ex Machina.

- If a mutiny suddenly occurs in Side B's army, and there was no way to tell beforehand that discipline was an issue, and Side B's soldiers haven't been suddenly informed of a good reason not to support that side: Deus ex Machina.

- If we knew there was some kind of secret weapon in existence, and then it suddenly blasts Side B into individual atoms, but there was no previous reason to expect that it could/would be used against Side B: Deus ex Machina.

- Even if we know that a Side C possess the weapon, and wish to use it on Side B, but get their timing just right to save Side A with it despite not knowing of the battle: Deus ex Machina.

Hopefully from the above it's obvious what I'd consider not to be one - the intervening force or event must either be aware of/caused by the battle, or have a really good reason to arrive/occur at that time. Also, it must have some previously-known capability to change the outcome, or there should at least be reason to believe that they could have gained it.

Focusing on OOTS:
- Fruit Pie is blatantly a DeM - he isn't there because of the OOTS, and we had no previous reason to believe that he'd be there; neither did he have any good reason to support them. Not that I mind, it was funny and didn't detract from the plot; minor DeMs don't necessarily cause a problem.

- Julio is, and perhaps the only one in OOTS that I dislike. We knew there were airships in Cliffport, but Elan just happens to meet a Captain who's almost exactly like him, probably the only one who could teach him a prestige class that suits him perfectly, and is - for no convincing reason - willing to put himself to risk and inconvenience to help a complete stranger.
But then, his airship is named Mechane...

- That dragon head is; there's no particular reason why they should be directly above V, and the probability of that happening by chance is infinitesimally small. I really enjoyed that bit though - again, it was funny and had no significant effect on the plot.

[/longpost]

hamishspence

2013-03-18, 03:47 PM

The Giant on Deus Ex Machinas:

Surprises are not Deus (or Diabolous) Ex Machinas, they're surprises. Nothing more or less.

Snails

2013-03-18, 04:11 PM

No, the point of that subplot was removal of dangerous enemy tearing part Azure City's defences. V's survival or even death wasn't important - it was stopping DK before it makes huge hole in defences. V casting more spells than she could would be a bit of an ass pull, but something outside doing it is straight DEM as outside force resolved the plot. Had it been, say, Roy observing where dragon flies and cutting head at right time, it would still be Team Good's effort, but as it is, it was just God of Chance deciding to step in. Especially seeing dragon wasn't anywhere near V when we last saw it.

If the Giant saw it that way, V could have simply vaporized the enemy with the first or second Disintegrate. From a monolithic plot-driven mindset, that is a perfectly logical and satisfying end result for that particular foe.

The Giant could have gone with that solution, through means that required less effort on his part. He chose otherwise. He spent significant effort to do so. Why? I have an explanation. You do not.

Again, personal computer above. Language isn't dead, it evolves to match the needs. Clinging to dead term when modern understanding changed is not only counter-productive, it's pointless.

There is no such thing as a "modern understanding" of the term DEM. For the most part this modern understanding is just a bunch of people on the internet pulling out of their ass a definition that fits their mood.

There are those who use a traditional definition that is fairly well understood. And there are those using a bunch of other definitions that provide confusion more than enlightenment. The second is pointless. Why choose the second?

Snails

2013-03-18, 04:25 PM

- That dragon head is; there's no particular reason why they should be directly above V, and the probability of that happening by chance is infinitesimally small. I really enjoyed that bit though - again, it was funny and had no significant effect on the plot.

The physical laws of the OotSverse seem to cause a lot of of "seemingly random" events around falls that squash dignity. The dragon head is something like the sixth example of this phenomenon, and it was not the last.

This is really a private little genre convention, well established from early on.

As I already discussed, the Giant could have resolved that minor sub-plot by a number of other means at his fingertips. He made this particular choice when he was certainly not boxed into a corner.

Chromascope3D

2013-03-18, 04:49 PM

ZerglingOne

2013-03-18, 05:20 PM

Well, having the head land on and instantly defeat a powerful enemy is more than a little silly. I'd say MitD teleporting V + Ochul away from their certain doom is a good example though. There's no reasonable foreshadowing of that (even team evil has no idea that MitD could do that it seems.) It was an overwhelming, unforeseeable power that abruptly solved a huge plotline.

ACTUALLY it was -heavily- foreshadowed, you just didn't notice it so much because it was more or less passed off as a joke. You didn't pay it any mind at the time, but hindsight tends to be 20/20. Here's what I mean.

http://www.GiantITP.com/comics/oots0543.html read the entire comic.

Monster-san appears to realize that he gets what he wants if he believes hard enough.

So calling "Escape" a DEM is very misguided with evidence like this.

Ornithologist

2013-03-18, 05:20 PM

"I hoped really, really hard, and he still didn't escape." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html)

It just occurred to me that that didn't work because the MiTD doesn't know O-Chuls name yet.

Snails

2013-03-18, 07:48 PM

Chromascope3D

2013-03-18, 09:53 PM

It was not random. It was already strongly hinted that something like a full blown Lord of Hell was planning an intervention into the Gate Quest. Who do you think Sabine spilled the beans to? Rather than Orcus or Asmodeus, we get the IFCC. Because Orcus wouldn't be funny.

I disagree. While it is hinted at, it's mostly a glanced-over detail that makes much more sense in hindsight. I'd say that it isn't so much the motives behind it, but rather the method and timing of that help. Had we known before that the fiends were planning something big like this in that way beforehand, then it definitely wouldn't have been a DXM. But, all we knew is that Sabine, a demon, happens to have dark, demon overlords that she needs to report to (surprise, surprise).

jere7my

2013-03-18, 10:31 PM

Snails

2013-03-18, 11:15 PM

I disagree. While it is hinted at, it's mostly a glanced-over detail that makes much more sense in hindsight. I'd say that it isn't so much the motives behind it, but rather the method and timing of that help. Had we known before that the fiends were planning something big like this in that way beforehand, then it definitely wouldn't have been a DXM. But, all we knew is that Sabine, a demon, happens to have dark, demon overlords that she needs to report to (surprise, surprise).

Which boils down to you were surprised. Good. Does the fact you were surprised make it DXM? What makes your definition of DXM any different from "I was surprised by a surprising demonstration of power that surprised me"?

When hidden powers move levers, are they required to telegraph their moves to the reader? Every time there is not a completely obvious Chekov's Gun, is that a DXM?

In every single case someone points to as a potential DXM in OotS, the Giant could have easily resolved the issue or caused the inflection in the story by more mundane means. The Giant in no way painted himself in a corner. In many cases, doing the obvious thing would have been easier for the Giant.

Why did he choose otherwise? The cost would have been paid in terms of story pacing. The Giant simply bet that a faster pace with a bit more surprise is desirable as long as it all pretty much makes sense in hindsight.

But I guess that there will always people who will argue that authors should be shackled by the limitations of their own personal foresight. "Please paint a bright red circle around that Gun in Act 1, thankyouverymuch. No bright red circle? DXM! DXM! DXM!"

Dumbestupidiot

2013-03-19, 01:23 AM

Can we all agree that this would be a deus ex machina?

A group of adventures go off to save their town from a ravaging dragon and to salvage it's horde. They enter it's lair and after a series of bad luck and misadventure are disarmed, helpless, and about to be devoured, all hope is lost and they are doomed. Then V's familicide comes along killing the dragon saving them, revenging their town, and making them suddenly rich with dragon horde.

Math_Mage

2013-03-19, 02:31 AM

Snails

2013-03-19, 10:39 AM

It is a DEM for the adventurers' story, outside the context of OotS' story. In the context of OotS, it is not a DEM.

And if, say, the Good Adventurers had gained the attentions of the Evil Mad Wizard who cast Familicide, it would be merely a heavy handed plot twist or a Wham Episode. They traded one daunting problem for what is arguably a vastly worse problem, even if their short term situation was much improved.

Aristeidis

2013-03-19, 12:16 PM

Deus Ex Machina is latin for the greek expression "Από μηχανής Θεός".

In Ancient Greek tragedy as the drama unfolded there was a moment where antyhing that could be done by mortals was done and the only way for the conflict to be resolved was a Divine Intervention. The actor portraying the God or Goddess who came to the rescue would be lowered on stage from above tied with ropes and using a machine as a lever. This decent upon the stage using a machine was called (in Latin) Deus Ex Machina (not on stage of course!) and was used as a technique to dramatically portray the interference of the Deity in mortal affairs.

With greetings from Greece!
Aristeidis

Olinser

2013-03-19, 01:00 PM

I would consider V's first contact with the Arch-Demons a DXM. While they, themselves, weren't the solution to an unwinnable fight against an elder dragon, they did appear out of nowhere and provide the vehicle for his victory, as well as tie up several plotlines. Even if it was later explained, it's still technically a DXM, because it was random, yet beneficial, initially.

Actually, thinking about it now, that entire stretch was full of DXMs. After the dragon battle, V is able to teleport the entire fleet to a safe, abandoned, elven stronghold that he knew about due to his childhood. Then we learn that, "Oh, while you were gone, we learned where Haley and Belkar are!" or later, "Oh hey, V, we wind walked the entire way to Greysky City!" (Although, I'm really not sure how they knew exactly where that was.) Or even the big*** diamond that Haley pulls out of nowhere!

Then we have the battle with Xykon:
1. Epic Teleport apparently ignores the spell that was designed to keep out teleportation.
2. An anti-DXM: Lightning Runes that target any caster that isn't Xykon or Tsukiko
3. The cracked bar to O-chul's cage. Actually, from his perspective, V showing up at all is a DXM
4. The open manhole with which Xykon's phylactery got away.
5. The MitD teleporting V and O-chul away from an almost certain demise.

Man, V is a magnet for these things, isn't he?

1) Not a DXM - it is totally reasonable that an Epic spell, cast with a high enough seed, will overcome another Epic spell.
2) Just because it was surprising does NOT make it a DXM. It is totally reasonable that when you sit in a location for months on end, you will fortify it to a reasonable degree. Who knows what other traps there are that WEREN'T triggered.
3) O-Chul has been recognized as a world-class badass, it is totally reasonable he could bust the bars of his cell. If it is within the abilities of a character, it is not a DXM. O-Chul chosing to remain within his cell is totally reasonable, he has zero chance of escape or doing any real damage - UNTIL V shows up.
4) Arguable - but really the only one of your examples that could qualify as a DXM.
5) Not a DXM - Rich has been very clear on the MiTD. It is a specific creature with specific abilities (and thinks that we have been given enough information to figure it out). Just because we don't KNOW what he is, and what abilities he has, does not make it a DXM, it is well within the power of the creature. It would be a DXM only if he were revealed to be something that COULD NOT possibly have done it.

I think that a number of people are confused about exactly what a DXM is.

It is a DXM if, and ONLY if, it comes totally out of left field, there was absolutely zero foreshadowing, or a character suddenly acquires powers that he never used (and could have used to resolve previous situations).

Roy's +5 sword of Undeadbane is a powerful weapon, but is not a DXM - we saw him get it. Belkar suddenly pulling out a +5 Vorpal Dagger that automatically casts Disintigrate on anything he hits, and using it to reduce Malack to a pile of ash would most definitely be a DXM - there is no indication he has a weapon that powerful, there is no place he could have reasonably gotten it, and if he had it he could have used it to great effect in a number of fights previously.

The IFCC showing up is not a DXM. They were foreshadowed several times in the story - they were featured ON PANEL in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0380.html. They were waiting for the perfect opportunity - and V provided it.

The ancient black dragon showing up is not a DXM. She was shown on panel consulting the oracle previously, and it was pretty obvious that an adolescent dragon wouldn't have a hoard that size - daddy or mommy were SOMEWHERE near. Quite a few people were already wondering when the dragon was going to attack the OOTS before she showed up.

Pretty much nothing to do with the MiTD can be a DXM - because we don't have enough information. When we finally find out what it is, anything he does is a DXM only if it is outside the creature's abilities.

Just because something unexpected happens doesn't make it a DXM.

Snails

2013-03-19, 02:02 PM

#2 (above) is simply a D&Dism. Such surprises are to be expected in higher level D&D play. If the Lightning Runes or their moral equivalent did not exist, the Giant could be given grief for writing something that was conspicuously not D&D. If the Giant writes the scene as if this were D&D, those less knowledgeable in the genre get to claim the right to wave the DXM flag? The Giant just cannot win here.

Ceaon

2013-03-19, 02:28 PM

I would like to add that, to me, a DeM is when the resolution of a story or part of the story has nothing to do with the choices of the (protagonist) characters in it. This is a broad definition, which includes, amongst others, War of the Worlds and the final battle in 8-Bit Theater.

As has been said, a story with a Deus ex Machina can function (and very well at that) as an allegory or comedy.

SavageWombat

2013-03-19, 02:53 PM

Clearly, from this discussion, a Deus ex Machina is a Mary Sue.

Snails

2013-03-19, 03:28 PM

I would like to add that, to me, a DeM is when the resolution of a story or part of the story has nothing to do with the choices of the (protagonist) characters in it.

That sounds plausible, but I am not sure what qualifies as "part of the story". Are we talking about main character development arcs or every little obstacle or would you draw the line somewhere in between?

Almost by definition, every plot twist involves a reveal of a non-obvious aspect of some player in the drama. Sometimes this is protagonist, sometimes the antagonist, sometimes someone else or a new player being introduced. Is every plot twist a DXM?

Rakoa

2013-03-19, 04:04 PM

That sounds plausible, but I am not sure what qualifies as "part of the story". Are we talking about main character development arcs or every little obstacle or would you draw the line somewhere in between?

Almost by definition, every plot twist involves a reveal of a non-obvious aspect of some player in the drama. Sometimes this is protagonist, sometimes the antagonist, sometimes someone else or a new player being introduced. Is every plot twist a DXM?

I think you could only call a plot twist a DXM if it blatantly resolved the plot point with no input from the main characters. To use the example of War of the Worlds above, the plot twist at the end was also a DXM. However, the plot twist of Malack turning out to be a vampire was not.

Closet_Skeleton

2013-03-19, 04:23 PM

Clearly, from this discussion, a Deus ex Machina is a Mary Sue.

A pretty bad Mary Sue, since a Mary Sue is usually the protagonist. If your protagonist is a Deus Ex Machina then you just don't have any drama to start with.

But in 'basically having no meaning except that you know one when it annoys you' then yes, they are in a similar category.

Incom

2013-03-19, 04:31 PM

Clearly, from this discussion, a Deus ex Machina is a Mary Sue.

Might just have to sig that.

Snails

2013-03-19, 06:00 PM

I think you could only call a plot twist a DXM if it blatantly resolved the plot point with no input from the main characters. To use the example of War of the Worlds above, the plot twist at the end was also a DXM. However, the plot twist of Malack turning out to be a vampire was not.

I think it is fair to call the ending of War of the Worlds a DXM, but I do think it is a DXM based on good planning and a clear thematic reason.

The ambiguity I see is in things like IFCC helping against the Black Dragon. I can see the argument -- the Black Dragon is defeated by a "gift from the gods". From a pedestrian POV, something was resolved with little input from main characters.

However, in the bigger picture, I see the dragon as both a carrot and a stick, very likely helped along by the IFCC string pulling in order to manipulate V. In the larger picture, defeat of the dragon was a defeat for V -- V traded a terrible but obvious problem for a hidden worse problem.

Rakoa

2013-03-19, 06:08 PM

I think it is fair to call the ending of War of the Worlds a DXM, but I do think it is a DXM based on good planning and a clear thematic reason.

The ambiguity I see is in things like IFCC helping against the Black Dragon. I can see the argument -- the Black Dragon is defeated by a "gift from the gods". From a pedestrian POV, something was resolved with little input from main characters.

However, in the bigger picture, I see the dragon as both a carrot and a stick, very likely helped along by the IFCC string pulling in order to manipulate V. In the larger picture, defeat of the dragon was a defeat for V -- V traded a terrible but obvious problem for a hidden worse problem.

I agree with you on the War of the Worlds. It was a DXM, but that doesn't mean it was a bad one. And yes, the IFCC I would not consider a DXM because while they did resolve a problem, they created a larger one, and likely one that is going to have much bigger consequences for the everyone. Really, the threat of the Ancient Black Dragon was to introduce the IFCC and create a problem, and so I wouldn't consider their appearance to be a DXM at all.

And you could also argue that with Qarr being around their existence was a possibility.

Grey_Wolf_c

2013-03-20, 10:46 AM

Rich has been very clear on the MiTD. It is a specific creature with specific abilities (and thinks that we have been given enough information to figure it out).

Small correction: Rich believes that we will have been given enough information to figure it out before he reveals what MitD is. The guessing game is not quite done yet, and thus more clues may be coming in future strips.

But otherwise, yes, I agree and, like I said a few pages ago: MitD is Xykon's best minion, as established at the fall of Dorukan's gate ("ace in the hole", "star batter"). That means he must be very high level. At those high levels the ability to teleport is quite common, so to anyone with passing knowledge of high-level D&D creatures MitD's ability wouldn't be surprising (just one of several common options).

Grey Wolf

LasVegasLawyer

2013-03-20, 12:37 PM

It is a DEM for the adventurers' story, outside the context of OotS' story. In the context of OotS, it is not a DEM.

This. The Munchkin Adventuring party with Quest: Destroy the Wicked Witch of the East got the benefit of a DEM. Dorothy got a plot hook.

Lord Torath

2013-03-20, 02:51 PM

For another example (or two) from (semi) modern media:
Steven Spielburg's AI: The humans create the "problem" by creating robots with feelings. Then they die off. Aliens come and fix things for the robots. The end.

Pinnochio: A magic fairy turns Pinnochio into a semi-real boy. At the end of the story, the same fairy turns him the rest of the way into a real boy. This is essentially the same story as AI, except that the one who created the "problem" also fixed the "problem."

jere7my

2013-03-20, 03:38 PM

Lord Torath

2013-03-20, 05:19 PM

Those weren't aliens. They were the nth generation of robots, rediscovering their ancestors.Okay. Never actually saw the movie myself, but I heard about it from several friends. Apologies for the inaccuracy.

Snails

2013-03-20, 06:02 PM

Pinnochio is a fairy tale. Less than well-earned boons that resolve problems are common in fairy tales, although where they take place in the arc varies greatly.

That is the deal with The Hobbit as well. I dearly love the Hobbit, but it is really a fairy tale for children. Great pacing, memorable scenes, twists & turns, touches of magic, beautiful beautiful story structure.

Ever noticed the glaring logical flaw? Gandalf sends 12 dwarves and a hobbit off to certain doom. There is absolutely no known reason, even in hindsight, to believe that antagonizing the dragon would be beneficial. The dragon is an overwhelming force that ate thousands of dwarven warriors in a fair fight. It is only defeated by amazing skill coupled with beyond stupendous luck from an ally that could not be counted on.

In the context of a fairy tale, I accept that Gandalf is a Merlin figure with a paint job. "Merlin" knooows important stuff...somehow. Gandalf of the LotR does not seem to have that quality.

Do I really care about the glaring logical flaw? No, not really. It is a fairy tale.

Olinser

2013-03-20, 07:10 PM

Small correction: Rich believes that we will have been given enough information to figure it out before he reveals what MitD is. The guessing game is not quite done yet, and thus more clues may be coming in future strips.

But otherwise, yes, I agree and, like I said a few pages ago: MitD is Xykon's best minion, as established at the fall of Dorukan's gate ("ace in the hole", "star batter"). That means he must be very high level. At those high levels the ability to teleport is quite common, so to anyone with passing knowledge of high-level D&D creatures MitD's ability wouldn't be surprising (just one of several common options).

Grey Wolf

Right, but the point is, nothing the MiTD does can be considered a DXM. He has a set group of abilities - we just don't know what they are yet. If we don't know what he can do, we can't know what he isn't supposed to be able to do.

jere7my

2013-03-20, 09:55 PM

That is the deal with The Hobbit as well. I dearly love the Hobbit, but it is really a fairy tale for children. Great pacing, memorable scenes, twists & turns, touches of magic, beautiful beautiful story structure.

Ever noticed the glaring logical flaw? Gandalf sends 12 dwarves and a hobbit off to certain doom. There is absolutely no known reason, even in hindsight, to believe that antagonizing the dragon would be beneficial. The dragon is an overwhelming force that ate thousands of dwarven warriors in a fair fight. It is only defeated by amazing skill coupled with beyond stupendous luck from an ally that could not be counted on.

Tolkien retconned this (or explained his reasoning, depending on how much planning you believe he did) in The Quest of Erebor, originally intended for inclusion in the appendices to LotR and eventually published posthumously in Unfinished Tales. Gandalf needed to eliminate Smaug so Sauron wouldn't be able to call upon him in the coming war. He knew a frontal assault wouldn't work, so he insisted upon stealth. Thorin already wanted to attack Smaug to reclaim the dwarven hoard, and Gandalf convinced him to take a burglar along to ensure that Thorin wouldn't go full dwarf on Smaug and challenge him face-to-face.

The key thing is that Thorin was already engaged in a hopeless quest to defeat Smaug; Gandalf's insistence upon stealth, and the addition of Bilbo to ensure Thorin stuck to the plan, increased their chances from nil to slim.

Snails

2013-03-21, 12:09 AM

That would be one of a few obvious ways to retcon it. Sure "nice" of Gandalf to convince Bilbo to be dragon food, for the sake of dwarves that are bat guano stupid.

While prophecy seems rare in Middle Earth, we know of one that is purported to have proven accurate. That is the simple out for "Merlin" -- even if it is not his prophecy, he or Galadriel might have perceived the subtle signs that Smaug's doom was at hand and thought it wise to help Smaug dare his fate at this moment.

Regardless of the explanation, The Hobbit is "rich" with candidates for the discussion of the verdict of DXM. In this case, 12 dwarves plus one hobbit (whose life Gandalf is more than willing to throw away) are rescued by an archer of epic skill (or epic luck) whose very existence is not worthy of mentioning until moments before the deed.

As I already said, this is not really a meaningful negative in a fairy tale. In my book, as long as virtues and vices are rewarded appropriately, whether the protagonists and antagonists are really in drivers seat at all times is a tertiary issue.

The Second

2013-03-21, 06:29 PM

Okay. Never actually saw the movie myself, but I heard about it from several friends. Apologies for the inaccuracy.

And here is how 90% of Deus ex Machina nonsense originates. Person x says to person y "Such and such is this," without person y having any knowledge of what 'such and such' actually is, person y simply accepts the fact that x = y, and spreads it to other individuals who have no knowledge of either x or y. So when a person who is[/] knowledgeable shows up and gives the correct interpretation of 'such and such', ei, x is x, y is y, there is no commonality between them, all of those who have been convinced that x = y through faulty information shout, "We already know what x is; x is y!" and convincing those who have been misinformed becomes nearly impossible.

Deus ex Machina is a device that resolves and invalidates a story.

An example for clarity's sake:

Joe is a gambler, and he takes out a loan with Billy the loan shark to cover his debts, then tries to cover his loan by gambling some more, but fails miserably. Just as Billy sends the leg breakers to collect on the loan, Joe finds a blank check and cashes it in to cover the loan, with enough left over to live happily ever after. The end.

Joe is a gambler, and he takes out a loan with Billy the loan shark to cover his debts, then tries to cover his loan by gambling some more, but fails miserably. Just as Billy sends the leg breakers to collect on the loan, Joe finds a blank check and cashes it in to cover the loan, with enough left over to live happily ever after. But then the owner of the check, Big Al the fat, kingpin of Vegas, learns that Joe stole his money and sends hitmen after both Billy and Joe, who have to team up to save their own hides. During this, Joe saves Billy's life and Billy forgives Joe's debt, the two then defeat Big Al with the power of friendship and they all live happily ever after.

In the first story, the blank check is a Deus ex Machina. It resolves the story and invalidates all the trouble Joe went through to try and get out of debt.

In the second story, the blank check is not a Deus ex Machina, it resolves nothing and serves to get Joe into a more elaborate plot.

In the OOTS, Julio Scoundrel is not a Deus ex Machina, He resolves nothing and invalidates nothing.

The undead dragon's head is not a Deus ex Machina, it resolves nothing and invalidates nothing. If, however, the death knight had taken the fight with V deep into the bowels of the castle, had V pinned with no one within range to assist, the dragon's head, when it landed, dislodged a pebble which caused a section of the castle to collapse on the death knight and spare V certain death, the yes, it would be Deus ex Machina; it would have resolved the fight between V and the death knight, and would have invalidated V's battle with the death knight to that point.

Fruit Pie the sorcerer is a gag, a spoof on "And now a word from our sponsors."

The IFCC giving V ultimate arcane power is not a Deus ex Machina, it resolves nothing and invalidates nothing. The IFCC gave V a blank check, V cashed it without fully considering the consequences of doing so, and was thrown into an elaborate and rather messy plot. Had V instead defeated the dragon, saved the Azure City fleet, destroyed Xykon, and gotten home in time for dinner, [b]then and only then would it have been deus ex machina.

TheYell

2013-03-21, 07:36 PM

Regardless of the explanation, The Hobbit is "rich" with candidates for the discussion of the verdict of DXM. In this case, 12 dwarves plus one hobbit (whose life Gandalf is more than willing to throw away) are rescued by an archer of epic skill (or epic luck) whose very existence is not worthy of mentioning until moments before the deed.

But if you recall what happened after Gandalf set them on the path through Mirkwood, they had every chance to recruit the alliance that formed on the slopes of the Mountain against the Orcs and Wolves in the Battle of Five Armies, BEFORE reaching the Mountain. But Thrain was a secretive jerk.

I suppose if Gandalf didn't feel the Necromancer was bigger news, and had stayed with the party, he'd have been diplomat for them from the beginning.

VeisuItaTyhjyys

2013-03-21, 08:13 PM

Julio Scoundrel's airship.

Well, yeah, but his class' capstone ability is probably Deus Ex Machina.

Deus Ex Machina
Once per day, a Dashing Swordsman may call upon the powers of dramatic tradition and beloved cliché to surmount one obstacle which would, otherwise, be insurmountable. This ability alters the framework of the narrative to the Dashing Swordsman's advantage as though she'd cast any spell available to a wizard, cleric, druid, &c. of her ECL, or by a similarly powerful intervention, at the DM's discretion. For instance, a Dashing Swordsman with an ECL of 9 could use her Deus Ex Machina ability to catch up to a fleeing villain by emulating Teleport as cast by a ninth-level wizard or sorcerer. The Deus Ex Machina requires no reasonable explanation, merely dramatic necessity; a Dashing Swordsman trying to explain why or how her Deus Ex Machina teleported her right to the villain at precisely the nick of time loses the Deus Ex Machina ability for twenty-four hours, while a Dashing Swordsman who uses her Deus Ex Machina ability in times which she cannot defend to the DM as suitably dramatic loses the ability for one week. A Dashing Swordsman's Deus Ex Machina lasts until it is discharged, but s/he may have no more than one Deus Ex Machina active at any one time. For instance, if a Dashing Swordsman used her Deus Ex Machina to set up a contingency for escaped tigers to suddenly slaughter her attackers right as they were about to slay her, that Deus Ex Machina would remain in effect until she were dealt a blow which dropped her below zero hitpoints or she put another Deux Ex Machina in effect.

Dumbestupidiot

2013-03-21, 11:05 PM

Deus Ex Machina
Once per day, a Dashing Swordsman may call upon the powers of dramatic tradition and beloved cliché to surmount one obstacle which would, otherwise, be insurmountable. This ability alters the framework of the narrative to the Dashing Swordsman's advantage as though she'd cast any spell available to a wizard, cleric, druid, &c. of her ECL, or by a similarly powerful intervention, at the DM's discretion. For instance, a Dashing Swordsman with an ECL of 9 could use her Deus Ex Machina ability to catch up to a fleeing villain by emulating Teleport as cast by a ninth-level wizard or sorcerer. The Deus Ex Machina requires no reasonable explanation, merely dramatic necessity; a Dashing Swordsman trying to explain why or how her Deus Ex Machina teleported her right to the villain at precisely the nick of time loses the Deus Ex Machina ability for twenty-four hours, while a Dashing Swordsman who uses her Deus Ex Machina ability in times which she cannot defend to the DM as suitably dramatic loses the ability for one week. A Dashing Swordsman's Deus Ex Machina lasts until it is discharged, but s/he may have no more than one Deus Ex Machina active at any one time. For instance, if a Dashing Swordsman used her Deus Ex Machina to set up a contingency for escaped tigers to suddenly slaughter her attackers right as they were about to slay her, that Deus Ex Machina would remain in effect until she were dealt a blow which dropped her below zero hitpoints or she put another Deux Ex Machina in effect.

This ability just made me think of Emperor's New Groove, suddenly, they are dramatically there and by all accounts, it doesn't make any sense...

And for the last time we did not order a trampoline (you coulda told me that before I set it up)

Snails

2013-03-22, 10:51 AM

But if you recall what happened after Gandalf set them on the path through Mirkwood, they had every chance to recruit the alliance that formed on the slopes of the Mountain against the Orcs and Wolves in the Battle of Five Armies, BEFORE reaching the Mountain. But Thrain was a secretive jerk.

My memory may be a little fuzzy, but this is how I recall it...

The dwarven army that would only show up to help if the Mountain were the prize. Thrain was there to correct an old wrong, not solve a future problem for other people when his people were safely ensconced in their existing mountain steads.

The elven army would probably stop Thrain from antagonizing the dragon, if they had a chance to contemplate his intentions.

I suppose if Gandalf didn't feel the Necromancer was bigger news, and had stayed with the party, he'd have been diplomat for them from the beginning.

True. Part of the charm of the tale is that Gandalf ends up "tricking" everyone into doing the right thing (even if it is not clear this was his intention at certain points). When I first read The Hobbit, I saw Gandalf as a Merlin figure with some trickster schticks in his toolbox. In the context of a fairy tale, there was really nothing to second guess.

dps

2013-03-23, 06:30 AM

In the OOTS, Julio Scoundrel is not a Deus ex Machina, He resolves nothing and invalidates nothing.

The undead dragon's head is not a Deus ex Machina, it resolves nothing and invalidates nothing. If, however, the death knight had taken the fight with V deep into the bowels of the castle, had V pinned with no one within range to assist, the dragon's head, when it landed, dislodged a pebble which caused a section of the castle to collapse on the death knight and spare V certain death, the yes, it would be Deus ex Machina; it would have resolved the fight between V and the death knight, and would have invalidated V's battle with the death knight to that point.

Fruit Pie the sorcerer is a gag, a spoof on "And now a word from our sponsors."

The IFCC giving V ultimate arcane power is not a Deus ex Machina, it resolves nothing and invalidates nothing. The IFCC gave V a blank check, V cashed it without fully considering the consequences of doing so, and was thrown into an elaborate and rather messy plot. Had V instead defeated the dragon, saved the Azure City fleet, destroyed Xykon, and gotten home in time for dinner, then and only then would it have been deus ex machina.

I'll agree on all those except the undead dragon's head. There had been a confrontation between V and the Death Knight, which it resolved, and it invalidated the fact that V had effectively lost and was about to be killed.

Throknor

2013-03-25, 11:05 AM

I'll agree on all those except the undead dragon's head. There had been a confrontation between V and the Death Knight, which it resolved, and it invalidated the fact that V had effectively lost and was about to be killed.

Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think the point is that as a high-level wizard it would not have been a surprise if V had a scroll that could have destroyed the DK. Since there was another plausible method for resolution, the Giant was free to use it as a joke for Xykon's 'no effect' statement without changing much of the story. V's later angst is over not saving the soldiers, not over this fight. So it had no overall story implications whatsoever.

SavageWombat

2013-03-25, 12:13 PM

I'll agree on all those except the undead dragon's head. There had been a confrontation between V and the Death Knight, which it resolved, and it invalidated the fact that V had effectively lost and was about to be killed.

Except that V isn't the only person in the story. Roy was the one who chopped the dragon's head off and established it as a plot element. It wouldn't be the first time in fiction where one character's action inadvertently saved another. A stroke of luck, but not a true DeM.

Snails

2013-03-25, 12:24 PM

I'll agree on all those except the undead dragon's head. There had been a confrontation between V and the Death Knight, which it resolved, and it invalidated the fact that V had effectively lost and was about to be killed.

Nonsense. V's life was never really in danger. V could have easily fled by casting Invisibility, and safely stepped off the battlements with Featherfall.

The point of the confrontation with the DK was to humiliate V. The Giant could have started and finished that chapter in V's arc right then and there. Instead he chose to have the DK be one note in a crescendo of humiliation.

This incident is really the opposite of a DXM -- V's main personal problem is actually bigger because of the unexpected resolution of this small problem.

Amphiox

2013-04-01, 05:27 PM

Amphiox

2013-04-02, 12:25 AM

Nonsense. V's life was never really in danger. V could have easily fled by casting Invisibility, and safely stepped off the battlements with Featherfall.

The point of the confrontation with the DK was to humiliate V. The Giant could have started and finished that chapter in V's arc right then and there. Instead he chose to have the DK be one note in a crescendo of humiliation.

This incident is really the opposite of a DXM -- V's main personal problem is actually bigger because of the unexpected resolution of this small problem.

And that humiliation contributed to the next part of V's character arc - the sense of hir arcane power having failed, to have "won" only by luck, while countless others perished, formed the basis of the temptation that led V to take the IFCC's deal.

hobo386

2013-04-09, 12:25 PM

hamishspence

2013-04-09, 12:31 PM

This was foreshadowing:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0032.html

that lawyers can be used to remove "legally dubious" things.

Snails

2013-04-09, 03:48 PM

And this is why one should either not use the term DEM at all, or use a definition closer to the classical one.

Because some people are not paying attention, they are confusing a Running Gag (or perhaps a Genre Convention), where it should be understood that the rules of the universe are slightly bent in a particular dramatic way, with a DEM.

It is not a DEM for Wile E. Coyote to survive a fall off a cliff. It is not a DEM for Superman to be very strong.

In OotS, it is not a DEM for V to fail to win through superior magical awesomeness and be humiliated in the process (e.g. boring goblins to sleep). In OotS, it is not a DEM for impossibly unlikely falls to cause other kinds of humiliation (e.g. ask the Flumphs).

When two Running Gags are woven together, it most certainly is not a DEM.

Throknor

2013-04-09, 03:58 PM

Can we all agree that this strip is a DEM?
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0065.html

V has no real way to combat Zz'dtri, and lawyers come out of the woodwork to save him?

It was done to wonderful comedic effect, but it lacked foreshadowing, it took power out of the characters hands to be solved by a higher power, etc. etc.
Nope.

Elan could have skewered Zz'dtri from behind since he was coming over in the next strip. Both Haley and Balkar have already defeated their counters and could have helped (Haley more likely with an arrow of course). This early in the strip no one would have blinked twice if V had pulled out a wand that had worked. A DeM is when there is no other possible resolution. There were many others in this case, but the 1-on-1 nature of the battle scene lead best to the copyright joke, not the story being written into any kind of a corner.

Heck, has pointed out you can't even claim they weren't foreshadowed since they were already used against another adversary!