Premature cessation of present storyline

[bertrc]

Please feel free to lambast me if this has already been brought up (after directing me to the existing discussion, of course) but I see a very simple (if disappointing) way to tie up the current "Stop the Gods from destroying the world" plot.

It depends on whether the Gods are telling their high priests, directly, what to do.

I was curious after reading strip 1001 (Sorry, I do not have enough posts to be allowed to include a link)

Hel tells Hiemdal that he cannot change his vote and Loki bemoans having added a "no-backsies" rule. This implies that Heimdal (or any of the Gods who voted "Yes") might want to change their mind. Well, all they have to do is have their priest's body guard kill their high priest. This would swing the vote back to 9 Nay's vs 8 Yea's.

I guess Rich Burlew kind of addresses this by having the "Yea" High Priests defending the vampires, which implies at least some of the Yea's want to stay Yea, but the "no-backsie's" panel really makes me think that Heimdal in particular would want to change his vote.

In summary, Heimdal just needs to tell his High Priest to let his body guard coup-de-grace him.

. . . Of course, that would be a very boring and disappointing conclusion.

[NerdyKris]

Actually, Rich addressed it by saying he would never write a story where suicide is the answer, and having the bodyguard kill the high priest would be assisted suicide, since they would presumably not be fighting back.


But also the plot reasons that they already have someone going to stop Durkula, so no point in acting overtly just yet.


and because it's about the Order of the Stick. *cough*

[RatElemental]

It may also have something to do with it being a bad idea for a god to order their high priest to willfully subvert the rules of the...

Wait a minute.

edit: typos

[Cazero]

I lost count of the numbers of thread proposing exactly that.

Short answer : it won't happen.

Long answer : in addition to story reason (anticlimax), it won't happen for ethical reasons (Good gods don't murder people when it's convenient), plot reasons (the comic is about the Order of the Stick and not that one assembly of clerics they met once and solved all problems forever), diplomatic reasons (murdering your own high priest is blatant cheating that could lead to the Snarl v2 before the v1 is even dealt with and contrary to what appears Hel did not actualy cheat), selfish reasons (the will to live is the only reason a high priest would disobey his god and suicide defeats the point), rational reasons (I made a list of the yes voters once and only Sunna might had a good reason to switch side after Hel's reveal since Heimdal's principle of precaution regarding the Snarl still applies) and other reasons I overlooked.

[factotum]

Yeah, pretty much everything Cazero just said. It has to be said that it's slightly refreshing to have this be "bodyguard kills high priest" rather than "high priest kills themself", which is usually how this "solution" is presented, but it's fundamentally the same thing.

[Vinyadan]

As I said once, I was surprised that none of the bodyguards tried killing their priests out of their own will. I suppose they have a very good human resource department.

As for the gods, that looks like a backsie to me. Beside other reasons.

[Sir_Norbert]

#1018 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1018.html) "I suppose my goddess can't get too mad at me for smiting a few unrelated vampires."

So, the gods are not actually in direct communication with the priests, or he wouldn't need (or be able) to speculate.

[Onyavar]

The High Priests and their bodyguards are envoyees.
What they're not is remote figurines with a selfdistruct button that their god can easily press if it's convenient to him. Clerics and their god only know what each other wants, if they go and commune with each other. There is no other form of control. And then, the high priests are each in charge of a church hierarchy - I doubt they would even consider to wrong their god and cause through suicide while on duty. Even if they consider it, and even if they communed this to their god, and both God and High Priest are okay with the plan (three big IFs!), both God and High Priest will prefer if someone else takes that bullet. The gathering is pretty large, which spreads the responsability quite well. Since there is still hope that the dwarven council will vote "no", they shouldn't commit suicide NOW when it's just very probably pointless.

Think of it as the story of "how Roy probably saved the life of the hypothetical priest who counted on the next hero to solve his problem".
Actually, a story named like that happens in many D&D campains.

[NerdyKris]

Since there is still hope that the dwarven council will vote "no", they shouldn't commit suicide NOW when it's just very probably pointless.

This right here. The gods typically don't act directly. Even Thor was chastised for manipulating a spell in Durkon's favor. They don't need to take the direct action of killing their own high priest when there's a party of adventurers out to stop Hel's high priest anyways. Although it should be noted that they don't know Hel's plan. They can't hear what's being said in the room outside the proxy spell, so they probably all figure the Dwarven council will vote nay. Plus, it would kind of defeat the whole point of agreeing to a vote if they just start attacking when they don't like the outcome. That's how the Snarl was created in the first place.

But the biggest reason they wouldn't murder their own follower is that if they're going to be that overt, they could just inform the dwarven kings about the vampire instead, and not commit an evil act. So even if the gods understand what's going on with Durkula, jumping straight to murder makes no sense when there's both a party of adventurers they can deny all knowledge of, and many more indirect steps before that point.

[Peelee]

This right here. The gods typically don't act directly. Even Thor was chastised for manipulating a spell in Durkon's favor.

Off-topic, but that's because said manipulation happened in the Southern lands. When Thor manipulated Control Weather in Durkon's favor, it was all puppies and sunshine.

[137beth]

The first time this idea was brought up, I speculated that it would violate the no-backsies rule (which, potentially, might exist in a more detailed form in the Complete Rules of the Godsmoot That The Audience Doesn't See (tm)). I stand by that speculation: the no-backsies rule is there to prevent the gods from nullifying their own votes. If a bunch of forumites can come up with this "solution," Loki probably could have worked it out as well and worded the no-backsies rule to prohibit it.

[Mandor]

The first time this idea was brought up, I speculated that it would violate the no-backsies rule (which, potentially, might exist in a more detailed form in the Complete Rules of the Godsmoot That The Audience Doesn't See (tm)). I stand by that speculation: the no-backsies rule is there to prevent the gods from nullifying their own votes. If a bunch of forumites can come up with this "solution," Loki probably could have worked it out as well and worded the no-backsies rule to prohibit it.

Though, it would in some ways be amusing to see Heimdall moaning loudly right next to his preist's bodyguard, saying "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?..." :smallsmile:

[factotum]

Though, it would in some ways be amusing to see Heimdall moaning loudly right next to his preist's bodyguard, saying "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?..." :smallsmile:

Yeah, I don't see a Lawful Good god effectively killing his own priest for following what he believes his god's wishes to be, especially not when the priest was correct right up until the point Hel intervened.

[keybounce]

Umm ... Guys?

We *did* see a body guard try to kill off his priest in order to change the outcome of the vote.

Did it work? Of course not.

[factotum]

We *did* see a body guard try to kill off his priest in order to change the outcome of the vote.


But he wasn't told to do so by his God, and he was furthermore in the odd situation of being a totally different alignment from the priest he was nominally the bodyguard for. Unless you're seriously suggesting that evil priests usually hire Lawful Good bodyguards?

[NerdyKris]

Yeah, Roy was tricked into escorting Durkon. The other bodyguards are far more likely to be trusted long time friends or companions, given the secrecy of the situation.

[Moo, I'm Human]

Does the yellow wall physically stop them from leaving, or can they walk out and forfit their vote?

[NerdyKris]

It blocks magical sending and teleportation, so it's likely to also physically block walking out of the room. Otherwise, the plot could be easily resolved.

Even if they could, it's not likely that a high priest is going to defy their god in such a manner, and a god deciding to give the order would be pretty much spitting in the face of all the rules put in place to prevent another Snarl, which would cause untold chaos, as Durkula pointed out during the storm. Living under Hel isn't a death sentence for the gods, it's just a slightly more annoying proposition than living under Odin.

[Kish]

The present storyline's cessation will not be premature, nor will it be postmature. It will cease exactly when it is meant to.

[Murk]

The present storyline's cessation will not be premature, nor will it be postmature. It will cease exactly when it is meant to.

Those are not exactly mutually exclusive - it can be meant to end premature, after all :smallcool:

[King of Nowhere]

Actually, Rich addressed it by saying he would never write a story where suicide is the answer, and having the bodyguard kill the high priest would be assisted suicide, since they would presumably not be fighting back.



I always found it funny that rich did not want to write a story where suiciding would solve problems - in a world with resurrection, where it wouldn't be such a big deal - but he is prefectly fine with writing a story where the heroes are trying to change the outcome of a democratic vote by killing one of the voters.

Anyway, many people had brought this point before. most people think that telling your high priest to die so his vote is nullified definitely does count as "changing the vote", and is thus not allowed.

[Kish]

One, they're not trying to kill Hel.

Two, they're not even trying to kill the High Priest of Hel now--they're trying to prevent another god's vote from being manipulated by mind control. Though they are incidentally trying to free a friend who's been enslaved.

Three, given that that "democratic vote" was on whether to destroy the world, if it had actually been anything like democratic, it would have been voted down several billion to maybe a few dozen. Eighteen people deciding the fate of everyone is an incredibly lopsided oligarchy, not a democracy.

So yeah. It's weird to me that none of the "But they're subverting democracy!" people see anything off about applying the word "democracy" to 18 people voting on whether to slaughter everyone else.

[NerdyKris]

Also, suicide is a far more personal thing with ramifications in real life than vote fixing. The message of the story matters, and "Stop this guy from fixing the vote" is far less problematic than "Killing yourself will solve your problem, and it should be the first thing you try."

[King of Nowhere]

Three, given that that "democratic vote" was on whether to destroy the world, if it had actually been anything like democratic, it would have been voted down several billion to maybe a few dozen. Eighteen people deciding the fate of everyone is an incredibly lopsided oligarchy, not a democracy.

So yeah. It's weird to me that none of the "But they're subverting democracy!" people see anything off about applying the word "democracy" to 18 people voting on whether to slaughter everyone else.

When a democratically elected senate votes to wage a war, it does not ask the vote of the people with whom they will go to war. Or, in a less dramatic case, a decision to make a commercial embargo, or really any decision on foreign policy that affects others nations. I've talked with people coming from small nations complaining that what their bigger neighboors did affected them more than their own parliament did. Also, you can call our democracies oligarchies, since the actual people voting are a few hundreds in the parliaments/senates, and while they are elected by the people, the voters have a very small saying in what actually goes on. you can compare the gods in oots getting power from their followers to being a sort of representative democracy.
even if you're not buying into those arguments, then the aesop would simply be "it's ok to interfere with a vote by trying to kill one of the voters, as long as the system is corrupt". And since the definition of corrupt is very subjective, that means any extremist group can use that as a justification for bombing the parliament. Uhm, actually they already do that.

Yes, I know, I am trying to make extreme arguments. saying that people may feel entitled to bomb the parliament because they read a comic where it was ok to do something vaguely similar is a stretch. But no more a stretch than saying that people may be driven to suicide because it was a workable solution in a webcomic about a fantasy world. Basically, what I find funny is that if one goes to that extreme to avoid bad topics, there is virtually nothing one can write without it being subject to similarly bad interpretations.


Also, suicide is a far more personal thing with ramifications in real life than vote fixing. The message of the story matters, and "Stop this guy from fixing the vote" is far less problematic than "Killing yourself will solve your problem, and it should be the first thing you try."
Yes, I agree that the real reason is probably that one.

[Porthos]

you can compare the gods in oots getting power from their followers to being a sort of representative democracy.

Not especially. Or rather, you can compare as long as the compare results in a negative answer. :smallsmile:

[Kish]

I'm pretty sure the actual "Aesop" here is "if people are sufficiently determined to rewrite certain characters' behavior into something shady, they can do so."

[Murk]

Meh, I don't care much for the "but that would be suicide!" arguments - I think suicide is a perfectly valid action if it saves the world.

I do get the feeling, from the entire OotS comic, that this is what adventurers are for. Most of these High Priests live perfectly calm, orderly, structured lifes. They give sermons, they preach, they pray, they heal. Their bodyguards spend their entire lifes protecting their High Priests.
And on the other hand they know the world is filled with adventurers whose job it is to save the world from evil and stuff. Like Roy.

So when the world is at stake, the High Priests do not think "Oh, I have to prevent this, no matter what!", and the bodyguards do not think "I have to kill my own High Priest!" - both of them think "Aren't we lucky there's an adventurer here. Let's try to help him, but let him do most of the work" - after all, that's what adventurers are for!

It's the same with Xykon. There's no kingdoms or people or cities around that dispatch armies to stop him from conquering the world. People on the forum have asked repeatedly "why don't the elves just stop Xykon?", and though the Giant said it more elaborately, it boils down to "No one cares about all the villains trying to conquer the world" - there's villains, there's heroes, and they even out nicely.

Saving the world = adventurer business. Roy is here, right? He'll do it. No need for the High Priests to get too involved.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm pretty sure the actual "Aesop" here is "if people are sufficiently determined to rewrite certain characters' behavior into something shady, they can do so."
i wish there was an upvote system, so i could give you a +1 for that :)

[NerdyKris]

Meh, I don't care much for the "but that would be suicide!" arguments - I think suicide is a perfectly valid action if it saves the world.

Maybe, in some situations, yes. Throwing yourself on a grenade to save others, for instance. Or Thomas Wayne putting himself between Joe Chill and Martha. But again, this is a fictional work being created to send a message. You have to think about the message being sent and the context of that message. And the message being sent in this situation, to an age range that has a high rate of depression and suicide, would be "Yes, killing yourself should be the first option when you run into difficulty, and not the absolute last resort to save others". Rich has stated as such, so it doesn't matter if you don't care for that reason, it's the reason he gave for why he'd never do it.

[mujadaddy]

this is a fictional work being created to send a message.
That message being that Friendship is Magic? :smallbiggrin:

[Jasdoif]

Does the yellow wall physically stop them from leaving, or can they walk out and forfit their vote?
It blocks magical sending and teleportation, so it's likely to also physically block walking out of the room.Keeping them from stepping out is one of the reasons it's there.

[bertrc]

Yeah, I'm sticking with it being avoided because it would be anti-climactic, without being funny (whereas Uber-V proposing dimensional crossing fixes but being pre-empted by a fourth wall break _is_ funny) I think that "progressing the story" is a perfectly valid reason for Rich Burlew to overlook such a fix.

That being said, I don't think my scenario triggers the no-suicide thing (I hadn't even thought of simple suicide, but agree that that would probably violate no-backsies) We have already seen that a body guard is allowed to attack their own priest. I prefer the "Good Human resources" comment as an explanation earlier in this thread.