Why can't a high priest just leave via Word of Recall and negate their vote?

[EmberIce]

We know the godsmoot cathedral isn't dimensionally locked. The teleport orb worked.

We know some gods who voted "yes" want to change their vote because of Hel but can't (e.g., Heimdall).

We know a vote is negated if there's no high priest present even if the god has already voted and we're waiting for a tiebreaker.

We know Word of Recall is a 6th level spell (therefore something a high priest definitely has access to) and we know it's a valid spell in this setting (Redcloak has used it before).

Therefore, it suffices for a high priest such as Heimdall's (or any other god in a similar position) to cast Word of Recall and teleport away from the godsmoot. This would nullify the god's vote and Hel would lose.

[BaronOfHell]

A god probably can't tell his high priest to WoR out of there because of the no take back rule.

I doubt a high priest would do so by his/her own initiative.

[hroþila]

Why do people assume Heimdall would want to change his vote anyway? Only because Hel told him he couldn't? He didn't say anything at all, and his reasoning to vote Yes ("The only responsible option is the most cautious one") still holds. You'll note that the consequences of destroying the world would have been exactly the same had Hel not got a high priest in the Godsmoot, so it's even possible that Heimdall already accounted for that when he made up his mind.

[Killer Angel]

A god probably can't tell his high priest to WoR out of there because of the no take back rule.

I doubt a high priest would do so by his/her own initiative.

Leaving aside other aspects of the matter, if a high priest cannot act on its own... well, if you're a high priest, why you're not too high also in your God's consideration?

[factotum]

If you're the high priest of a God, the odds are pretty good that you kind of agree with what that God's wishes are. Why on earth would you Word of Recall out of the meeting and thus negate your God's vote, unless your God explicitly told you to do so? Which they won't because of the "no backsies" rule.

[Quild]

We know some gods who voted "yes" want to change their vote because of Hel but can't (e.g., Heimdall).
The concept of the Godsmoot and the "no backsie" rule were established so the gods could vote on serious matters, without having arguments which could create another Snarl.

Hel is playing within the rules. But if a God was to try to modify the outcome of the Godsmoot by killing some High Priest that has already voted or by having his High Priest leaving, that would certainly end into some conflict.



We know Word of Recall is a 6th level spell (therefore something a high priest definitely has access to) and we know it's a valid spell in this setting (Redcloak has used it before).
Note that the High Priest of Thor hadn't access to 7th level spells back when Durkon was a child.
The High Priest of Nergal was quite probably level 12 only.

We have no evidence of a High Priest having no access to 6th level spells, yet, saying they definitely have access to it is maybe quickly spoken.

I also seem to remember that the Giant wrote something about "Word of Recall" and why Malack did not had it prepared. IIRC, it was something like: If you're going to use your highests spells slots for spells in case of defeat, then you're more likely to be defeated than if you had used those for the combat.

Those clerics may think the same and Word of Recall may not have prepared. Even if it could be useful for... returning home.

[Sniper Jo]

The HPoSunna - the only one we've seen so far to be opposed to Hel despite their god voting yes - was unwilling to negate his vote. He said that if the priests helped Roy, he'd have to buff Lurky; not because he was magically required to, or because he wanted to, but because he was unwilling to go against his god's wishes. He's the only Yes voter who was willing to fight the vampires, so what makes it likely that any of the other Yes voters would want to leave?

[Pyrous]

I also seem to remember that the Giant wrote something about "Word of Recall" and why Malack did not had it prepared. IIRC, it was something like: If you're going to use your highests spells slots for spells in case of defeat, then you're more likely to be defeated than if you had used those for the combat.

Those clerics may think the same and Word of Recall may not have prepared. Even if it could be useful for... returning home.

This. If a HP uses Word of Recall, their god loses his vote. This would only be useful if the god wanted to change his vote, something that he would only know he would want to do after his HP has prepared their spells. If the HP wasted a slot with it, it would be one less spell to help protect their god's wishes. So it is likely that no HP has it prepared.

However, as Dvalin vote may take place a few days from now, the HP of a god that changed his mind could prepare Word of Recall and nullify his vote. I think the "No Backsies" rule may have some provision preventing this.

[Silverionmox]

Word of recall still is incredibly useful to get back home quickly, especially when the priests don't expect combat - and all the rules are in place to make it very unlikely. So it reasonable for them to prepare it, especially since they all have the flexibility to convert it to a "wound" spell.

[NerdyKris]

Why are you all assuming that's even possible? There's an energy barrier around the room. They physically can't leave the room. Durkon was able to because he abdicated his position to someone else. The vampires were able to pass through it initially because they were the ushers, whom one would assume would have such access.

[Jay R]

Even if a High Priest could do this, I don't expect Rich will have a character do something that would end the story prematurely.

He's had multiple opportunities to have characters do clever things that would prevent his plot, but somehow, it just never happens.

[Ganbatte]

A god probably can't tell his high priest to WoR out of there because of the no take back rule.


If you're the high priest of a God, the odds are pretty good that you kind of agree with what that God's wishes are. Why on earth would you Word of Recall out of the meeting and thus negate your God's vote, unless your God explicitly told you to do so? Which they won't because of the "no backsies" rule.

Why are you people continuing to repeat this? The "no backsies" rule does just what it says: it prevents someone from changing their votes after it's been stated, end of the story.
It has absolutely zero to do with the High Priest leaving through Word of Recall of any other means, which would be using a loophole of the rules just like Hel's been doing since the beginning.


I also seem to remember that the Giant wrote something about "Word of Recall" and why Malack did not had it prepared. IIRC, it was something like: If you're going to use your highests spells slots for spells in case of defeat, then you're more likely to be defeated than if you had used those for the combat.

Those clerics may think the same and Word of Recall may not have prepared. Even if it could be useful for... returning home.

This. If a HP uses Word of Recall, their god loses his vote. This would only be useful if the god wanted to change his vote, something that he would only know he would want to do after his HP has prepared their spells. If the HP wasted a slot with it, it would be one less spell to help protect their god's wishes. So it is likely that no HP has it prepared.

This argument also doesn't hold any water, Malack didn't have Word of Recall prepared because he was already a high level vampire cleric who could turn into gaseous form and/or resurrect inside his coffin, his template already gave him plenty of life-saving measures so he skipped on WoR.
This doesn't apply to the other clerics.

[Vinyadan]

Why are you all assuming that's even possible? There's an energy barrier around the room. They physically can't leave the room. Durkon was able to because he abdicated his position to someone else. The vampires were able to pass through it initially because they were the ushers, whom one would assume would have such access.

I quote you. If there is a "hard power" explanation, this probably is it.

[BaronOfHell]

if a high priest cannot act on its own...
Which I didn't write.

[Sith_Happens]

Why are you all assuming that's even possible? There's an energy barrier around the room. They physically can't leave the room. Durkon was able to because he abdicated his position to someone else. The vampires were able to pass through it initially because they were the ushers, whom one would assume would have such access.

This seems plausible. The barrier is "divine"-colored so it seems likely one or more of the gods themselves put it there, in which case including a selective Dimensional Lock or equivalent effect would be trivial.

[Cazero]

Why are you people continuing to repeat this? The "no backsies" rule does just what it says: it prevents someone from changing their votes after it's been stated, end of the story.
It has absolutely zero to do with the High Priest leaving through Word of Recall of any other means, which would be using a loophole of the rules just like Hel's been doing since the beginning.
First, High Priests are supposed to stay here and defend the interests of their patron deity. Any one of them who dare leave of his own volition is not deserving of the status of High Priest in the first place. Such foolish behavior will get them demoted from their rank, cut off from their divine mojo, judged and sentenced to some horrible fate by their ex-peers, and probably denied the afterlife they should deserve. Nobody sane would do that.
Second, leaving the place negate your vote. Removing your vote is a backsie. The rules forbid them to do it. The gods are not allowed to ask their priests to pull a trick like that.
Third, the loophole abuse is Hel's backup plan. She wasn't using any loophole when she voted, or gloated, or reminded a demigod in explicit terms that they made a deal concerning a vote.
Fourth, it would make a very lame story with useless main characters. That just wouldn't work after a thousand comics worth of an heroic story where the main characters continuously gained in epicness and relevance to the plot.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why are you all assuming that's even possible? There's an energy barrier around the room. They physically can't leave the room. Durkon was able to because he abdicated his position to someone else. The vampires were able to pass through it initially because they were the ushers, whom one would assume would have such access.

And Belkar was able to leave because ...

glass can break
gravity, or
because he is not a priest?

[NerdyKris]

Belkar never entered the chamber, and he left the temple before the meeting started.

[Jasdoif]

And Belkar was able to leave because ...

glass can break
gravity, or
because he is not a priest?
Belkar never entered the room the barrier is around. That's why Roy was going to go look for him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0997.html).

[Onyavar]

Why can't a high priest just leave via Word of Recall and negate their vote?

Also, it's too late for that now. Whether or not a priest of the "yeah"-Gods is leaving now ONLY matters with regards of the "destroy the world" decision.

Problem is, there is a high-level vampire cleric loose who happened to kill and vamp a dozen other high level characters in record time. He is now bent to kill and destroy in the dwarven homelands - because, honestly, I don't think that the "Clanmoot" attendents are easy to influence if they're not vamped.

In the end, Hel und Undurkon can also win by vamping a few dwarven cities. I still think this is what her wager with Thor was about.

[Ganbatte]

First, High Priests are supposed to stay here and defend the interests of their patron deity. Any one of them who dare leave of his own volition is not deserving of the status of High Priest in the first place. Such foolish behavior will get them demoted from their rank, cut off from their divine mojo, judged and sentenced to some horrible fate by their ex-peers, and probably denied the afterlife they should deserve. Nobody sane would do that.

Not if the God himself sends the message to the priest: "I can't go back on my vote, so you get out of there getting my presence nullified".
It's the kind of rule loopholing that Hel's been abusing the entire arc.


Second, leaving the place negate your vote. Removing your vote is a backsie.

No, this is just your fanfiction. Changing your vote after it's been thrown in the lot is forbidden, anything else is still left unspecified and thus prone to loopholes.


Third, the loophole abuse is Hel's backup plan. She wasn't using any loophole when she voted, or gloated, or reminded a demigod in explicit terms that they made a deal concerning a vote.
Who cares? She's still abusing the rules to her own benefit, so all the other clerics can too.


Fourth, it would make a very lame story with useless main characters. That just wouldn't work after a thousand comics worth of an heroic story where the main characters continuously gained in epicness and relevance to the plot.
You can make main characters useful without writing everyone else around them as thundering buffoons.

[hroþila]

What has she done that's an abuse of any loopholes so far?

Let's see:
1) Got a representative in the Godsmoot. A novelty, but well within her rights as per the rules.
2) Turned the unprotected ushers into partisan vampires. Inelegant, for sure, and a loophole, but the only effect on the Godsmoot itself was stressing out Baldur's high priest when he couldn't find the ushers. Other than that, the Creed of Stone has no impact whatsoever on the Godsmoot vote.
3) Voted. The horror.
4) Gloated. It should be noted that the consequences of destroying the world that she spells out, including possibly becoming the new queen of the Northern Pantheon, would have come to pass just the same had the gods voted Yes with or without her participation, and whether or not she actually wanted to destroy the world or end up with all those souls.
5) Happily relied on the "no backsies" rule. Well within her rights as per the rules.
6) Conspired with some demigods to make sure they attended the Godsmoot and, in at least one case, "secured" their vote (later it turned out she hadn't secured it that well, but that's irrelevant here). I agree this is underhanded, but there are no loopholes involved.
7) Had her high priest resign on the spot so that Durkon could leave without her losing her vote. Only true loophole so far, I think.
8) Had the vampire ushers rush the hall to teleport away. Might be a loophole, if they still counted as ushers and had a right to be there; might be a calculated breach of the rules, if they didn't have a right to be there but Hel figured it'd be fine, since things wouldn't get too out of hand before they left.
9) Sent her former high priest to have the dwarven council dominated, vamped or otherwise manipulated so that Dvalin ends up voting Yes. A blatant attempt to manipulate a vote, I agree - but you'll note this isn't actually part of the Godsmoot :smallamused:. Dvalin could choose not to ask the council and vote whatever he felt like. The vote of some random paranoid tree-fearing bearded folk is not protected by the rules of the Godsmoot (it's Godsmoot, not Dwarrowmoot).

That's not so bad. Probably about what you (if you were one of the gods) would expect of an Evil goddess that has been wronged for so long.

Meanwhile, a fight erupted in the middle of the Godsmoot because of some guy abusing a loophole to try to make her vote void.

[NerdyKris]

If the options are "I'm misinterpreting the rules" vs "The characters are idiots", then maybe you're misinterpreting the rules. There's a magical barrier around the room, the high priest of Odin said nobody can leave, so maybe we should be assuming the simplest explanation, which is that nobody is able to leave. The only person we've seen leave the room is Durkula and his vampire lackeys, AFTER he abdicated his position.

The rules are NOT as complicated as everyone is trying to make them. None of the representatives can leave. Maybe all the bodyguards are able to leave and enter just like Durkon did. We'll probably find that out in the next strip.

[Pyrous]

What has she done that's an abuse of any loopholes so far?

Let's see:

3) Voted. The horror.


I'm so happy I wasn't drinking anything when I read this. :smallbiggrin:

[Rogar Demonblud]

Hopefully the space inside the barrier includes at least one lavatory, or else the next few days are going to get messy.

[goodpeople25]

Hopefully the space inside the barrier includes at least one lavatory, or else the next few days are going to get messy.
As much as i dislike "Magic" as a basis for speculation... They do have magic. If they're creative Stone shape and/or some other spells could work to make some type of makeshift latrine, the barrier shouldn't block waste for example, so they could just pour it off the mountain for instance or just destroy/shift it somehow.

[Jay R]

This is not a comic about high priests playing games with Godsmoot rules. No high priest is going to fix this scenario so the Order of the Stick don't have to have their adventure.

[Cazero]

No, this is just your fanfiction. Changing your vote after it's been thrown in the lot is forbidden, anything else is still left unspecified and thus prone to loopholes.
Removing your vote is changing your vote to blank. Changing your vote is a backsie and forbidden. That's not a fanfiction, that's basic understanding of causality and application of common sense.
This is a two words rule designed to be followed by a broad variety of Lawful, Chaotic, Good and Evil entities. A legalese document of three pages defining exactly what is a backsie would only create backsies that aren't technicaly backsies and thus allowed within the rules. That would be asking for trouble to happen. You're supposed to guess the spirit of the rule in a split second and follow that.

[NerdyKris]

I feel like a lot of people are putting more thought into this than the author or any of the characters in the strip. This isn't some Byzantine political thriller, it's just a set up to reveal the villain’s plan and motivation. Take the rules at face value, and you'll find the story a lot more enjoyable. Especially since a lot of the problems people are finding are just because they're confused about small details.

[Peelee]

Removing your vote is changing your vote to blank.

Eh, I'd call it "changing your vote to 'abstain,'" but same thing. All else you wrote I agree with.

[Ganbatte]

Removing your vote is changing your vote to blank. Changing your vote is a backsie and forbidden.

Nah it isn't. Backsie--->going back on your choice---> "I said Yes but now I'm saying No"---> can't do that.

Anything else is fair game, if the God were to somehow be killed while the Godsmoot is in session his vote would be invalidated. If someone were to kill or remove his High Priest his vote would be invalidated (whether by someone else's or the God's own hands) and none of it would count as a backsie.
You're just broadening and stretching the term waaay beyond it's intended meaning to cover possible plot holes, but it doesn't mean that's what the term means.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Obviously you haven't spent much time around small children (savor that blessing). "No Backsies" means you aren't allowed to change at all. It's just that children don't know the words 'ossify', 'engraved' or 'petrification'.

If the High Priest dies, I imagine the rules have a provision for suspending the vote until the replacement arrives. Even without violence, there's still old age, and apparently these can be multi-day events.

[Ganbatte]

Obviously you haven't spent much time around small children (savor that blessing). "No Backsies" means you aren't allowed to change at all. It's just that children don't know the words 'ossify', 'engraved' or 'petrification'.

Yes, you can't change your mind. At all.
Having your vote stop counting by whatever means isn't changing your mind.


If the High Priest dies, I imagine the rules have a provision for suspending the vote until the replacement arrives. Even without violence, there's still old age, and apparently these can be multi-day events.

Except this would make the Roy vs Durkula's fight pointless.

[Peelee]

Nah it isn't. Backsie--->going back on your choice---> "I said Yes but now I'm saying No"---> can't do that.

Backsie--->going back on your choice---> "I said Yes but now I'm abstaining"---> can't do that.

[Pyrous]

Nah it isn't. Backsie--->going back on your choice---> "I said Yes but now I'm saying No"---> can't do that.

Anything else is fair game, if the God were to somehow be killed while the Godsmoot is in session his vote would be invalidated. If someone were to kill or remove his High Priest his vote would be invalidated (whether by someone else's or the God's own hands) and none of it would count as a backsie.
You're just broadening and stretching the term waaay beyond it's intended meaning to cover possible plot holes, but it doesn't mean that's what the term means.

And you are narrowing it's meaning to find them.

Backsie--->going back on your choice--->"I said yes but now I'm not saying it anymore"--->this includes changing from Yes to Abstain

EDIT: ninja'd

[Ganbatte]

Backsie--->going back on your choice---> "I said Yes but now I'm abstaining"---> can't do that.

Of course not, but I said nothing about abstaining. Why are you talking of things I never mentioned? :smallconfused:

[Cizak]

Except this would make the Roy vs Durkula's fight pointless.

Except it wouldn't. Hel had no spare High Priest that Roy knew of, since she'd never sent a High Priest to a moot before. Roy thought he was getting rid of the only way Hel had to vote. Turns out HPoH actually had prepared spares, but that's irrelevant.

The Roy-HPoH fight needed to happen for the character progression it gave Roy and Durkon, and HPoH leaving alive was always a foregone conclusion.


No, this is just your fanfiction.

Hey now, don't go changing phrases around, putting words into people's mouths and trying to make them sound bad as a way of arguing. That would be wrong.

[Peelee]

Of course not, but I said nothing about abstaining. Why are you talking of things I never mentioned? :smallconfused:


ab·stain
əbˈstān/
verb
decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion.

You did not mention the word, yes. However, that is different from not mentioning the act of abstaining. If a deity has the ability to cast a vote, and does not, then that is abstaining from the vote. If a deity commands a cleric to leave, nullifying their own vote, that deity is abstaining from the vote.

Anything else you have trouble understanding, just let me know. I have no problem explaining how things work.

[Ganbatte]

Except it wouldn't. Hel had no spare High Priest that Roy knew of, since she'd never sent a High Priest to a moot before. Roy thought he was getting rid of the only way Hel had to vote. Turns out HPoH actually had prepared spares, but that's irrelevant.

It really is. Point stands that so long as the High Priest is no longer available then the vote loses its power even if not changed in nature, and thus not violating the rule.
In short: send a message to your priest, "Word of Recall yourself", there. Vote is still "yes" but it simply no longer counts.
No backsies rule respected, world safe, everyone happy.


You did not mention the word, yes.

Exactly. Abstaining and making your vote null are two different things.

[Cizak]

It really is. Point stands that so long as the High Priest is no longer available then the vote loses its power even if not changed in nature, and thus not violating the rule.

Point stands that the gods need to have a physical representative in the room for their vote to count. If a High Priest is no longer available the vote is nullified, and if the priest bails on command of their god then that god has taken back their vote, which is violating the backsies rule. Roy thought HPoH was Hel's only possible physical representative. Thus attacking him makes sense.


In short: send a message to your priest, "Word of Recall yourself", there. Vote is still "yes" but it simply no longer counts.
No backsies rule respected, world safe, everyone happy.

I'm reading:
"In short: Send a message to your priest, "Word of Recall yourself", there. You have just taken back your vote by taking back your physical representative. Vote has been changed to "redacted" and no longer counts.
Backsies rule violated, you triggered something that sparks a whole new set of god politics, who knows how that affects the world, everyone worried.

[Ganbatte]

Point stands that the gods need to have a physical representative in the room for their vote to count. If a High Priest is no longer available the vote is nullified
Correct

and if the priest bails on command of their god then that god has taken back their vote, which is violating the backsies rule.

Not so much as they didn't go back on their choice but rather used the rules to invalidate it. It's still "yes" but sadly no longer counts in the tally.
It's the kind of thing that Hel's been doing so far, so why would the other gods be forbidden from abusing loopholes? So long as they don't change their "yes" into "no" and viceversa the no backsies rule is respected, anything else is fair game.

[Jasdoif]

So long as they don't change their "yes" into "no" and viceversa the no backsies rule is respected, anything else is fair game.Do we have the full text of the "No Backsies" rule somewhere? In my experience it's common for rules to be more complicated, and more far-reaching in scope, than their titles imply (for example, grappling (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple)).

[Jay R]

Except this would make the Roy vs Durkula's fight pointless.

Nonsense. That fight showed that Roy has the Spellsplinter feat, provided some really good backstory and characterization for Durkon, revealed the truth about the vampire to Roy, gave Roy a major epiphany, revealed the next step in the HPoH's plan, set up the next goal for the party, and gave us several good jokes.

It would only be pointless if this were a serious story about high priestly political maneuverings at a godsmoot, instead of a comic strip about the Order of the Stick.

[Peelee]

Exactly. Abstaining and making your vote null are two different things.
Oooohhhh, I see what happened. You are under the impression that voluntary invalidation totally counts.

OK, so what you're trying to refer to is called a spoilt vote. Now, if a high priest dies while voting, it would likely count as a spoilt vote, and thus no longer be counted. However, while intentionally spoiling a vote is typically an acceptable practice, it appears in this case to be directly affected by the "no backsies" rule, as it is, by its very nature, an intentional changing of the vote.

This is not a "loophole;" rather, the technical term here is more akin to "direct violation of a rule."

[Ganbatte]

Nonsense. That fight showed that Roy has the Spellsplinter feat, provided some really good backstory and characterization for Durkon, revealed the truth about the vampire to Roy, gave Roy a major epiphany, revealed the next step in the HPoH's plan, set up the next goal for the party, and gave us several good jokes.

It would only be pointless if this were a serious story about high priestly political maneuverings at a godsmoot, instead of a comic strip about the Order of the Stick.

Context please.


OK, so what you're trying to refer to is called a spoilt vote. Now, if a high priest dies while voting, it would likely count as a spoilt vote, and thus no longer be counted. However, while intentionally spoiling a vote is typically an acceptable practice, it appears in this case to be directly affected by the "no backsies" rule, as it is, by its very nature, an intentional changing of the vote.

Except you didn't change anything, the vote is still there as it originally was but as for the other rules and regulations it cannot be tallied (no High Priest present).

I'm getting tired of repeating this same thing over and over, so I'm gonna close it now.

[kaoskonfety]

It would only be pointless if this were a serious story about high priestly political maneuverings at a godsmoot, instead of a comic strip about the Order of the Stick.


6 billions times this

[Douglas]

This whole debate seems centered around nitpicking and assumptions of interpretation. With that in mind, this quote seems relevant:

Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?

[Peelee]

Except you didn't change anything, the vote is still there as it originally was but as for the other rules and regulations it cannot be tallied (no High Priest present).

...i literally just described how what you are proposing works. I think at this point you are simply confused.

[Ganbatte]

...i literally just described how what you are proposing works. I think at this point you are simply confused.

No, what you described was your own interpretation of how the thing works - which differs from mine.
People aren't "confused" just because they don't agree with you.

[Jasdoif]

I'm getting tired of repeating this same thing over and over, so I'm gonna close it now.Perhaps if you tried elaborating instead of repeating the same thing over and over, you might get results more to your liking?

I see exactly what you're trying to say: the voluntary removal of a representative prevents the otherwise entirely valid vote from being counted, just like the involuntary removal of a representative would. And that, since the deity hasn't stated a change in their vote, you believe this doesn't violate the gods' "No Backsies" rule.

I just think you're wrong :smalltongue: Ambiguity between title and exact text aside...the classical "backsie" is reneging on a promise, and ordering a subordinate to invalidate your vote (or willfully allowing a subordinate to invalidate your vote if you have the capacity to stop them) is just as much failing to stick to your vote as changing your vote is.

[Cizak]

Not so much as they didn't go back on their choice but rather used the rules to invalidate it. It's still "yes" but sadly no longer counts in the tally.

If a god tells their HP to bail because "I don't want my Yes to be counted anymore" then they have quite literally gone back on their choice and violated the backsies rule.


It's the kind of thing that Hel's been doing so far, so why would the other gods be forbidden from abusing loopholes?

You keep repeating that Hel uses loopholes, but I have yet to see any concrete examples. This is a sidenot though as the main topic is that I think you're wrong about how "no backsies" work and that you have yet to give any convincing arguments.


So long as they don't change their "yes" into "no" and viceversa the no backsies rule is respected, anything else is fair game.

"No backsies" encompasses redacting your vote as well as changing it.

[Ganbatte]

Perhaps if you tried elaborating instead of repeating the same thing over and over, you might get results more to your liking?
I already did plenty of times, which is why I'm not gonna bother anymore. The elaborations are there for anyone who wants to read them.


I see exactly what you're trying to say: the voluntary removal of a representative prevents the otherwise entirely valid vote from being counted, just like the involuntary removal of a representative would. And that, since the deity hasn't stated a change in their vote, you believe this doesn't violate the gods' "No Backsies" rule.

It's a rule loophole and moving behind the curtain of the "no backsies - can't change your choice" vote. Which is exactly what's Hel's been abusing the entire arc so far. I don't see why such practice should only be allowed when in her favour and not everyone elses's.

[Peelee]

No, what you described was your own interpretation of how the thing works - which differs from mine.
People aren't "confused" just because they don't agree with you.

Ok, im going to try to break this down as easily as i can. Let me know where i lose you.

If nothing changes, then everything stays the same. For a vote to no longer count, something has to change. This is called a spoilt vote. If, for instance, a Cleric dies, his vote is spoilt. And no longer counts. The change is that he died.

In your argument, you want a priest to leave. That is a change, and that change spoils his vote, under the rules. However, this is an intentional spoiling, and thus an intentional change.

I assume you have no problem with any of the above, since that would really be having a problem with logic itself.

Now. The only contentious claim here is whether this voluntary change is affected by the "no backsies" rule. You have yet to offer any evidence that it does not, except claiming that "there is no change," which is a false assertion - you are merely not acknowledging the change, or more likely, waving it off as trival. The problem with that is that it is not a trivial distinction here. The issue is whether or not voluntarily altering the effect of your vote after casting it is covered under the "no backsies" rule.

Actually, after writing this, it seems to me that you may be seeing that "altering your vote" and "altering the effect of your vote" are dissimilar things. Please correct me if i am wrong here.

[Kish]

This is just the latest, "I have made up a way the anti-Hel priests should be able to easily render the threat null and void, they should do it and it's a plot hole if they don't, the fact that I am not the author and the author didn't actually indicate what I'm loudly asserting is irrelevant!" argument. I really wonder why they've gotten so popular lately.

[Jasdoif]

It's a rule loophole and moving behind the curtain of the "no backsies - can't change your choice" vote.If it happens to be the case "No backsies" means "can't change your choice" and only means "can't change your choice", sure. Otherwise, this is less "loophole" and more "screw the rules".

Which is probably a distinction that doesn't concern Hel (and possibly you), but anyone who wants to continue with the world might be concerned with the consequences.

[Ganbatte]

--cut--
Actually, after writing this, it seems to me that you may be seeing that "altering your vote" and "altering the effect of your vote" are dissimilar things. Please correct me if i am wrong here.

The no backsies rule says that a vote cannot be changed into the other mid-way, "yes" cannot become a "no" and viceversa.
End of the rule.
The presence rule says that for said vote to count the High Priest of said divinity must be present.
End of the rule.

Thus, with no High Priest present the "yes" vote cannot be counted to reach a decision. End of the story.

And also the absolutely last time I'm gonna re-re-re-elaborate this extremely simple concept, further requests will only get this post to be copypasted.

[Cizak]

The no backsies rule says that a vote cannot be changed into the other mid-way, "yes" cannot become a "no" and viceversa.
End of the rule.

"No backsies". You can't take back your vote. That includes taking it back from the voting urn, i.e. taking your HP away from the moot.

Well, at least you're making it crystal clear how you're operating under a false premises.

[Jasdoif]

The no backsies rule says that a vote cannot be changed into the other mid-way, "yes" cannot become a "no" and viceversa.
End of the rule.I don't suppose you could prove that's "end of the rule"?

[King of Nowhere]

I don't see why people keep being so certain that this or that way to circumvent the rule would be ok. How so? The only piece of evidence we have from the comic is those two words: "no backsies". And apparently from those two words somebody can deduce that while it would not be ok for a god to change his vote, it would be allowed to tell your high priest to get away from here, or to suicide, or to be killed by your bodyguard, or whatever you can think of. And some of them are insisting that it is the only clear and reasonable deduction stemming from those two words. Wow. It's amazing what can be discerned from "no backsies".

So, let me offer an alternative hypothesis: since we have absolutely no way whatsoever to figure out what exactly that rule does or does not entail, let's just assume that it means something that is coherent with the actions of the guys with a wisdom in the mid-twenties? Or how about making the assumption that the people who actually know the full rules of the godsmoot are acting in a reasonable way?

P.S. Now that I think about it, there is a way to figure out the rules: it entails kidnapping rich burlew and torturing the information out of him. So unless one does exactly that, we have no reason to propend for one interpretation over another.
P.P.S. If one actually does that, please avoid giving him any injury that would impair his writing skillls.

[Ganbatte]

"No backsies". You can't take back your vote. That includes taking it back from the voting urn, i.e. taking your HP away from the moot.

You're not taking it back from the urn: the vote is still there but cannot be used.
There's no rule saying anything about removing HP, your "i.e." is entirely in your mind and not in the story.

[Cizak]

You're not taking it back from the urn: the vote is still there but cannot be used.

Your HP is your ballot. If you tell them to get out of there with the specific purpose of not making your vote count, you're taking it back from the urn.


There's no rule saying anything about removing HP

I don't even know what comic you're reading anymore.

[Douglas]

There's no rule saying anything about removing HP, your "i.e." is entirely in your mind and not in the story.
And your absence of it is entirely in your mind and not in the story. The story has said nothing directly either way on the subject, therefore both interpretations are possible. When both interpretations are possible, the one that fits the events shown (i.e. that no character has even considered trying this trick) is more likely to be correct.

[Jasdoif]

There's no rule saying anything about removing HP, your "i.e." is entirely in your mind and not in the story.It'd be awfully nice if you could prove that the rules you say don't exist, don't exist. I mean, I recall quite a few posts in the comic discussion threads expressing frustration over how HPoH keeps dropping rules on us the moment they apply and dashing expectations; it'd be comforting to know where all the answers are in advance.

[Ganbatte]

I don't see why people keep being so certain that this or that way to circumvent the rule would be ok. How so? The only piece of evidence we have from the comic is those two words: "no backsies". And apparently from those two words somebody can deduce that while it would not be ok for a god to change his vote, it would be allowed to tell your high priest to get away from here, or to suicide, or to be killed by your bodyguard, or whatever you can think of. And some of them are insisting that it is the only clear and reasonable deduction stemming from those two words. Wow. It's amazing what can be discerned from "no backsies".

And also from the whole plot-point of Roy managing to kill Durkula...
And also how we've been shown the Godsmoot's rules can be played aroud by Hel...

Amazing how many indications that removing a HP is a viable solution, isn't it?


So, let me offer an alternative hypothesis: since we have absolutely no way whatsoever to figure out what exactly that rule does or does not entail, let's just assume that it means something that is coherent with the actions of the guys with a wisdom in the mid-twenties??

The same guys who didn't realize they could kill Durkon and prevent interference with the council?
I wouldn't bet on their "wisdom" being that high if I was you.


Your HP is your ballot. If you tell them to get out of there with the specific purpose of not making your vote count, you're taking it back from the urn.

Nah. Once the vote is stated is stated, it's not like a piece of paper you can make disappear before the tally, everyone knows what you voted. The lot has been thrown.
So long as you don't go back on that everything else is fair game.

[Pyrous]

I don't see why people keep being so certain that this or that way to circumvent the rule would be ok. How so? The only piece of evidence we have from the comic is those two words: "no backsies". And apparently from those two words somebody can deduce that while it would not be ok for a god to change his vote, it would be allowed to tell your high priest to get away from here, or to suicide, or to be killed by your bodyguard, or whatever you can think of. And some of them are insisting that it is the only clear and reasonable deduction stemming from those two words. Wow. It's amazing what can be discerned from "no backsies".


I suggested in the Rules of the Godsmoot thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?475761-Rules-of-the-Godsmoot-INs-and-OUTs) that the fact that we don't know how that rule works should be added in the first post.

ETA:



The same guys who didn't realize they could kill Durkon and prevent interference with the council?
I wouldn't bet on their "wisdom" being that high if I was you.


Maybe they didn't have line-of-sight / line-of-effect to hit Durkula.

[Ganbatte]

It'd be awfully nice if you could prove that the rules you say don't exist, don't exist.

I said that they're not in the story, not that they don't exist.
This is the sort of misreading that generates pages of posts who don't address the point.

[Jasdoif]

I said that they're not in the story, not that they don't exist.
This is the sort of misreading that generates pages of posts who don't address the point.Ah....So you're alright with being patently wrong about your interpretation, and that's why you persist on arguing it.

That makes sense...this isn't about the rules of the Godsmoot at all, this is about your complaints with the Godsmoot.

[Ganbatte]

Ah....So you're alright with being patently wrong about your interpretation, and that's why you persist on arguing it.

That makes sense...this isn't about the rules of the Godsmoot at all, this is about your complaints with the Godsmoot.

I suggest you stop personally attacking me as well.
Cizak claimed something that is not in the story -one way or the other- and as such open to interpretation. I never said anything about things not existing at all as you claimed. Putting words into other people's mouths is kinda rude.
I ignored two such attempts in the past but I see they still keep coming.

[Ruck]

Even if a High Priest could do this, I don't expect Rich will have a character do something that would end the story prematurely.

He's had multiple opportunities to have characters do clever things that would prevent his plot, but somehow, it just never happens.

This is not a comic about high priests playing games with Godsmoot rules. No high priest is going to fix this scenario so the Order of the Stick don't have to have their adventure.
Haha, these. Whatever the conclusion to this plotline is, I feel confident in saying it will not be resolved by a side character finding a rules loophole.


This is just the latest, "I have made up a way the anti-Hel priests should be able to easily render the threat null and void, they should do it and it's a plot hole if they don't, the fact that I am not the author and the author didn't actually indicate what I'm loudly asserting is irrelevant!" argument. I really wonder why they've gotten so popular lately.
Whew, this too. It's almost like this section was designed to drive rules lawyers nuts.

It also seems like many of the solutions proposed by posters during this plotline revolve around having the foreknowledge that something like this would happen. I think we, the reader, have to appreciate what a totally unprecedented situation this Godsmoot has become. For example, there are probably no rules against vampirizing the neutral administrators because none of the gods thought anyone would actually DO that-- or, at best, the one god capable of it would never have a cleric at the moot anyway.

On top of that, the gods don't seem especially concerned with mortals. They have rules in place to protect their own high priests, but that's about it. They're as likely as anything to not even care about the fight going on right now; they cast their votes, and now they're waiting for the tiebreaker.

The other thing people seem to keep forgetting: Why would the Gods who voted yes want to negate their vote?

[King of Nowhere]

And also from the whole plot-point of Roy managing to kill Durkula...
And also how we've been shown the Godsmoot's rules can be played aroud by Hel...

Amazing how many indications that removing a HP is a viable solution, isn't it?



Oh, I see where the assumption may be coming from. But you're taking this as meaning more than it has to.
Because that tellls us that removing a high priest invalidates the vote.
That in no way implies that the gods can endeavor to remove a high priest, or a high priest should decide to remove himself.
I (and everybody else, apparently) belive it is much more likely that the 'no backsies' rule includes removing your high priest from the place, and that Roy doing it only worked because roy was officially the bodyguard of durkula but especially because roy was acting entirely on his own behalf and without any influence from any of the gods.
It's like there is a rule 'if the urn with the votes is destroied in a fire the vote is null' and 'you cannot tamper with the vote', I go on and assume that setting the urn on fire does count as 'tampering with the vote'. Hey, if a random pyro comes and set fire to your urn without you or anybody around having a hand in it, that's fair game, but if one of the participants in the vote just happen to utter 'oops!' and drop a match in it, it would not be accepted.

And really, Roy's case is extremely convoluted and probably unprecedented. Normally, it is assumed the bodyguard of the priest is a member of the church, therefore someone taking orders from the same god, therefore someone who wouldn't try to invalidate his own god's vote. Roy instead has diplomatic immunity from the church of hel, but he has nothing to do with it - in fact didn't even knew who he was escorting - and acted entirely on his own. Roy is not a high priest or anything, so no god can be held accountable for his actions. Just because there was a rule loophole that allowed roy to act, it does not mean there must be more loopholes, or that said loopholes involve something the high priests can do. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say loopholes would be possible only with the involvment of other unrelated people who are not supposed to be there, because I assume the rules were made thinking of most plausible situations.

Roy attacking durkula is already a big enough loophole without looking for an even more blatant one. And by the way, i remember a commentary from the giant on the question "why a high priest does not kill himself", to which he replied "I do not want suicide to be a good solution in my story, it would be a bad example", to which I really wanted to reply "and how is 'trying to tamper with a democratic vote by killing one of the voters' any better?", but unfortuntely the discussion was already several days old and buried in pages of other stufff at the time I found it.


EDIT:

I said that they're not in the story, not that they don't exist.
This is the sort of misreading that generates pages of posts who don't address the point.
It seems to me that in your posts, like for example this one

It really is. Point stands that so long as the High Priest is no longer available then the vote loses its power even if not changed in nature, and thus not violating the rule.
In short: send a message to your priest, "Word of Recall yourself", there. Vote is still "yes" but it simply no longer counts.
No backsies rule respected, world safe, everyone happy.

you are saying exactly that. You are not saying "we have no evidence that rules exist to forbid high priests to invalidate their vote". You are stating in no uncertain terms that willingly nullifying your vote is ok and there clearly are no rules to forbid that.

So if you want to argue that we don't know the rules for sure and we can only speculate on what other rules we are not told of, then it's exactly what we are arguing for. If you want to argue that we are wrong because surely nullifying your vote does not conflict with the rules of the godsmoot, then the burden of proof falls upon you.

[Jasdoif]

I suggest you stop personally attacking me as well.People aren't "attacking" just because they disagree with your premise.


I never said anything about things not existing at all as you claimed.Well, actually...
So long as they don't change their "yes" into "no" and viceversa the no backsies rule is respected, anything else is fair game.For "anything else" to be "fair game", there would have to be nothing existing to alter the "anything else" scenarios.

I suppose strictly speaking you didn't say the word "existing", in the same way the story hasn't strictly said the gods aren't allowed to order their high priests out of the room; but I figure we're both allowed to interpret things.

[Ganbatte]

People aren't "attacking" just because they disagree with your premise.

Well, actually...For "anything else" to be "fair game", there would have to be nothing existing to alter the "anything else" scenarios.

I suppose strictly speaking you didn't say the word "existing", in the same way the story hasn't strictly said the gods aren't allowed to order their high priests out of the room; but I figure we're both allowed to interpret things.

Well now that I've corrected you hopefully you'll stick to what I say, not what you think I might be saying, possibly. :smallwink:


You are saying "we have no evidence that rules exist to forbid high priests to invalidate their vote". You are stating in no uncertain terms that willingly nullifying your vote is ok because so far there are no shown rules to forbid that.

This is what I'm saying.

[Ruck]

And really, Roy's case is extremely convoluted and probably unprecedented. Normally, it is assumed the bodyguard of the priest is a member of the church, therefore someone taking orders from the same god, therefore someone who wouldn't try to invalidate his own god's vote. Roy instead has diplomatic immunity from the church of hel, but he has nothing to do with it - in fact didn't even knew who he was escorting - and acted entirely on his own. Roy is not a high priest or anything, so no god can be held accountable for his actions. Just because there was a rule loophole that allowed roy to act, it does not mean there must be more loopholes, or that said loopholes involve something the high priests can do. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say loopholes would be possible only with the involvment of other unrelated people who are not supposed to be there, because I assume the rules were made thinking of most plausible situations.
I think this is important. There's no precedent for this. Probably the only reason there isn't a rule against bodyguards attacking their own priests is that doing so is by definition the opposite of what a bodyguard does, and every church/high priest is assumed to have chosen sufficiently loyal bodyguards for the purpose. This is probably the first time ever a high priest has shown up to the Godsmoot by tricking his bodyguard into attending under false pretenses.


This is what I'm saying.

I don't think there's any reason to assume "no backsies" (probably not the formal text of the rule) doesn't cover situations like high priest nullification.

[Jasdoif]

Well now that I've corrected you hopefully you'll stick to what I say, not what you think I might be saying, possibly. :smallwink:You clarified "that they're not in the story, not that they don't exist" about rules that could invalidate your premise. Meaning if they ever get mentioned in the story (mentioned, not created, since they would already exist), your premise will be directly invalidated by the story...ie "patently wrong".

Now that made me think, "That makes the claim tenuous, to the point of being nonsensical. I don't think Ganbatte's nonsensical, what's the deal? Wait...what if the crux of the whole thing is how the rules are presented out-of-universe, instead of how the rules are applied in-universe like I've been assuming? That could explain all my confusion!"


So I went with the conclusion that I accidentally misinterpreted your underlying premise like I misread your posts, rather than make disingenuous assumptions. I'll try to stick to what you said, but I hope you don't mind my unwillingness to denigrate you :smalltongue:

[Ganbatte]

You clarified "that they're not in the story, not that they don't exist" about rules that could invalidate your premise. Meaning if they ever get mentioned in the story (mentioned, not created, since they would already exist), your premise will be directly invalidated by the story...ie "patently wrong".

Now that made me think, "[i]That makes the claim tenuous

Welcome to, like, 100% of the speculations that get posted on this forum, daily.

[Jasdoif]

Welcome to, like, 100% of the speculations that get posted on this forum, daily.I think somewhere around 37% of speculations are plausible but unprovable at the time they're posted, 23% are already invalidated by earlier comics or posts by the Giant, 17% are repeats of the "plausible but unprovable" speculations worded differently where arguments break out over which theory is correctly despite them meaning the same thing, 11% claim all evidence to the contrary is the result of characters conspiring and/or dreaming, 9% involve applying D&D rules in contravention to what's in the comics, and 3% involve Trigak.

Some All these numbers are speculative on my part.

[Ruck]

I think somewhere around 37% of speculations are plausible but unprovable at the time they're posted, 23% are already invalidated by earlier comics or posts by the Giant, 17% are repeats of the "plausible but unprovable" speculations worded differently where arguments break out over which theory is correctly despite them meaning the same thing, 11% claim all evidence to the contrary is the result of characters conspiring and/or dreaming, 9% involve applying D&D rules in contravention to what's in the comics, and 3% involve Trigak.

Some All these numbers are speculative on my part.

"Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. For-fty percent of all people know that."

[Throknor]

"Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. For-fty percent of all people know that."

“Pfft. Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.”

[Ganbatte]

I think somewhere around 37% of speculations are plausible but unprovable at the time they're posted, 23% are already invalidated by earlier comics or posts by the Giant, 17% are repeats of the "plausible but unprovable" speculations worded differently where arguments break out over which theory is correctly despite them meaning the same thing, 11% claim all evidence to the contrary is the result of characters conspiring and/or dreaming, 9% involve applying D&D rules in contravention to what's in the comics, and 3% involve Trigak.

Some All these numbers are speculative on my part.

Which is funny if you consider that you basically accused the whole forum of being "tenuous to the point of being nonsensical" for something that happens on a daily basis since the beginning :smallbiggrin:

Save for Trigak, now that I think of it.

[Jasdoif]

Save for Trigak, now that I think of it.He's more prominent than Guy with a Halberd....Which has a related speculation, oddly enough.

[Jay R]

"No backsies" isn't the rule. It's an informal shorthand reference to the rule.

None of us know the exact wording of the rule. There's no point trying to argue for its application in any direction. We just don't know.

[But I'm willing to bet that whatever the actual rule is, it will not be used to let some priest prevent the Order of the Stick's adventure from occurring.]

[Pyrous]

and 3% involve Trigak.

Vampire (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?326558-Durkon-is-not-the-vampire!) Trigak (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0021.html) is using his dominate ability to keep the HPs from casting Word of Recall. He must've found some way to hide the swirly eyes!

[King of Nowhere]

"No backsies" isn't the rule. It's an informal shorthand reference to the rule.

None of us know the exact wording of the rule. There's no point trying to argue for its application in any direction. We just don't know.

[But I'm willing to bet that whatever the actual rule is, it will not be used to let some priest prevent the Order of the Stick's adventure from occurring.]

I'd go farther and bet that rich was intentionally vague will never explain the full rules, because in that case someone will probably find a way to go around them. He imagined the story with roy figthing durkula and then going to stop him from dominating the dwarven elders, and then he figured out which kind of rules he needed to justify the story going that direction. Making a list of the full rules of the godsmoot would only complicate his life and risk adding unnecessary plot holes. If he leaves them vague, we can always guess that the rules were exactly those needed to ensure that the actions taken in the story were reasonable.

[EmberIce]

This whole debate seems centered around nitpicking and assumptions of interpretation. With that in mind, this quote seems relevant:
[quote about making assumptions that fit the story]


We can indeed make whatever assumption we want, but I'm particularly interested in seeing if certain story events can be explained without making assumptions that are contrived, overly elaborate or just plain silly.


This is just the latest, "I have made up a way the anti-Hel priests should be able to easily render the threat null and void, they should do it and it's a plot hole if they don't, the fact that I am not the author and the author didn't actually indicate what I'm loudly asserting is irrelevant!" argument. I really wonder why they've gotten so popular lately.

Because that's exactly what real people would be doing during the godsmoot.

It's the whole thing about Level 1 Intelligent characters from Eliezer Yudkowsky. If you or I or most people were in the position of a high priest during the godsmoot while the world is at risk of being destroyed and then recreated under the rule of an evil death deity, we wouldn't sit and do nothing at all while Roy is fighting. We would be thinking of something, anything. Thinking is how humans solve problems, after all, and solving problems is what makes humans humans instead of animals. If there's a problem, we think and we try. And we fail. A lot. That's ok. Maybe there's indeed no easy solution to the conflict. Maybe we are indeed completely powerless and only Roy can save everyone. But you can bet any real person, and not plot marionette, would at least try.

Now, you could say that it makes for a better story. Sure, that's probably the case. OotS isn't about this sort of problem solving anyway, so I assent the author has some leniency to use his unimportant minor characters as plot marionettes and the plot isn't ruined just because they don't act like real people. But don't be all self-righteous about people trying to solve the godsmoot probem. Solving problems is quite literally the most human things humans can do.

[Kish]

Because that's exactly what real people would be doing during the godsmoot.
Making up rules, deciding they exist, and loudly wondering why no one's acting on them? I doubt it, somehow.

(I get that you wanted to respond to something else, but really, don't quote me if what you want to respond to isn't what I said. Unlike the characters in the comic, I'm actually here to object.)

[Jasdoif]

But don't be all self-righteous about people trying to solve the godsmoot probem.What about people who are assuming the high priests are unintelligent for not trying things, when the high priests are the ones who would know in advance that those things won't work? Wouldn't the high priests be unintelligent for trying things they already knew wouldn't work?

[Sith_Happens]

https://camo.derpicdn.net/d2abae7b0290a8c189547c71523e91e81fc9fea9?url=http% 3A%2F%2Fwww.fybertech.com%2F4get%2F13403410381630. gif


"No backsies" isn't the rule. It's an informal shorthand reference to the rule.

None of us know the exact wording of the rule. There's no point trying to argue for its application in any direction. We just don't know.

[But I'm willing to bet that whatever the actual rule is, it will not be used to let some priest prevent the Order of the Stick's adventure from occurring.]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y083uOcg1fc/VWjsqOmLDTI/AAAAAAADuR4/9-n_M8xXVuU/s400/7ac.jpg

[GreatWyrmGold]

Why not? No reason. They just won't.

1018 reveals that the priests who voted "Aye" will work to make sure the ayes have it. It doesn't matter that the world will end, or that Hel's plan might make some of them change their minds—nope, "My god—right, wrong, or realizing he's been played!"

[Peelee]

https://camo.derpicdn.net/d2abae7b0290a8c189547c71523e91e81fc9fea9?url=http% 3A%2F%2Fwww.fybertech.com%2F4get%2F13403410381630. gif

That was delightful.

[goodpeople25]

What about people who are assuming the high priests are unintelligent for not trying things, when the high priests are the ones who would know in advance that those things won't work? Wouldn't the high priests be unintelligent for trying things they already knew wouldn't work?
Agreed, though that logic doesn't cover the related complaint of the High priests not attacking Durkon.

Of course for that you have the fact that the window of thought was like 6 or 12 seconds. But it's not like that matters at all :smallbiggrin:

[Jasdoif]

Agreed, though that logic doesn't cover the related complaint of the High priests not attacking Durkon.That one's a lot more arguable. But there are plenty of possible reasons for them to attack the swarm of vampires instead of the two at the back; ranging from "they didn't hear the reveal of HPoH's plan or that it's a teleport orb, and thought protecting Roy was a better idea", to "they're fully aware they can't leave themselves, hope/know Roy can follow him, and didn't want to risk HPoH getting away without anyone to follow them if they couldn't take him down in one round", to "they didn't want to risk hitting Roy", to "they didn't think it through to see anything more important than blasting vampires around Roy", to "ew, vampires, hit as many valid targets as possible". And it doesn't even have to be the same reason for all of them!

I suspect we'll find out when Roy tries to chew them out over it, though.

[Ruck]

We can indeed make whatever assumption we want, but I'm particularly interested in seeing if certain story events can be explained without making assumptions that are contrived, overly elaborate or just plain silly.



Because that's exactly what real people would be doing during the godsmoot.

It's the whole thing about Level 1 Intelligent characters from Eliezer Yudkowsky. If you or I or most people were in the position of a high priest during the godsmoot while the world is at risk of being destroyed and then recreated under the rule of an evil death deity, we wouldn't sit and do nothing at all while Roy is fighting. We would be thinking of something, anything. Thinking is how humans solve problems, after all, and solving problems is what makes humans humans instead of animals. If there's a problem, we think and we try. And we fail. A lot. That's ok. Maybe there's indeed no easy solution to the conflict. Maybe we are indeed completely powerless and only Roy can save everyone. But you can bet any real person, and not plot marionette, would at least try.

Again: Why would any of the High Priests go directly against the wishes of their Gods? You call it a "problem"-- I say a good half of the priests there don't see it as one. And the other half is worried that doing something will violate the rules and cause what they most fear.

Not to mention, there's a huge difference in coming up with a plan in real-time when you have six seconds a round to do so, and when you have a week between strips to think about it.

[King of Nowhere]

Because that's exactly what real people would be doing during the godsmoot.

It's the whole thing about Level 1 Intelligent characters from Eliezer Yudkowsky. If you or I or most people were in the position of a high priest during the godsmoot while the world is at risk of being destroyed and then recreated under the rule of an evil death deity, we wouldn't sit and do nothing at all while Roy is fighting. We would be thinking of something, anything. Thinking is how humans solve problems, after all, and solving problems is what makes humans humans instead of animals. If there's a problem, we think and we try. And we fail. A lot. That's ok. Maybe there's indeed no easy solution to the conflict. Maybe we are indeed completely powerless and only Roy can save everyone. But you can bet any real person, and not plot marionette, would at least try.


I fully agree with that. And hey, there is absolutely no indications that those high priests weren't doing exactly that. After all, there isn't much indication that somebody is thinking. And maybe they didn't act because there is not a way they can help without causing worse damage. Also keep in mind that half the priests there are supporting their gods who actually want the world to end, so they will be thinking on how to help the bad guys. In the end they sort of have an agreement that both sides will not interfere, and considering that both sides are equally balanced, and that a war among them would risk causing a new snarl, this informal agreement seems most reasonable.



We can indeed make whatever assumption we want, but I'm particularly interested in seeing if certain story events can be explained without making assumptions that are contrived, overly elaborate or just plain silly.


I fully agree with that too. And I think we can fully explain why the priests did not leave or negate their vote somehow without assuming they are all a a bunch of morons, which would be a contrived, overly elaborate, or just plain silly idea. And that's why I find it reasonable to assume that the "no backsies" rule does indeed include telling your priest to remove himself from the voting process. It also seems a reasonable assumption that while they may never have imagined that a bodyguard would want to attack his priest, they would have certainly imagined someone teleporting out and made a rule against that.
Unless you are trying to argue that is is contrived, overly elaborate or just plain silly that the priests would be forbidden to leave or that the gods would be forbidden to order their priests to leave?

[hroþila]

1) The world wouldn't be recreated under Hel's rule. She wagers she might end up the new queen of the Northern Pantheon. There's two other pantheons. Also, it's not clear what being the leader of a pantheon entails - might even be a prima inter pares thing.
2) Her being Evil might not be all that important. Plenty of other Evil gods. Most gods would probably prefer to be under a Good or Neutral ruler, but that doesn't mean they see an Evil ruler as something to avoid at all costs - including risking total divine annihilation by Snarl.
3) The stance that it might be better to destroy the world now and save every soul is not completely unreasonable. As the clock ticks, it'll become even more so. Destroying the world in this scenario is not necessarily Evil.
4) The High Priests understand this and act accordingly. They also trust their gods.

[NerdyKris]

Also: They... Can't... Leave... The.... Chamber.


It's ridiculous that there has been four pages arguing rules minutiae that even the clerics probably didn't bother with, since it's far simpler to say "You can't leave the room, even by recall or teleport, so the issue of negating your own vote in that manner will never ever come up, so there is no reason to strictly define what constitutes taking back a vote or whether a cleric can do so."


But why go with the simplest explanation when you there's rules that could be lawyered?

[factotum]

It's ridiculous that there has been four pages arguing rules minutiae that even the clerics probably didn't bother with, since it's far simpler to say "You can't leave the room, even by recall or teleport, so the issue of negating your own vote in that manner will never ever come up

Er, so how did Durkula and his friends teleport out, exactly, if that isn't possible?

[Douglas]

Er, so how did Durkula and his friends teleport out, exactly, if that isn't possible?
Maybe the magic barrier has an anti-teleport feature but is specific to high priests?

[Rogar Demonblud]

It's probably specific to divine magic, and doesn't affect arcane (or psionics). After all, a bunch of high level clerics are only going to be wielding one of those.

[Peelee]

Er, so how did Durkula and his friends teleport out, exactly, if that isn't possible?

"Let all who have a formal role remain sequestered here." Vampire is no longer high priest, vampire is not sequestered.

"No attendee shall pass through this hall's arches until the issue is resolved." You can argue that they are no longer attendees (this is a weak argument, I think), but they have definitely not passed through the hall's arches.

In any event, I think the sequester is a formal ruling, and the "hall's arches" is more of a general guideline to the non-high priests. If you* wanna rules-lawyer what's going on here.

Source (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1016.html).

*"You" in the general sense. Not, ya know, you specifically.

[NerdyKris]

Er, so how did Durkula and his friends teleport out, exactly, if that isn't possible?

I said that back on the first page.

He abdicated his position. It's apparent from the fact that he teleported out that anyone who is not a representative can leave at any time. I'd assume that the next strip involving Roy will have him confirming that only the high priests have to stay in the chamber.

[Ganbatte]

Because that's exactly what real people would be doing during the godsmoot.

It's the whole thing about Level 1 Intelligent characters from Eliezer Yudkowsky. If you or I or most people were in the position of a high priest during the godsmoot while the world is at risk of being destroyed and then recreated under the rule of an evil death deity, we wouldn't sit and do nothing at all while Roy is fighting. We would be thinking of something, anything. Thinking is how humans solve problems, after all, and solving problems is what makes humans humans instead of animals. If there's a problem, we think and we try. And we fail. A lot. That's ok. Maybe there's indeed no easy solution to the conflict. Maybe we are indeed completely powerless and only Roy can save everyone. But you can bet any real person, and not plot marionette, would at least try.

This.


Now, you could say that it makes for a better story. Sure, that's probably the case. OotS isn't about this sort of problem solving anyway, so I assent the author has some leniency to use his unimportant minor characters as plot marionettes and the plot isn't ruined just because they don't act like real people. But don't be all self-righteous about people trying to solve the godsmoot probem. Solving problems is quite literally the most human things humans can do.

This, also. The only reason why it's not happening is because this is a OOTS-centric story and as such it falls to the heroes to solve everyone else's problems with them staying as second-rate background presences. It's not, say, Game of Thrones, where everyone is given equal opportunities to actively try to gain their own advantage (often succeding against good/bad/neutral characters) over everyone else.

[Vinyadan]

I said that back on the first page.

He abdicated his position. It's apparent from the fact that he teleported out that anyone who is not a representative can leave at any time. I'd assume that the next strip involving Roy will have him confirming that only the high priests have to stay in the chamber.

Or that Roy lost his position as bodyguard because the high priest changed, so that he cannot invalidate Hel's vote by killing the new priest and has to leave to room to go on zany adventures.

[King of Nowhere]

Now, you could say that it makes for a better story. Sure, that's probably the case. OotS isn't about this sort of problem solving anyway, so I assent the author has some leniency to use his unimportant minor characters as plot marionettes and the plot isn't ruined just because they don't act like real people. But don't be all self-righteous about people trying to solve the godsmoot probem. Solving problems is quite literally the most human things humans can do.

No.
That would make for an awfully stupid plot.
Sure, the meta-reason for the oots solving problems is that they are the protagonists, but you can't make a good story on that premise. There must be in-world reasons for it. So a good plotting means setting up a situation such that the protagonists are actually the only ones who can solve the problem, then letting them solve the problem. That requires setting up a series of coincidences that make it so that the heroes are the only ones placed in the right place at the right time, and that requires setting them up in a way that does not feel too contrieved.
I especially resent theimplication that since there are other people on the scene, they should find a way to solve the problems, because 'solving problems is what humans do'. The world is full of people with problems, so clearly having a bunch of people there is not enough to solve a problem. Especially when exactly half of those people do actually want to help hel's cause.
So don't be all self-righteous about people coming up with reasonable in-world reasons for why those solutions would not work.

[Ganbatte]

So don't be all self-righteous about people coming up with reasonable in-world reasons for why those solutions would not work.

Your post would have sounded a lot more convincing if you didn't end it this way, which makes it sound more like a type of personal "No, you!" post rather than an honest discussing the argument.

[LinkBoy]

Your post would have sounded a lot more convincing if you didn't end it this way, which makes it sound more like a type of personal "No, you!" post rather than an honest discussing the argument.

EmberIce gets a pass on it though, 'cause he shares your view. But then again you have quite the track record of ignoring anything you can't confront comfortably and trying to derail arguments by claiming them to be too personal rather than actually reading what they're saying.

[Bulldog Psion]

The heroes are the Black Swans. They are the one a million people; the ones who succeeded; the lottery winners. And that's how it usually is in fiction.

If one of the High Priests was the one who resolved the whole matter, then the entire comic would have followed them instead, and we'd be wondering why that snarky NPC fighter Roy and his psychotic halfling sidekick Belkar didn't step in at this point and get around the problems caused by the Moot rules, etc. etc..

The heroes don't succeed because they're protagonists; they're protagonists because they're the ones who succeed.

If they weren't the people who succeeded, the "camera" wouldn't be focused on them. The story is an explanation of how they succeeded -- the moments of skill or insight, the random chances, the coincidences, the dumb luck.

That's why movies are made about, say, 1 in 3 million snipers rather than random guy #456,299 who was a really decent guy and had an interesting personality, but got his head blown off 2 seconds into his first patrol by an IED. The first one is a complete story of something extraordinary, the second one is just depressing.

Now, a good story makes the moments of skill or insight, the random chances, the coincidences, and the dumb luck both hairsbreadth enough for drama and excitement, and plausible enough so you don't shake your head in disbelief. With different values of "plausible" depending on genre, of course.

Now, the question is, is the current situation too contrived to be satisfying?

Obviously, the story can't be taken over by other people other than the Order, because this is the story of how this particular group of people happened to be the ones who can't get the job done.
---------------------------------------------------

But, is the Godsmoot actually an enjoyable part of the story, or is it a strained and unsatisfying part that makes it feel like the protagonists are being kept in the spotlight purely for plot reasons, rather than earning their place in the spotlight in a manner satisfying to the readership?

To me, there's no question that the high priests should be written as solving the current impasse. The only question is if the story handles the explanation of why the Order does it in such a way as to make it "feel" right that they do.

I just read through 994-1020 in one go, and it flows quite smoothly when it's read all at once.

The statement "Let all who have a formal role remain sequestered here" by the High Priestess of Odin in #1016 appears to cover many of the objections. As soon as Lurky abdicates his post in favor of Macey Shadows, he no longer has a formal role and is therefore no longer sequestered.

Furthermore, what evidence do we have that the High Priests actually know that Lurky has a Teleport Orb prior to his use of it? Sure, Gontohel says something when he returns with it, but I don't think that was declaimed to the entire assembly in ringing tones, more of a conversational aside to Lurky.

Roy knows what the Orb is for, but he has no chance to explain what's going on before the High Priests are distracted by a mob of vampires entering.

Then there's a brief combat and Lurky teleports out.

NOW, after 1020, there will be time for the relationship between Roy and Macey Shadows to be resolved; I suspect that what will happen will be the following:

1. Roy finds out that he can't attack Macey because he's Lurky's bodyguard, not hers.

2. Since he's not an official bodyguard, his expulsion from the moot follows.

3. Before he's booted out, he speaks with the "No" representatives briefly and he and they agree he should take his adventuring party to take out Lurky and thus ensure Dvalinn's vote isn't subverted.

My conclusion: reading it over, it doesn't seem contrived or unsatisfying to me. There's a tie; Roy tries to break the tie by killing Lurky; he fails; the demigods vote and another tie results; Gontohel appears almost immediately with the Orb; Lurky abdicates, provides the succession of Macey Shadows, and after about 2 rounds of combat, teleports out with the surviving vampires.

In order to prevent this, the priests would have to have information they didn't have at the time -- that Lurky had a Teleport Orb -- and make a split-second decision to attack an apparently low-priority target standing passively inside an Anti-Life shell rather than the vampires running forward shouting "Grrrrawwwwr!" and "So thirsty!"

Lurky handled a series of setbacks quickly and adroitly. The gods' representatives may realize he's up to real shenanigans now, but it was his teleporting out that informed them of his intention to "cheat" at the same instant as it placed him beyond their reach.

Their rational choice at the moment is to provide Roy with some priestly contacts in Dwarven lands who could help him, and send him on his way to fight Lurky.

So I don't see any problem with the story. It works.

The reason the High Priests aren't trying to "solve" the problem earlier is that from their perspective, there's no problem to solve. While unexpected, Lurky's appearance and his vote fall within the legal patterns of the Moot. There's no reason for them to figure out how to nullify his vote any more than there is a reason for them to figure out how to nullify the Priest of Sunna's vote, say.

Lurky only openly started cheating when he teleported out.

[Ganbatte]

EmberIce gets a pass on it though, 'cause he shares your view.

EmberIce doesn't get "a pass" on anything since he was the first to use that phrasing and a "No, You!" kind of answer can only come off as second.
What you just said makes no sense and is actually another example of the aforementioned type of answers, where one tries to shift the blame rather than acknowledging the post in itself.

[NerdyKris]

But he's not cheating by teleporting out. The representative for Hel is still in the room. He could have sent whats his name out alone and we'd have the same situation, just without the personal motivation for Roy. Nobody has cheated yet.

[Bulldog Psion]

But he's not cheating by teleporting out. The representative for Hel is still in the room. He could have sent whats his name out alone and we'd have the same situation, just without the personal motivation for Roy. Nobody has cheated yet.

True.

And as far as that goes, the Moot might not care, legally speaking, if the Council of Clans is "under the influence" or not.

That's more of an internal church matter of Dvalinn.

Though that does raise the question, though, of why Dvalinn didn't convene the Council prior to the Godsmoot, so that his High Priest could supply a vote immediately. Perhaps to avoid mass panic over a vote that probably wouldn't be cast anyway?

[Cazero]

Though that does raise the question, though, of why Dvalinn didn't convene the Council prior to the Godsmoot, so that his High Priest could supply a vote immediately. Perhaps to avoid mass panic over a vote that probably wouldn't be cast anyway?
The same reason he needs to consult them at all. Proper procedure.

[King of Nowhere]

The heroes are the Black Swans. They are the one a million people; the ones who succeeded; the lottery winners. And that's how it usually is in fiction.

If one of the High Priests was the one who resolved the whole matter, then the entire comic would have followed them instead, and we'd be wondering why that snarky NPC fighter Roy and his psychotic halfling sidekick Belkar didn't step in at this point and get around the problems caused by the Moot rules, etc. etc..

The heroes don't succeed because they're protagonists; they're protagonists because they're the ones who succeed.



Hey, that's another really neat way to put it.


Your post would have sounded a lot more convincing if you didn't end it this way, which makes it sound more like a type of personal "No, you!" post rather than an honest discussing the argument.
And your posts would have sounded much more convincing if you hadn't started ignoring everything that didn't suit you and instead accused us who don't share your opinions of being unfair.
But I'm not trying to convince you. You have decided that this plot is stupid because you have decided that surely negating your vote is not covered by the rules of the godsmoot, and if four pages of discussion where virtually everybody disagrees with you didn't persuade you that there is at least an uncertainty over whether the rules of the godsmoot would actually work like that, then nothing will.
So I was not answering to that, but to the implicit accusation made by iceman of being unfair. Yes, it's so self-righteous of me to assume that the rules we are not told would actually work in a way that will justify the story without requiring the whole supporting cast to behave like a bunch of morons, and to disagree with those who would assume otherwise. What was I thinking?

[Ganbatte]

And your posts would have sounded much more convincing if you hadn't started ignoring everything that didn't suit you and instead accused us who don't share your opinions of being unfair.
But I'm not trying to convince you. You have decided that this plot is stupid because you have decided that surely negating your vote is not covered by the rules of the godsmoot, and if four pages of discussion where virtually everybody disagrees with you didn't persuade you that there is at least an uncertainty over whether the rules of the godsmoot would actually work like that, then nothing will.
Except I very clearly clarified that I agree this "uncertainty" exists.
You might wanna read a thread better before jumping to conclusions that have already been disproven.

[Ruck]

This.



This, also. The only reason why it's not happening is because this is a OOTS-centric story and as such it falls to the heroes to solve everyone else's problems with them staying as second-rate background presences. It's not, say, Game of Thrones, where everyone is given equal opportunities to actively try to gain their own advantage (often succeding against good/bad/neutral characters) over everyone else.

No, the reason it's not happening is because you are both assuming the default position of "definitely good, definitely wants to save the world, definitely has no uncertainties about what might happen if they attack" for, apparently, every high priest.

Once again: Half the high priests SUPPORT THIS DECISION. The other half may be uncertain as to what to do, what they are allowed to do, may not be able to come up with plans at 6 seconds a round in real time the way you can when you have a week between strips to think about it, etc.