Worst Godly One-liner justifying vote in #999 considering divine role

[Deliverance]

Rereading #999 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html), I'll have to nominate Frigg's one-liner.

For a supposed goddess of wisdom, what sort of lame argument is "The lives of our mortal children should not be brushed aside so easily, lest they turn from our guidance"?

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? If we brush them aside easily, they may stop being guided by us. A sound long-term consideration of the possibility that mortals being treated like dirt might choose to reject the gods and go their own ways.

Well, no.

In the scenario on hand, if the gods DO vote to destroy the world, then all those mortals are not going to get a chance to turn aside from the gods' guidance. They are going to be toast in short order, each soul going to its respective destination where it will perform its job of turning into a celestial mana battery for its respective god. There IS no long term for the mortals here, and most of them will die without ever knowing why. And if their souls question it once they are in their afterlives, well, so be it. Go back to enjoying your just reward and being a good little mana battery: Your mortal existence is at an end, as is your individual importance.

Then a new world will be created by the gods and populated by the gods' new creations, a new world with new mortals whom the gods may or may not inform of the fate of the previous world.

If the mortals never learn that there was a previous world or the fate of it (as is the case for almost everybody in the current OOTS world regarding that's world's previous world), the decision certainly wouldn't affect how they behaved.

If, on the other hand, the these new mortals were to be informed, why would they react to the information that their gods destroyed another world, killing everybody in the process, to protect creation from a great evil and ensure there was a world for them to populate, turn from the guidance of the gods? If there ever were a clear sign of being a "chosen people", that would be it!

So while the justifications of some of the other gods may seem shallow (being bored and wanting to experiment, not really caring but wanting to do less work, etc.) I don't think any of the others is as poor a fit with the god who is supposed to utter them as Frigg's.


Counterarguments gladly accepted, as is arguments that some other god gave an ever worse justification :smallsmile:

[hroþila]

At least in the LG afterlife, the process of becoming a "celestial mana battery" is largely voluntary, as it requires a cooperative soul to actively seek out the higher levels of the mountain.

And the denizens of World 3.0 might not appreciate the destruction of World 2.0 as much as you think. It's like your lover telling you they lied to their spouse so that they could cheat on them and have a nice romantic dinner with you - sure, it benefits you personally, but what does that say about your lover?

[Keltest]

I am rather skeptical that the residents of world 3.0 would be all that understanding if it ever got out that the gods are/were willing to destroy the world for reasons that have nothing to do with them. And remember that word got out that there was a world 1.0.

[NerdyKris]

Oh look, another "What's wrong with murdering everyone on the planet" argument.

Like hroþila and Keltest said, finding out the gods will murder every last one of their followers to save their own skins does not make them the type of person you'd follow.

[hroþila]

Oh look, another "What's wrong with murdering everyone on the planet" argument.

Like hroþila and Keltest said, finding out the gods will murder every last one of their followers to save their own skins does not make them the type of person you'd follow.
Let's not get too carried away - it's not necessarily murder, and it's not necessarily Evil. It depends on why it's done, what the motivations are and how risky the alternative is.

Kill everyone because otherwise they and everybody else WILL be unmade = ok
Kill everyone because otherwise they and everybody else are VERY likely to be unmade and we can't reasonably wait any longer and further increase the odds = ok
Kill everyone because otherwise I personally run SOME risk of being unmade = not ok

[Pyrous]

Balder: "Huh? Oh, whatever Thor and Odin say goes for me, too. [...] I guess."

Do I have to provide an actual argument?

[Keltest]

Let's not get too carried away - it's not necessarily murder, and it's not necessarily Evil. It depends on why it's done, what the motivations are and how risky the alternative is.

Kill everyone because otherwise they and everybody else WILL be unmade = ok
Kill everyone because otherwise they and everybody else are VERY likely to be unmade and we can't reasonably wait any longer and further increase the odds = ok
Kill everyone because otherwise I personally run SOME risk of being unmade = not ok

Ok, sure, but "Is dumb enough to build something they want to keep around the mondo important prison that has to be destroyed to be fixed." is not a glowing endorsement either.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, the way D&D gods works is significantly different from the way other mythologies work.

I'll use Tolkien's religion as an example, since it's fictional and therefore not against forum rules to discuss. Manwe Sulimo is Lord of the Breath of Arda whether the mortals follow him or not; they are utterly insignificant to him when it comes to power. If every member of every one of Tolkien's races forgot the existence of Eru Iluvatar, he would still rule the universe as utter and undisputed benevolent despot.

If they all consciously rejected him, it would not damage him in the slightest; they would only be harming themselves. The power relationship is infinitely one-sided; the mortals can no more disempower the gods than I can reduce the power of a volcano by yelling at it.

In D&D, though, the gods are clearly the product of a democratic society and mindset. They get their power, one way or another, by follower "votes:" worship, souls in their afterlife, whatever. In fact, if they have no worshippers, they'll actually die, IIRC, in some D&D settings.

So if the gods alienate the mortals, those mortals are actually capable of creating new gods to supplant them. The Dark One was a mortal raised to godhood by the "faith-votes" of his people. If enough mortals reject the old gods, and choose new ones who promise not to kill them, then the old gods will wither into shadows of their former selves and perhaps even die, while the new gods will ascend to overwhelming might and take over ordering the world.

So, Frigg's one-liner isn't dumb, because of the quasi-elected nature of divine power in D&D. If enough people reject the current gods, they'll melt away and new ones better able to serve the needs of mortals will arise, probably from among the mortals' own ranks.

[Flame of Anor]

If enough people reject the current gods, they'll melt away and new ones better able to serve the needs of mortals will arise, probably from among the mortals' own ranks.

How could they reject the current gods when they (the mortals) are all dead?

[Deliverance]

Oh look, another "What's wrong with murdering everyone on the planet" argument.

Wrong, NerdyKris.

I am not making an argument asking "what's wrong with murdering everyone on the planet" or arguing that the planet should be destroyed, I am saying that I consider Frigg's argument to be poor and much worse than anything I'd expect from somebody described as a goddess of wisdom, which is an entirely different matter.



Like hroþila and Keltest said, finding out the gods will murder every last one of their followers to save their own skins does not make them the type of person you'd follow.
The Snarl getting loose means, as far as the gods know, the undoing of creation and possibly harm to themselves That's what happened the other time around (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html). This is the problem they are faced with and determining an answer to, not a choice between themselves and their followers.

[Keltest]

Wrong, NerdyKris.

I am not making an argument asking "what's wrong with murdering everyone on the planet" or arguing that the planet should be destroyed, I am saying that I consider Frigg's argument to be poor and much worse than anything I'd expect from somebody described as a goddess of wisdom, which is an entirely different matter.


The Snarl getting loose means, as far as the gods know, the undoing of creation and possibly harm to themselves That's what happened the other time around (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html). This is the problem they are faced with and determining an answer to, not a choice between themselves and their followers.

Its a question of how easily they deem the followers and their world a lost cause rather than trying to protect their investment. "Our followers are going to be ticked if we pick the quick and easy route at the cost of their lives." is not an unreasonable position.

[wumpus]

In D&D, though, the gods are clearly the product of a democratic society and mindset. They get their power, one way or another, by follower "votes:" worship, souls in their afterlife, whatever. In fact, if they have no worshippers, they'll actually die, IIRC, in some D&D settings.


This might be true of official D&D, but the Giant has clearly dropped it for OOTS. Hel has zero living followers. None. And it isn't entirely clear if she gains power from the souls she receives or not (she *would* gain obvious powers if her amount exceeds Odin's, but it isn't clear if she gains power from even one less soul.

From the various Giant quotes, I'd guess that this is one of those "Not interested. Not fleshing out." parts of the story that are set up to move the plot and not vice versa. It is clear that collectively, the gods have little interest in humanity. There is also the point that the gods will likely gain followers regardless of what "guidance" the gods might bother with, they have a whole corps of clerics personally delivering divine power through clerical magic (well Hel only has a handful of recently created vampires. But no other followers to deliver to anyway).

[Deliverance]

I am rather skeptical that the residents of world 3.0 would be all that understanding if it ever got out that the gods are/were willing to destroy the world for reasons that have nothing to do with them. And remember that word got out that there was a world 1.0.
Based on the best knowledge available to the gods at present, the Snarl getting loose in world 2.0 would result in the killing of all the gods' followers in a Snarl-induced apocalypse as part of the Snarl's undoing of creation. Last time around, the surviving gods hid in their outer plane homes hoping to avoid detection and attack, and this worked. There's no guarantee that they, their planes, and all the souls, would have remained safe a second time around. It might be the case, it might not.

As for the word getting about a world 1.0 in world 2.0, my impression certainly was that this was a tightly controlled secret in world 2.0 known to only the gods, a few reliable servants, and adventurers involved in containing the Snarl, not something about which "word got out" on a larger scale. Even at this point in the story, with the world on the verge of Snarl-induced armageddon, the majority of people we know know about the Snarl and world 1.0 are gathered at the godsmoot.

But assuming knowledge would get out on large scale, I've got a hard time imagining the majority of people acting remotely like humans usually do reacting to "we killed somebody you never knew, the result of which is that you live now" or "to avoid risking the undoing of creation and the possible destruction of the heavenly afterlives, we gathered the souls of our followers and created a new world for you and your people to live in" with anything but a "hard times calls for hard choices", "I respect their sacrifice.. DONE. Let me get on with my life.", or "good choice!". :smallbiggrin:

The greater danger, people being people, would be that telling people in wider circulation about the Snarl and world 2.0 would undoubtedly result in Snarl cults or idiot mages trying to free the Snarl to control it. Which is probably one of the reasons that World 1.0 and the Snarl has been a tightly controlled secret in world 2.0 together with the gods generally dislike for people knowing that they can be killed.

[Deliverance]

Balder: "Huh? Oh, whatever Thor and Odin say goes for me, too. [...] I guess."

Do I have to provide an actual argument?
:smallbiggrin:

That's why I included "considering divine role". :smalltongue:

I expect a goddess of wisdom's one-liner to be wise or a good argument.. I expect nothing such of the god of beauty.

[littlebum2002]

Well, the way D&D gods works is significantly different from the way other mythologies work.

I'll use Tolkien's religion as an example, since it's fictional and therefore not against forum rules to discuss. Manwe Sulimo is Lord of the Breath of Arda whether the mortals follow him or not; they are utterly insignificant to him when it comes to power. If every member of every one of Tolkien's races forgot the existence of Eru Iluvatar, he would still rule the universe as utter and undisputed benevolent despot.

If they all consciously rejected him, it would not damage him in the slightest; they would only be harming themselves. The power relationship is infinitely one-sided; the mortals can no more disempower the gods than I can reduce the power of a volcano by yelling at it.

In D&D, though, the gods are clearly the product of a democratic society and mindset. They get their power, one way or another, by follower "votes:" worship, souls in their afterlife, whatever. In fact, if they have no worshippers, they'll actually die, IIRC, in some D&D settings.

So if the gods alienate the mortals, those mortals are actually capable of creating new gods to supplant them. The Dark One was a mortal raised to godhood by the "faith-votes" of his people. If enough mortals reject the old gods, and choose new ones who promise not to kill them, then the old gods will wither into shadows of their former selves and perhaps even die, while the new gods will ascend to overwhelming might and take over ordering the world.

So, Frigg's one-liner isn't dumb, because of the quasi-elected nature of divine power in D&D. If enough people reject the current gods, they'll melt away and new ones better able to serve the needs of mortals will arise, probably from among the mortals' own ranks.

I believe the Discworld mythology works this way, too.

[Deliverance]

Well, the way D&D gods works is significantly different from the way other mythologies work.

I'll use Tolkien's religion as an example, since it's fictional and therefore not against forum rules to discuss. Manwe Sulimo is Lord of the Breath of Arda whether the mortals follow him or not; they are utterly insignificant to him when it comes to power. If every member of every one of Tolkien's races forgot the existence of Eru Iluvatar, he would still rule the universe as utter and undisputed benevolent despot.

If they all consciously rejected him, it would not damage him in the slightest; they would only be harming themselves. The power relationship is infinitely one-sided; the mortals can no more disempower the gods than I can reduce the power of a volcano by yelling at it.

In D&D, though, the gods are clearly the product of a democratic society and mindset. They get their power, one way or another, by follower "votes:" worship, souls in their afterlife, whatever. In fact, if they have no worshippers, they'll actually die, IIRC, in some D&D settings.

So if the gods alienate the mortals, those mortals are actually capable of creating new gods to supplant them. The Dark One was a mortal raised to godhood by the "faith-votes" of his people. If enough mortals reject the old gods, and choose new ones who promise not to kill them, then the old gods will wither into shadows of their former selves and perhaps even die, while the new gods will ascend to overwhelming might and take over ordering the world.

So, Frigg's one-liner isn't dumb, because of the quasi-elected nature of divine power in D&D. If enough people reject the current gods, they'll melt away and new ones better able to serve the needs of mortals will arise, probably from among the mortals' own ranks.
None of this addresses my points in the opening post, though, which was that if the gods DID choose to destroy the world, there'd be no long term for those mortals affected by it to reject the gods in. They'd be dead and gone to their reward.

And there'd be a new world with new mortals created by the gods with their own reasons for accepting or rejecting the gods, just like was the case when world 2.0 was created.

If the gods didn't tell the new people in world 3.0 about the end of world 2.0, these mortals would thus be unable to reject the gods based on the knowledge of the previous end of the world, making Frigg's concerns irrelvant.

And if the gods did tell about it rather than keeping it a closely held secret shared, unless the gods chose to tell these new mortals about the old world in a way that would cause them to reject the gods, which would seem a rather stupid thing to do, there'd be no reason for rejection either, again making her concerns irrelevant.

In other words, for Frigg's reasoning to hold true where any mortals are concerned it pretty much requires that the gods would follow up the recreation of the world with telling the new people they created about the old world rather than keeping it a secret, and furthermore that they'd do so in a way that would hurt themselves.

They didn't do that when they created world 2.0, because that would have been a stupid thing to do. Why would they do so for world 3.0?

Therefore Frigg's argument doesn't seem wise - it barely holds up to logical scrutiny. Give me an honest 'no' vote like Thor's, Freya's, or Sif's! At least they don't pretend to be reacting from wisdom or logic (Frigg's portfolio) but argue in accord with their nature, from emotion.

[Pyrous]

:smallbiggrin:

That's why I included "considering divine role". :smalltongue:

I expect a goddess of wisdom's one-liner to be wise or a good argument.. I expect nothing such of the god of beauty.

I would expect at least an actual reason for his vote.

And considering divine role, I don't know what storms have to do with giving your followers a chance. I can see why a goddess of wisdom would want to give the mortals one more chance to save the world while there is still chance to correct this, but not why a god of storms would do it.

Frigg is not saying "let's not destroy the world". She is agreeing with Loki and Thor that they don't need to do it yet. And that should the mortals on the next world find out about this, they may not want to worship the gods that care so little about their own followers. They may change deities to one of the no-voters, or create their own gods.

[Amphiox]

Wisdom is relative.

If what we've seen of Odin and Thor are typical, one doesn't need to be very wise to serve the wisdom portfolio for the Northern Pantheon.

(In fact, from what we've seen of the entire Stickverse, one does not have to be very wise to serve the wisdom portfolio for the entire world....)

Also, it cannot be assumed that Frigg's words were solely intended as a direct statement of her reasoning. They may have been chosen with the expectation that there would be an audience listening. For example, they may have been tailored with an intent to try to sway the votes of those in the Pantheon who have not yet voted, and thus worded in a way that Frigg judged would appeal to those particular deities. Or it could have been worded with a view towards how the audience of high priests would take it. (This may not matter if the final vote was Yes, but it certainly could if the final vote was No.)

Finally, we don't fully know the specifics of how the relations between followers and their deities continue into the afterlife. In the Lawful Good one we saw that Roy went to, it seems as if the souls retained their own free will, which means it may be possible for the soul of a dead person to turn away from the God they worshipped during life, and this could have ramifications for the gods in question. Certainly, if they destroyed the world, the souls of all those mortals suddenly finding themselves in the afterlife would probably fairly quickly figure out what happened and why.

[Flame of Anor]

This might be true of official D&D, but the Giant has clearly dropped it for OOTS.

The dying part, yeah, but the rest of it not completely: remember that Banjo's smiting was very small because of his dearth of worshipers.

[Cazero]

The dying part, yeah, but the rest of it not completely: remember that Banjo's smiting was very small because of his dearth of worshipers.

New headcanon : Banjo's smiting was the Prestidigitation cantrip.

[Killer Angel]

I vote Njord.
"Ooo, I could try out that new idea I had for a coastline".
Seriously, is this your reason to destroy the world?

[Vinyadan]

It's like your lover telling you they lied to their spouse so that they could cheat on them and have a nice romantic dinner with you - sure, it benefits you personally, but what does that say about your lover?

Which can get even weirder, if you had not understood that it was supposed to be a romantic dinner in the first place.

Anyway, I vote for Fenrir. "Piss on their graves!" Dude, there won't be no graves left!

[Rodin]

I vote Njord.
"Ooo, I could try out that new idea I had for a coastline".
Seriously, is this your reason to destroy the world?

Pretty sure that's a Slartibartfast joke. :smallbiggrin:

[Valynie]

It seems at least that DEAD people count for making a god powerful since Hel expect that the souls of the DEAD dwarves will empower her

Now as seen , in roy's death , there is a check at the gates
Now consider this scenario

* Dead soul : What happened ?
* Deva : your god killed you for the good of your soul
* WHAT ! Frigg her ! I reject her !

In this scenario , the goddess of wisdom is indeed wise

[Onyavar]

I like the idea to poll peoples opinions on "bad one-liners".

A comment on the OP opinion: Um, these are one-liners. True wisdom is so complex that it can hardly be compressed into a one-liner. Friggs one-liner MIGHT seem like fringe-logic, but it could also reflect a complex reasoning including other factors, that just aren't possible to state in one short sentence.

Odin: "I see worlds within worlds and yarn winding yarn" - just another example of a possible complex reasoning, but made more mysterious because "God of Magic". But it could ALSO be just imbecilic utterings of an old fool on his king-ly throne. Do we know? No.

Sif: "Logic be damned" - you could make a case that Sif is just an irrational, optimistic fool, too.

Well, in my opinion Balder, Hoder, Njord and Loki do have really imbecilic reasoning. And of course, if we include the demigods, Dvalin made a very frustrating and (in our opinion) unneccessary choice.

Now, when it comes to "best" reasons, I vote for Hermod. He really rocked there, standing up to his would-be-ally.

[Mx56]

If the mortals never learn that there was a previous world or the fate of it (as is the case for almost everybody in the current OOTS world regarding that's world's previous world), the decision certainly wouldn't affect how they behaved.
Very few people know about World 1.0 because the only things left were the deities, who weren't keen on telling anybody about it. In your scenario, you have millions (?) of souls knocking about the afterlife who remember there being a previous world, at least some of whom know about the Snarl. We're in "How does the world spanning conspiracy keep the Big Secret within the conspiracy?" territory here, there'd be too many sentient entities in existence capable of blowing the whistle.

[woweedd]

I would expect at least an actual reason for his vote.

And considering divine role, I don't know what storms have to do with giving your followers a chance. I can see why a goddess of wisdom would want to give the mortals one more chance to save the world while there is still chance to correct this, but not why a god of storms would do it.

Frigg is not saying "let's not destroy the world". She is agreeing with Loki and Thor that they don't need to do it yet. And that should the mortals on the next world find out about this, they may not want to worship the gods that care so little about their own followers. They may change deities to one of the no-voters, or create their own gods.
The second paragraph is true. The gods in Norse Mythology had more then one role. Rich just listed their most prominent one for purposes of readers who don't know who's who, given the fact their one-liners often connect with that Godly role. Often but not always. Yes, Thors a Storm God but he's also a Good-aligned God and from that perspective, he wouldn't want to snuff out this many mortal live. Heck, he defends mortals pretty regularly from Fire Giants like Surt, as seen in #40 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html) and even if he's clearly somewhat bad a it, at least in the case of taht joke, he still seems liek he'd have sympathies towards Humanity. Then again, that's putting aside the fact that, Good or otherwise, The Gods of Rich's world are pretty much completely self-interested as the Goblins will be glad to tell you.

[Bulldog Psion]

I'll say Dvalin's justification was the dumbest.

I can't stand the Lawful Stupidity of the dwarves, and Dvalin is clearly the God of Lawful Stupid, so ... yeah. :smallbiggrin:

[Killer Angel]

Pretty sure that's a Slartibartfast joke. :smallbiggrin:

Ah... then, it could redeem it. :smalltongue:

[Reboot]

Odin: "I see worlds within worlds and yarn winding yarn" - just another example of a possible complex reasoning, but made more mysterious because "God of Magic". But it could ALSO be just imbecilic utterings of an old fool on his king-ly throne. Do we know? No.


Well, we kinda do. Remember what Blackwing saw in the rift? Or the Snarl's origin?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Frigg's reasoning is fairly sound. You're just forgetting that there are more people in the world than just squishy humans. There are archons and guardinals. Modrons and slaadi.

Demons and devils.

All of those mid-tier beings also provide worship, and also handle all the management functions. Plus, they can use this information to attack the deities where it'll hurt the most: church attendance. A certain triumvirate of archfiends are making contingency plans on this info right now.

The gods got away with this the last time because they hid and let the Snarl obliterate everyone else. The plan this time doesn't include feeding all of the witnesses to the Snarl. So the plan better include what those witnesses will witness.

ps: The people who know about the rifts apparently include Baron Pineapple and the Holey Brethren, plus others. Want to make a bet on how many factions have representation off-plane that won't be included in the Yes Faction's reset button?

[Ruck]

Balder: "Huh? Oh, whatever Thor and Odin say goes for me, too. [...] I guess."

Do I have to provide an actual argument?

This is definitely my favorite, especially since we repeatedly see neither Beldar nor his priest seem to have much idea what is actually going on here.

[RatElemental]

There's also this one:


This danger may pass, but too many mortals know of the rifts. Vafthrudnir, God of Secrets, votes Yes.

He seems to be making the opposite assumption that Frigg is, that destroying the world and killing the mortals will in fact put the cat back in the bag, so to speak. One of them has to be incorrect.

Unless he wants to kill everyone not because they know too much and he thinks it'll protect the secret, but because they know too much and he wants to punish them in some way.

[hroþila]

His point is that, even if the current crisis is resolved, knowledge of the rifts is too widespread now and eventually someone is going to try to harness their power for their own benefit again, which means they might well be dealing with the same problem again sooner rather than later - unless they fix the prison properly by remaking the world.

[Vinyadan]

There's also this one:



He seems to be making the opposite assumption that Frigg is, that destroying the world and killing the mortals will in fact put the cat back in the bag, so to speak. One of them has to be incorrect.

Unless he wants to kill everyone not because they know too much and he thinks it'll protect the secret, but because they know too much and he wants to punish them in some way.

The question is: how long will it take for the gods to remake the world, and how long will it take for the dead to lose their identity?

[King of Nowhere]

I'll say Dvalin's justification was the dumbest.

I can't stand the Lawful Stupidity of the dwarves, and Dvalin is clearly the God of Lawful Stupid, so ... yeah. :smallbiggrin:

Unfortunately, the deal made between the gods stating that only dwarves that die honorablly go to the good afterlives - with "honor" being defined quite loosely - actually made a lawful stupid behavior reasonable. Yes, death against overwhelming odds when you can escape and come back tomorrow with help is dumb, but it will get you into the afterlife. Doing the smart thing won't. So the dwarves are practically punished by the gods if they are not lawful stupid.
As a person who hates stupidity, I find it one of the worst things the gods did with the world. Forcing people to behave stupidly.


There's also this one:


This danger may pass, but too many mortals know of the rifts. Vafthrudnir, God of Secrets, votes Yes.

He seems to be making the opposite assumption that Frigg is, that destroying the world and killing the mortals will in fact put the cat back in the bag, so to speak. One of them has to be incorrect.

Unless he wants to kill everyone not because they know too much and he thinks it'll protect the secret, but because they know too much and he wants to punish them in some way.

This and Frigg's argument are actually two sides of the same coin.

Let's assume the gods destroy the world. Then it is possible that word get out. There will be millions (billions?) of souls in the afterlife that will know, and with the revolving door afterlife (not to mention planeshift and other spells), it won't be unlikely that someone will get the knowledge in the mortal world. Not to mention all those other beings that are not on the prime material plane and will be untouched by the destruction of the world, but knowing that the gods did it - though they may not know why. So, there is a reasonable risk that the mortals will learn of it, and then will only pray to the no-voters, or to newly raised gods.
Then again, nothing may happen, or the new mortals may trust that the gods had to do it.

Let's then assume that the gods do not destroy the world. As of now, there are several group of people knowing of the snarl, including the oots, the remaining paladins, the goblin leadership, the vector legion, xykon. Possibly the elven leadership if they investigated on that rift in the middle of their forest, now that the gate was blown. I'm not counting the ifcc because they won't be destroied with the world anyway. But as it is, there are several groups of people with knowledge of the snarl. Several of them with bad intentions. Who knows what they can do in future decades? who knows how many others can learn of it? So, destroying the world to cover the secret may work to cover the traces of the terrible secret.
Or it may not, word can get out, and the mortals may be pissed.

So, you can see, both frigg and vafhtrudnir were proposing basically the same scenario: there are risks in both options involved, and it is too complex even for divine beings to really tell which option is the least risky. Chaos theory, butterfly effect, and all that. So frigg proposes to err on the side of not alienating their followers, while vafhtrudnir wants to err on the side of trying hard to keep things covered. both arguments fit with the respective deity's portfolio.

A similar situation would be if the secret services had made something bad, and they were threatened with exposure. Some may propose to lay low, and hope that those who discovered the secrets are not taken seriously. Others may propose to kill those who know the secret. And frigg is saying, if we kill people to cover ourselves, we risk that this get discovered too, and then we'd be in an even worse situation, because we'd be accused of the original thing, and of killing people in an attempted coverup too. If we play it safe, in the worst scenario we will still be able to publicly apologize and we did nothing too bad to start with, but this would be burning the bridges behind us.

EDIT: A shorter way of saying it is that frigg wants to minimize the damage in case the secret is discovered, while vafhtrudnir wants to minimize the chance that the secret is discovered - but at the cost of increasing the damage if it is discovered.

[Onyavar]

Odin: "I see worlds within worlds and yarn winding yarn" - just another example of a possible complex reasoning, but made more mysterious because "God of Magic". But it could ALSO be just imbecilic utterings of an old fool on his king-ly throne. Do we know? No.


Well, we kinda do. Remember what Blackwing saw in the rift? Or the Snarl's origin?

Sure. And the Gods should remember just the same thing. His reasoning meight be some kind a prophecy, but then again:

"Shall we cut down this tree, yes or no?" - Old rambling man: "I see blossoms and green leaves next spring, so I vote no."

Hoder surprises us with a similar gem.
"This tree's time has passed. For this reason, I vote yes to cut it down."

Pardon me if I call these "not arguments at all".

[Vinyadan]

Sure. And the Gods should remember just the same thing. His reasoning meight be some kind a prophecy, but then again:

"Shall we cut down this tree, yes or no?" - Old rambling man: "I see blossoms and green leaves next spring, so I vote no."

Hoder surprises us with a similar gem.
"This tree's time has passed. For this reason, I vote yes to cut it down."

Pardon me if I call these "not arguments at all".

Piss on their trees!

[Pyrous]

Hey, this is fun.

"I will see this tree torn to shreds before I allow anyone to gain strategic advantage over us."

"Lord Odin, I have no desire to see my people attacked by the tree. However, I cannot vote at this time. I must consult the dwarven Council of Clans before coming to my decision." Maybe the dwarves think they should battle the tree themselves and possibly die honorably.

Mani's one-liner works without change.

[RatElemental]

"I'm bored of this tree anyway. Ooo! I could try out that new idea I had for a canopy!"

I don't think that made it any worse, really.

[Keltest]

"This danger may pass, but too many mortals know of the trees."

[Pyrous]

"The lives of our trees should not be cut short so easily, lest they turn from our garden."

[DaOldeWolf]

"There are still tales waiting to be told on this tree."

"I'm sorry. I can't be the one to deliver tree news."

[Vinyadan]

"Nuke it from a tree. It's the only way to be sure."

[Ruck]

"I see rings within rings and bark winding bark."

[Onyavar]

Epileptic trees! Wait, I think that's a different meme.

Anyways:
It's no oak, but it will do.

[Peelee]

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

[Deliverance]

Let me take this moment to thank you all for the spirit in which you've addressed the issue I raised in the first post: a mixture of tongue in cheek and level-appropriate silliness, while also occasionally making cogent arguments for or against my position and arguing the case of the other gods. It is a joy to behold. The judgement of the derailment into tree-lore I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

Again, my thanks. :smallsmile:

[Ruck]

Epileptic trees! Wait, I think that's a different meme.

Anyways:
It's no oak, but it will do.

I think you mean "Ragnaroak."

[EyethatBinds]

Pretty sure the "Snarl" cover story is a falsehood, as has been heavily implied for the past year or two. The gods trapped something capable of making a planet with oceans and potentially life on it within it's prison. Since these deities do rely on "votes" as it was put, how could they have created the universe or the world to begin with?

Something clearly had to have been there for the gods to gather power from before the world as it stands was made. Seems more likely to me that the Frigging quote that was the impetus for this thread just damns the gods further.

If they trapped something comparable to themselves inside the planet and it appears to be able to kill, break from the prison, and create life, why isn't this thing a god? Rather than a god-killing abomination born of childish squabbling, the Snarl was the original deity that existed prior to the world being taken by the current gods, and they trapped him/it inside the planet to prevent it from destroying them and undermining their power.

Frigg doesn't want true knowledge of the Snarl to come out because it would cause people to lose faith in them, which would diminish their power. The Snarl/God apparently needs no worshipers though.

[Keltest]

Pretty sure the "Snarl" cover story is a falsehood, as has been heavily implied for the past year or two. The gods trapped something capable of making a planet with oceans and potentially life on it within it's prison. Since these deities do rely on "votes" as it was put, how could they have created the universe or the world to begin with?

Something clearly had to have been there for the gods to gather power from before the world as it stands was made. Seems more likely to me that the Frigging quote that was the impetus for this thread just damns the gods further.

If they trapped something comparable to themselves inside the planet and it appears to be able to kill, break from the prison, and create life, why isn't this thing a god? Rather than a god-killing abomination born of childish squabbling, the Snarl was the original deity that existed prior to the world being taken by the current gods, and they trapped him/it inside the planet to prevent it from destroying them and undermining their power.

Frigg doesn't want true knowledge of the Snarl to come out because it would cause people to lose faith in them, which would diminish their power. The Snarl/God apparently needs no worshipers though.

While we don't know the whole story, I am somewhat skeptical that it is entirely a falsehood. If nothing else, we have definitively seen something that seems to fit the Snarl's general description come out of Gerard's Rift. Hel also specifically referred to it as "The Snarl" while addressing her fellow gods, and The Dark One seems to believe it exists as well. While its possible both of them are deliberately out of the loop because nobody likes them, the rule of thumb is believe what the comic says unless it tells you that the information is unreliable.

[EyethatBinds]

"The Snarl" while addressing her fellow gods, and The Dark One seems to believe it exists as well. While its possible both of them are deliberately out of the loop because nobody likes them, the rule of thumb is believe what the comic says unless it tells you that the information is unreliable.

While address fellow gods, when they know mortals can hear them. The Dark One could be either aware or unaware of the nature of the Snarl, but doesn't feel a need to explain to his followers.

This is a theory so far, but it kinda makes all the oddness make sense. Particularly the fiend's actions. They are trying to destroy the gods, so what better than a rival? They aren't looking to have everything killed, just the gods of good.

[Pyrous]

While address fellow gods, when they know mortals can hear them. The Dark One could be either aware or unaware of the nature of the Snarl, but doesn't feel a need to explain to his followers.

This is a theory so far, but it kinda makes all the oddness make sense. Particularly the fiend's actions. They are trying to destroy the gods, so what better than a rival? They aren't looking to have everything killed, just the gods of good.

And the way they chose to kill just the gods of good is to destroy every single god, even the evil ones. Makes sense.

[Keltest]

While address fellow gods, when they know mortals can hear them. The Dark One could be either aware or unaware of the nature of the Snarl, but doesn't feel a need to explain to his followers.

This is a theory so far, but it kinda makes all the oddness make sense. Particularly the fiend's actions. They are trying to destroy the gods, so what better than a rival? They aren't looking to have everything killed, just the gods of good.

Given that the Snarl or whatever you want to call it has been shown by every source to be utterly indiscriminate towards alignment of its victims, im going to say that would be a terrible plan. We don't know what the Fiend's game is, but I think we can safely say "unleashing an indiscriminate unstoppable all-consuming abomination" is not an intended outcome.

[hroþila]

This is a theory so far, but it kinda makes all the oddness make sense. Particularly the fiend's actions. They are trying to destroy the gods, so what better than a rival? They aren't looking to have everything killed, just the gods of good.
The fiends have promised to slay five Good dragons for every black one Vaarsuvius killed, and described such a death toll as "trivial" compared to what their plan would entail. Furthermore, they said that the notion that their plan is a secret scheme to bring down the gods of Good was "technically true". Together, this strongly suggests they want to bring down ALL the gods and, quite possibly, ALL the mortals.

[Keltest]

The fiends have promised to slay five Good dragons for every black one Vaarsuvius killed, and described such a death toll as "trivial" compared to what their plan would entail. Furthermore, they said that the notion that their plan is a secret scheme to bring down the gods of Good was "technically true". Together, this strongly suggests they want to bring down ALL the gods and, quite possibly, ALL the mortals.

Im not seeing the percentage in that though. Ok, they kill the gods and the mortals. What do they gain from it? The only thing we know for sure is that their plan involves an end to the Blood War so that they will finally crush the Upper Planes, and killing the gods doesn't actually do that, by my understanding. And using the snarl to kill mortals means they cant even take the place of the gods and become new gods (in function) themselves, because the mortals are unmade as well, and therefore not a viable source of Soul Power.

[ti'esar]

I've been of both minds on that theory: yes, it's very hard to see how the IFCC directors (or the Lower Planes in general) could benefit at this time from destroying everything. But on the other hand, I do also see that vibe in their discussion about Tiamat that whatever their end goal is, it'll cause enormous destruction to both Good and Evil.

[EyethatBinds]

Im not seeing the percentage in that though. Ok, they kill the gods and the mortals. What do they gain from it? The only thing we know for sure is that their plan involves an end to the Blood War so that they will finally crush the Upper Planes, and killing the gods doesn't actually do that, by my understanding. And using the snarl to kill mortals means they cant even take the place of the gods and become new gods (in function) themselves, because the mortals are unmade as well, and therefore not a viable source of Soul Power.

That's why it makes significantly more sense that the fiends are trying to bring this trapped god out so it can take vengeance on those who trapped it, who by majority are good and neutral gods.

The Snarl's true nature doesn't seem entirely clear, but it does seem like the gods know more than they are saying.

[Keltest]

That's why it makes significantly more sense that the fiends are trying to bring this trapped god out so it can take vengeance on those who trapped it, who by majority are good and neutral gods.

The Snarl's true nature doesn't seem entirely clear, but it does seem like the gods know more than they are saying.

Not really my point. Eliminating the gods doesn't actually result in power for the archfiends, because the gods don't participate in the Blood War, which is a far bigger obstacle towards fiends destroying the upper planes than the gods who live there. It might be hilarious, for a little while, but then not only are they still stuck with that annoying Blood War, but they have a new power that they cant control who is probably chomping at the bit for a chance to flex his cramped muscles. A fully unleashed snarl is simply too unwieldy a weapon to be effective, no matter who unleashes it. Even The Dark One's plan doesn't involve fully unleashing it the way it was before.

[Wildstag]

Sure. And the Gods should remember just the same thing. His reasoning meight be some kind a prophecy, but then again:

"Shall we cut down this tree, yes or no?" - Old rambling man: "I see blossoms and green leaves next spring, so I vote no."

Hoder surprises us with a similar gem.
"This tree's time has passed. For this reason, I vote yes to cut it down."

Pardon me if I call these "not arguments at all".

This almost kills the thread. I mean the tree. It is a marvelous point though, that the changing of one word in their declaration really does make things funnier and dumber. But I don't think it quite works, since sure they're the Norse gods and the world tree and all that, but there I think we all missed the best one:

"New life can only arise if we, the trees, survive". Makes the whole thing sound like an entmoot, and we all know the treants are the natural enemies of the dwarves.

[Killer Angel]

Anyway, we all know that trees are evil incarnate.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

It sounds like arrogance to assume that mortals know better than gods.

[Keltest]

It sounds like arrogance to assume that mortals know better than gods.

Have you seen these gods?

[ti'esar]

I don't think it's that arrogant to assume mortals know better than Balder or Mani. (Well okay I guess Mani could just be really lazy).

[Rogar Demonblud]

It sounds like arrogance to assume that mortals know better than gods.

All mortals? No. Some mortals? Given these gods, oh hell yes.

[Vinyadan]

Mortals almost surely know less, but that doesn't mean that they don't know better.