Why can't the gods seal the Rifts themselves?

[Asteroid Bomb]

The Godmoot and the first explanation of the Snarl both make clear that the Gods' only course of action to fix the problem with the Rifts is to destroy the world and start over. I have to wonder though... Why can't they do what mortals have already been capable of and re-seal the open Snarl rifts themselves? I'm going to guess that it has something to do with a non-interference pact, but then why is it okay for them to destroy the world to deal with the rifts but not simply close them? I know there wouldn't be much of a story if they did that, but still.

[Keltest]

The rifts aren't sealed. They are prevented from growing any wider, and hidden from the Snarl, but they aren't closed.

[Markozeta]

My guess is simple - they fear the snarl. As Shojo stated (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html), the gods are more vulnerable than a mere mortal of the same level as the gods to the snarl.

[EmperorSarda]

The gates and seals on the rifts are only patches that can be torn off.

[eilandesq]

The main possibility that comes to mind is that to seal the rifts, gods might have to get personally physically close enough to the rifts to leave them vulnerable to attack by the Snarl--we know that the Snarl can reach through an open rift to attack, and that the gods at least believe that they can be perma-killed by the Snarl. The alternative would be instructing their clerics to construct the gates needed to seal the rifts, but that would take time and would be vulnerable to attacks from other parties as well as the Snarl itself.

[goodpeople25]

Well to do a real fix they need to destroy the world and make a new one, but as for them making more gates to patch things up, there are a bunch of possible reasons, as said they most likely need to be close to the rift, and it's also possible that the presence of Gods would agitate the snarl, and as mentioned in comic the theroy is that the snarl is stronger against gods, heck maybe that even applies to a god's magic thus weakening the gate and it breaking on its own or in sensing that gods are close.
And ordering clerics to do it is a tricky notion for numerous reasons and from my understanding needs strong arcane casters as well (and there probably aren't any strong enough in a church system in a fairly lower leveled world) which furthur complicates things.

[Asteroid Bomb]

Yes, I'm aware that the seals don't remove the rifts, I'm just asking why the gods can't do what the mortals did with their bandages in the form of Gates.

Hmm, I guess they could indeed be in danger if they tried it given what happened to Kraagor. That seems rather cowardly to me though, given the stakes of what happens if they do nothing...

[goodpeople25]

Yes, I'm aware that the seals don't remove the rifts, I'm just asking why the gods can't do what the mortals did with their bandages in the form of Gates.

Hmm, I guess they could indeed be in danger if they tried it given what happened to Kraagor. That seems rather cowardly to me though, given the stakes of what happens if they do nothing...
And what happens if a god gets unmade? This isn't a new world they can't retcon their existence. That seems like it would have massive ramifications, some social, maybe some physical like trouble with the gone god's domains ect. some might very well be positive but i can think of a lot of negative ones. And even gates made by gods could Quite possibly still be destroyable. So still temporary.
Also they believe they can destroy the world and capture the snarl if the last gate gets destroyed, so the stakes here fro the mortals is living a full life vs a premature afterlife. Compared to the snarl and the gods point of view that seems a bit lesser compared to messing with the snarl directly.

[hroþila]

The gods are not omnipotent. Why can't a baker defeat a dragon?

[Roland Itiative]

The world is their way to seal the Snarl. Why would they concern themselves with an inferior method when they can use a more effective one? The world held on for presumably centuries (maybe millenia) before the rifts appeared, while the Gates didn't even reach their first one before causing all sorts of trouble, from people trying to use them to challenge the gods to plain breaking and leaving the vulnerabilities open once again.

To the gods, it makes much more sense to just remake the world. Not trying to do so is just throwing a bone to the mortals, who they clearly don't think are nearly as important as themselves.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The gods apparently have only a limited ability to influence and reshape the world in the prime material plane without pulling loose the threads of reality, and we don't want them to do that. Coastlines don't continuously change, devine magic mostly happens through the use of clerically devoted mortals, the godsmoot is held by proxy and the rifts cannot be sealed, plugged, patched or glued by the gods themselves.

[theNater]

While replacing the gates might be against their rules of non-interference, any defenses they put around the new gates to protect them from Xykon and others like him almost certainly would be.

[factotum]

I agree with Roland Itiative. The gods *could* probably put some sort of patch on the rifts, but that's already been proved to be a temporary and subpar solution that has actually weakened the Snarl's prison--leastways, I'm pretty sure the rifts would not have grown to the size they have if there had never been a Gate attached to them. Why would they do that when they can unravel the threads of reality and put them back together better, with no flaws? From the gods' point of view this could even be seen to be helping their worshippers, because this way those worshippers get to move on to their respective afterlives rather than having their souls eaten by the Snarl when it escapes its bounds.

[EmperorSarda]

Soon and his allies learned that the gods could remake the prison without the rifts... but to do so would require the raw threads of reality that were currently being used by the world. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html)

[littlebum2002]

The Godmoot and the first explanation of the Snarl both make clear that the Gods' only course of action to fix the problem with the Rifts seals on the rifts breaking is to destroy the world and start over. I have to wonder though... Why can't they do what mortals have already been capable of and re-seal the open Snarl rifts themselves? I'm going to guess that it has something to do with a non-interference pact, but then why is it okay for them to destroy the world to deal with the rifts but not simply close them? I know there wouldn't be much of a story if they did that, but still.

Fixed it for you. The reason they don't want to fix the problem with the seals breaking with replacement seals is that they're going to break again. Sealing the rifts is just putting tape on them, the only real fix is to re-do everything.

[Kish]

The world is their way to seal the Snarl. Why would they concern themselves with an inferior method when they can use a more effective one? The world held on for presumably centuries (maybe millenia) before the rifts appeared, while the Gates didn't even reach their first one before causing all sorts of trouble, from people trying to use them to challenge the gods to plain breaking and leaving the vulnerabilities open once again.

To the gods, it makes much more sense to just remake the world. Not trying to do so is just throwing a bone to the mortals, who they clearly don't think are nearly as important as themselves.
This. From the gods' perspective, if they need to step in and intervene directly, that's a reason to mark the bandage method "failed" and remake the world with no such vulnerabilities--not to restore the bandages which, by requiring direct divine intervention, have proven inadequate.

Look back at strip #999, and count how many of the gods expressed concern for mortal lives in their stated reasoning. Three of the "no" gods. If "they'll stop listening to us if we show them we don't care about them" counts. Four, if Sif's "I won't give up on this planet" is treated as expressing concern for the people, not the dirt and rocks, which considering her portfolio I would say it should not be. Two to four, out of eighteen gods in the pantheon.

[Asteroid Bomb]

Maybe I'm just expecting the gods to be more altruistic than they are.

[An Enemy Spy]

Oh, that's adorable. Seriously though, read some mythology. It will disabuse you of that notion real quick.

[Ruck]

My guess is simple - they fear the snarl. As Shojo stated (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html), the gods are more vulnerable than a mere mortal of the same level as the gods to the snarl.
Well, this is a hypothesis; no one really knows for sure.

The world is their way to seal the Snarl. Why would they concern themselves with an inferior method when they can use a more effective one? The world held on for presumably centuries (maybe millenia) before the rifts appeared, while the Gates didn't even reach their first one before causing all sorts of trouble, from people trying to use them to challenge the gods to plain breaking and leaving the vulnerabilities open once again.

To the gods, it makes much more sense to just remake the world. Not trying to do so is just throwing a bone to the mortals, who they clearly don't think are nearly as important as themselves.
Just about 11.84 centuries, if I remember correctly.

[Asteroid Bomb]

Oh, that's adorable. Seriously though, read some mythology. It will disabuse you of that notion real quick.

I'm very familiar with Norse and Greek mythology. I still expected them to have some concern for mortals' lives here.

[goodpeople25]

This. From the gods' perspective, if they need to step in and intervene directly, that's a reason to mark the bandage method "failed" and remake the world with no such vulnerabilities--not to restore the bandages which, by requiring direct divine intervention, have proven inadequate.

Look back at strip #999, and count how many of the gods expressed concern for mortal lives in their stated reasoning. Three of the "no" gods. If "they'll stop listening to us if we show them we don't care about them" counts. Four, if Sif's "I won't give up on this planet" is treated as expressing concern for the people, not the dirt and rocks, which considering her portfolio I would say it should not be. Two to four, out of eighteen gods in the pantheon.
I would disagree a bit with those numbers, (and Sif especially)
1 it requires that a sentence (well for the majority of them, some have more) of dialog is a definite indicator of all motivations. Some of them seem like their domain or a personality trait took a front seat for writing reasons (all of the Nos saying ya human lives dosen't seem great especially when compared to the yes side who have varying reasons) Balder for instance if he was paying attention or even had another sentence might have a very different sounding answer. And odin's motivation is pretty impossible to tell heck he could have said of yes after that.
2 that the belief that the mortal soul is more important than mortal lives means that there is no caring for mortal lives.
3 left out the demigods entirely and of the no votes i would say they are definite maybes (imo leaning more to caring) in the caring part, though wraped in metaphor and valley girl talk. To me Hermod is first in order for me despite being willing for a protest vote (Note that it's the destrution of the world she mentions disagreeing with and i find the idea of the world as a hunk of rock bieng the recipient pretty farfetched.) Then bragi then Iounn, and for Dvalin I'll put him off the list for now but i find it a bit interesting that he's seen as lawful stupid despite actually going to get the opinion of mortal representative.
This is for caring about mortal lives though, the permanent solution does make more sense for the gods. I just don't see how it automatically contradicts caring about mortal lives or altruism.