Will Eugene's Actions Result In Him Not Getting Into Heaven After Xykon is Destroyed?

[Basement Cat]

"Look, I'm going absolutely cuckoo sitting on a cloud by myself all day! I'm the last oathspirit up there now, and none of the archons or angels will talk to me.

You abduct one deva, and suddenly your're a Celestial leper! Even to the Celestial leopards!" Strip #1048 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1047.html)

Eugene was Lawful Good but he was never a saint, to be sure. But ever since his Blood Oath forced him to squat outside heaven's gates until one of his descendants (i.e. Roy) destroys Xykon he's become increasingly bitter and arguably less "Good".

He's also become more ruthless--even to the point of advocating that Roy let the world be destroyed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1047.html).

So my question is: Has Eugene burned his bridge? When the time comes will the Celestial Accountants reassess him and subsequently deny him entry? I can actually see it happen for the sake of drama: Roy succeeds but Eugene is kicked out into the Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, or even Neutral afterlife.

[Kish]

I think it's all but certain that something will happen. Maybe there will be a big shocking revelation about Eugene's hidden goodness, or maybe he'll be kicked down to the Outlands, but I think "Rich wants the audience to accept on faith that Eugene is Lawful Good despite his behavior all the time he's on-panel" is a ship that's sailed; Rich wouldn't be writing him as so consistently awful if it wasn't supposed to mean anything.

[Peelee]

Well - in theory st least - whatever happens, we know that dead souls no longer develop (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19680985&postcount=21), so whatever Eugene is, he was that before he died. There's a very good chance he'll be getting rejected from Celestia and kicked over to another afterlife, but I thunk that wood have happened regardless, even if they didn't have to wait fire the Blood Oath to clear. He just is waiting, because of that same path (he will not rest in this life or any other, IIRC).

[ORione]

Roy's Archon thinks Eugene is unlikely to go to Hell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html). Interpret that information however you like.

[The DeathKnight]

I'm no expert in the matter, but are they not judged on what you were like in life? so really, what he does in the afterlife wont be taken into consideration?

[factotum]

Roy's Archon thinks Eugene is unlikely to go to Hell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html). Interpret that information however you like.

This. The only in-comic information we have about this is what Roy's Archon says there, and he seems to believe that Eugene cannot go to Hell at this point no matter what he does. Now, that could just mean that Eugene did so much Good during his life that he'd literally have to assassinate a God to change his destination now, but that seems unlikely given what we know about the man, so I'm going with the "stuff done on the cloud doesn't affect your destination" idea.

[Basement Cat]

Rich is fond of sowing clues into his plots so Eugene being shunned by the Celestial Goodie-good-goods may be a clue in that his past behavior is viewed as his having crossed a line.

Eugene is interacting with the Living World through his connection to Roy via the ancestral sword but he also intervened in the party's trial hundreds of strips ago. As a result he's responsible for many things happening in the Living World. I don't know if the OotS's world has fallen angels but if angels can fall from grace (as occurs in D&D) then it would make sense that a soul at heaven's gates could do the same.

[Lacuna Caster]

Well - in theory st least - whatever happens, we know that dead souls no longer develop (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19680985&postcount=21), so whatever Eugene is, he was that before he died.
Yes, but the author was also loudly insistent (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?337752-Regarding-the-Moral-State-of-Young-Souls&p=17213673#post17213673) that the afterlife doesn't matter to the story and/or make particular sense. Which doesn't lend a lot of weight to the assessment.

In 'default' D&D, the afterlife is full of angelic, demonic and law/chaos-aligned creatures with a variety of skills, agendas and appearances derived from the souls of mortal petitioners, all of which detect as fully representative of their alignments. And the extraplanar traffic cuts both ways- for every evil adventurer that goes marauding on Cloud 9, there's a summoned Hound Archon or Zelekhut ferreting out evil adventurers. So I think there's a good deal of scope for impactful career development once you're dead.


I don't know how Eugene's case is going to be affected by kidnapping a Deva, but it's an impossible question to answer, because nearly everything about the alignment system is pretty vague. Though interestingly, the Deva handling his case on the last page of SoD doesn't actually mention killing his own child, even by accident. (Just 'poor manners, mild swearing, and editing your own wikipedia article'.)

[Peelee]

Yes, but the author was also loudly insistent (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?337752-Regarding-the-Moral-State-of-Young-Souls&p=17213673#post17213673) that the afterlife doesn't matter to the story and/or make particular sense. Which doesn't lend a lot of weight to the assessment.

I think you may have misread part of that. The Giant is saying that where babies go in the afterlife doesn't matter to the story, not that the afterlife as a whole doesn't matter. It mattered enough for the story to focus on Roy being there for a significant part of the story. (At least, that's how I'm reading it. I am open to the idea that it may be me reading it wrong.)

The second part is trickier.

As for how much sense the afterlife makes, I would call his characterization a mild exaggeration. D&D cosmology doesn't make sense if you dig deep enough. Same for that in this story. It does make some sense (and it would seem the Giant thinks it does as well), or he wouldn't have spent so much time explaining it on the forums and correcting people who had thoughts on it that didn't mean with his. Sure, it doesn't mean well as an actual system, but it makes enough sense to hold itself up as a pillar (however small) supporting the overall story.

[martianmister]

I really hope so.

[littlebum2002]

You make some interesting points, save for this one:



He's also become more ruthless--even to the point of advocating that Roy let the world be destroyed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1047.html).
.

Notice how many Good and Lawful deities agreed with him. So "letting the world be destroyed", in this instance at least, is completely compatible with the Lawful Good alignment.

[wumpus]

Yes, but the author was also loudly insistent (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?337752-Regarding-the-Moral-State-of-Young-Souls&p=17213673#post17213673) that the afterlife doesn't matter to the story and/or make particular sense. Which doesn't lend a lot of weight to the assessment.


Except the details still matter. The idea is that all the souls eventually "burn out their mortal lusts" and eventually climb Mt. Celestia to the top. They fundamentally *do* advance in the afterworld. They might not advance anywhere else on their character sheet, but the alignment does change (although probably in smaller degrees).

I don't have the book where Eugene went through the first audit, but it didn't sound like he was going to go to a different plane. This is a bit of a surprise in that you can still wind up in Arcadia after pinging "lawful good" on all alignment checks (I'm convinced Miko is there). I doubt Miko or Vaarsuvius were ever in real danger for Hell (well more than 20 more minutes), much less Eugene. But D&D has some fine distinctions and I suspect Arcadia might fit him (Arcadia really does sound like a place built for Miko. I suspect she got over missing Celestia quite quickly).

[hroþila]

Notice how many Good and Lawful deities agreed with him. So "letting the world be destroyed", in this instance at least, is completely compatible with the Lawful Good alignment.
The action itself is completely compatible with being Lawful Good. His motives and his reasoning aren't.

[Keltest]

Personally, I doubt they will, beyond the already-agreed-upon consequences for Roy allowing him to continue to participate. Good does not mean nice, and he did his time, so to speak, being judged in the mortal realm.

[littlebum2002]

The action itself is completely compatible with being Lawful Good. His motives and his reasoning aren't.

That's a tricky one. It depends on how good he is at rules lawyering. He could definitely present the case that he just wants to destroy the world because that's the best way to destroy Xkyon, who is now a threat to the fabric of reality. All of that is, of course, true, but it does hide the fact that his bigger reason is the selfish one - to get into heaven.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Whether they do or don't, we'll never see it. Eugene's about irrelevant to the story now.

[Kish]

Fifty gold says we'll see Eugene again.

[hroþila]

That's a tricky one. It depends on how good he is at rules lawyering. He could definitely present the case that he just wants to destroy the world because that's the best way to destroy Xkyon, who is now a threat to the fabric of reality. All of that is, of course, true, but it does hide the fact that his bigger reason is the selfish one - to get into heaven.
I think it'll be impossible for him to convince any deva that his motives were pure, considering he discussed his callous motives aloud, explicitly and in some detail for any devas to hear.

[Lacuna Caster]

Except the details still matter. The idea is that all the souls eventually "burn out their mortal lusts" and eventually climb Mt. Celestia to the top. They fundamentally *do* advance in the afterworld. They might not advance anywhere else on their character sheet, but the alignment does change (although probably in smaller degrees).

I don't have the book where Eugene went through the first audit, but it didn't sound like he was going to go to a different plane. This is a bit of a surprise in that you can still wind up in Arcadia after pinging "lawful good" on all alignment checks (I'm convinced Miko is there). I doubt Miko or Vaarsuvius were ever in real danger for Hell (well more than 20 more minutes), much less Eugene. But D&D has some fine distinctions and I suspect Arcadia might fit him (Arcadia really does sound like a place built for Miko. I suspect she got over missing Celestia quite quickly).
I suspect that Miko's deva-audit has turned into a prolonged custody battle involving legal representatives from at least seven different planes, each submitting appeals for retrial that will continue to drag on for years after the main story concludes.

I don't disagree with the idea that souls 'advance' in the afterlife, I'm just pointing out that the exact same process involves them turning into, e.g, luminous energy beings with a bunch of new skills and abilities.


The action itself is completely compatible with being Lawful Good. His motives and his reasoning aren't.
I'm a bit of cracked record on this point, but I still want to know what's stopping the Gods from just smacking Xykon with thunderbolts.

[SilverCacaobean]

So my question is: Has Eugene burned his bridge? When the time comes will the Celestial Accountants reassess him and subsequently deny him entry? I can actually see it happen for the sake of drama: Roy succeeds but Eugene is kicked out into the Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, or even Neutral afterlife.

I don't know... But I'm also not sure if the world will remain unchanged after the story is over. Maybe the gods will die, maybe the afterlifes will change. Eugene has been talking about lawful good like it's a club whose requirements he fulfills. He has a very different understanding of his alignment than Roy. As things are now, I don't think he could end in Hell (cause of what the archon said), but things could change a lot.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm a bit of cracked record on this point, but I still want to know what's stopping the Gods from just smacking Xykon with thunderbolts.

My take: they are unaware of him. They know the rifts are no longer constrained, which suggests someone may be doing in on purpose (but then, they may not even know that much - for all they know, the gates built by the Scribblers are simply failing as they die off), but they don't know who, and given that they can't see near the gates, they can't personally investigate (and even if they could, they don't want to since that'd put them in range of the Snarl).

Since they also agreed to not tell the mortals about the rifts, they can't send their representatives to check who, if anyone is messing with the gates, because they expect (and probably are right) that the more people know about the rifts, the bigger the problem of someone trying to mess with them will become.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

I suspect, rather, they can't agree on smashing Xykon. The evil gods have a vested interest in not allowing a precedent of "we outright smite evil overlords if they get too successful." Look at it this way: All the players of a game of Talisman might agree to "this game is FUBAR, let's start over," but if you instead push for "Robert's wizard is too powerful, let's take away all his items and leave the rest of the characters intact," Robert's probably going to have a problem with that.

[SilverCacaobean]

I don't think they can work against the Dark One like that without risking another snarl.

EDIT: I mean like that

I still want to know what's stopping the Gods from just smacking Xykon with thunderbolts.

[factotum]

I suspect, rather, they can't agree on smashing Xykon. The evil gods have a vested interest in not allowing a precedent of "we outright smite evil overlords if they get too successful."

Plus there seems to be an agreement between the Gods that they work through their clerics down on Stickworld rather than using their powers directly--Tiger certainly got rather annoyed at Thor for allowing Control Weather to do something it really shouldn't have been able to do in Cliffport.

[Lacuna Caster]

I suspect, rather, they can't agree on smashing Xykon. The evil gods have a vested interest in not allowing a precedent of "we outright smite evil overlords if they get too successful." Look at it this way: All the players of a game of Talisman might agree to "this game is FUBAR, let's start over," but if you instead push for "Robert's wizard is too powerful, let's take away all his items and leave the rest of the characters intact," Robert's probably going to have a problem with that.
That's seems a little more plausible than being ignorant of what Xykon's doing, but this is like a situation where one the game pieces has actually found a way to murder all the players. Not the player-characters: The players. Under those circumstances, I can totally see 'Rob's wizard is too powerful' being accepted as a valid motion.


I don't think they can work against the Dark One like that without risking another snarl.
Maybe, but they have all these polite democratic decision-making mechanisms in place to allow for this kind of situation, and the pros and cons seem pretty straightforward vs. unmaking creation. All in favour? <All non-evil deities> All opposed? <Hel and Dark One hold up hands nervously, then think better of it>

At an absolute minimum, they could be sending all their high-level clerics after Team Evil directly. Or something else that would be genuinely useful.

.

[Peelee]

Maybe, but they have all these polite democratic decision-making mechanisms in place to allow for this kind of situation, and the pros and cons seem pretty straightforward vs. unmaking creation. All in favour? <All non-evil deities> All opposed? <Hel and Dark One hold up hands nervously, then think better of it>


There seems to be a significant missing faction in that hypothetical.

[Lacuna Caster]

You're right- most of the evil Gods would probably vote for thunderbolts as well, given Xykon & RC are effectively loading a bazooka aimed at all their faces.

[Kish]

And also an assumption that "neutral" is functionally identical to "good" in voting--and that they'll all vote along alignment lines (specifically "not-evil" vs. "evil" alignment lines), rather than, e.g., the god of war not wanting to see anyone smote for successfully prosecuting a war--which seems entirely at odds with the actual reasons giving for the votes here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html). Only three of the gods (Thor, Sif, and Freya) said something that could reasonably be interpreted as "I don't like this idea because it's evil."

It also assumes that whether to overtly mass-smite an individual mortal is something the gods would hold a vote over, instead of something that's simply barred by their initial agreement, which I find unlikely simply because, if it was the case, those gods who are good at social engineering would simply persuade 50%+1 of the other gods to support them in eradicating their less popular rivals' followers entirely.

[Lacuna Caster]

Fair enough, but Skadi wants to ensure the Gods survive, Tyr's argument is that he doesn't want anyone to gain a strategic advantage over the Gods, Heimdall opts for caution, and Sunna wants to nuke 'em from orbit. Given nuking Xykon would satisfy all those requirements with little discernible downside, that's at least 4 extra votes. And while I can really sympathise with Njord, I could see Hoder or Vafthrudnir being on the fence.

The risk/reward ratio is just drastically different here.


It also assumes that whether to overtly mass-smite an individual mortal is something the gods would hold a vote over, instead of something that's simply barred by their initial agreement...
EDIT: Again, this is an individual mortal who's actively trying to kill a rival pantheon. That sounds like fair grounds for re-negotiating any such agreement.

[Peelee]

Fair enough, but Skadi wants to ensure the Gods survive, Tyr's argument is that he doesn't want anyone to gain a strategic advantage over the Gods, Heimdall opts for caution, and Sunna wants to nuke 'em from orbit. Given nuking Xykon would satisfy all those requirements with little discernible downside, that's at least 4 extra votes. And while I can really sympathise with Njord, I could see Hoder or Vafthrudnir being on the fence.

The risk/reward ratio is just drastically different here.

And there are two other pantheons where we don't see the reasonings. I have to assume it's a bit more nuanced than you're making it out to be.

[SilverCacaobean]

There's also this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0697.html) thing that Roy says to Durkon in the first panel. Which makes what Grey Wolf said very likely. Why would we think that they know that someone is trying to blackmail them with the snarl? It's most likely that only Redcloack and Xykon (and Tsukiko*) know about that, along with the dark one. So the gods don't particularly care about some crazy mortal destroying gates... Mortals dying, their souls in danger of getting unmade, none of that is too urgent for them. But as soon as they realised there might be a little danger for them, their response wasn't to smite Xykon. It was to destroy the world. You might think that half of them don't want to, but that's not what they said. They just want to give the mortals a chance to save it, but if it gets too dangerous they'll destroy it. So they'd rather destroy the world than have a precedent of breaking their rules and directly interfering with mortal affairs. *******s. The assumption that they'll actually survive the story, is not something I consider a certainty.

*Wait, if she knew that when she died couldn't she then tell everyone? There's an afterlife after all...

[Kish]

Sure. All the souls in Hades who have spoken to Tsukiko might now know that there's a Snarl that can't be controlled, and a goblin high priest who is tricking a lich sorcerer.

I think it's unlikely to affect the story, but it's not impossible.

[SilverCacaobean]

Sure. All the souls in Hades who have spoken to Tsukiko might now know that there's a Snarl that can't be controlled, and a goblin high priest who is tricking a lich sorcerer.

I think it's unlikely to affect the story, but it's not impossible.

Wouldn't there be some bureaucratic thing like the one Roy went through before she goes wherever? She could tell it immediately to them, which would ensure(?) that it would reach the ears of the higher-ups quickly and eventually of the god responsible for her afterlife. Redcloak told her everything after all, if I recall correctly. Even an idiot would have known that this information would be very valuable to the Gods. Then again Redcloak isn't an idiot, so I'll just assume he destroyed her memory between panels or something...

[Jasdoif]

But as soon as they realised there might be a little danger for them, their response wasn't to smite Xykon. It was to destroy the world.Well yeah....They first voted on destroying the world in response to the rifts (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0998.html), Xykon wasn't a factor in that. And smiting Xykon won't stop the rifts.

[The MunchKING]

Wouldn't there be some bureaucratic thing like the one Roy went through before she goes wherever? She could tell it immediately to them, which would ensure(?) that it would reach the ears of the higher-ups quickly and eventually of the god responsible for her afterlife. Redcloak told her everything after all, if I recall correctly. Even an idiot would have known that this information would be very valuable to the Gods. Then again Redcloak isn't an idiot, so I'll just assume he destroyed her memory between panels or something...

The one time we SAW Evil souls going to Hell after they died, they just kinda piled up in a big "In-Box".

Also even if she told everyone, why would they necessarily believe her? If the Gods have Epic Blackout on any knowledge about the Snarl, the people who listen to her may think she's a crazy soul rambling about something that only exists in her crazed imagination.

[SilverCacaobean]

The one time we SAW Evil souls going to Hell after they died, they just kinda piled up in a big "In-Box".

Also even if she told everyone, why would they necessarily believe her? If the Gods have Epic Blackout on any knowledge about the Snarl, the people who listen to her may think she's a crazy soul rambling about something that only exists in her crazed imagination.

Can they afford to dismiss her warnings like that? I don't think so... Not to mention she had seen the ritual. She could describe it, in enough detail to convince anyone knowledgeable it's not ramblings. As for those souls you mention, isn't it possible they're already done with their evaluation? Or maybe they are people who had made a pact and their normal afterlife got overridden.

[The MunchKING]

Can they afford to dismiss her warnings like that? I don't think so... Not to mention she had seen the ritual. She could describe it, in enough detail to convince anyone knowledgeable it's not ramblings.

But then they would need a high enough Spellcraft to know what the Ritual was supposed to do just from her description.

And again, if the Gods have a total blackout on information, it would mean whatever generic demon is doing eval today probably doesn't know enough to know the significance of what it's told. Like all the other bounties having identical twins, I'm guessing every Hellbound soul tries claiming it has knowledge or power that should get it a personal appointment with the lower-downs and a position of not-being-tortured. The devils probably just aren't buying.

That said, she WAS a Cleric of Rat, IIRC. So if he knew that she was part of some plan, he might could pull some strings for her. The problem is he knew anything about it...


As for those souls you mention, isn't it possible they're already done with their evaluation? Or maybe they are people who had made a pact and their normal afterlife got overridden.

They were Tarquin's generic soldiers, IIRC. So I doubt any of them were important enough to warrant a full soul-sell.

[SilverCacaobean]

They were Tarquin's generic soldiers, IIRC. So I doubt any of them were important enough to warrant a full soul-sell.

Maybe Tarquin did it for them. :smalltongue:

[Keltest]

Well yeah....They first voted on destroying the world in response to the rifts (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0998.html), Xykon wasn't a factor in that. And smiting Xykon won't stop the rifts.

I think this is the key here. The gods don't actually care about Xykon collectively, except that he instigated the crisis. They DO all care about the snarl, and smiting Xykon will not, at this point, undo all the damage he has caused, directly or indirectly, to the rifts.

The fact of the matter is, they waited too long for one reason or another and lost the ability to smite the problem into submission.

[SilverCacaobean]

The fact of the matter is, they waited too long for one reason or another and lost the ability to smite the problem into submission.

Not true. It's just that now they have to smite everything! :smallbiggrin:

[LadyEowyn]

Back on the subject of Eugene: I'm pretty near certain he won't get into Celestia. The narrative wouldn't be giving us so many strong pointers in that direction if they weren't intended to mean something.

I think Eugene is wrong, though, about this being because he kidnapped and impersonated a Deva. He did that in late Book 2, and as of Book 4 when Roy was dead, the Devas were still speaking to him and even entrusted him with an important message (about Vaarsuvius' evil actions).

I think Eugene burning that message and approving of Vaarsuvius' actions is what burned his final bridge. Most spirits don't change after their permanent death, but most spirits don't have the capacity to influence events like Eugene does. He took an action in support of a horrifically evil act - and unlike Vaarsuvius, he has not reconsidered and recognized that the act was, in fact, evil. On top of that, his recent conversation with Roy shows that he no longer cares about the wellbeing of others, only about his chances of getting into Celestia - that in itself seems like a disqualifier for getting in.

I've been suspecting since that conversation that the Devas are avoiding him not out of anger, but because they're uncomfortable with the (highly unusual) situation and don't want to face telling him that he's not getting in. I also suspect that the absence of all the other oathspirits is foreshadowing something.

Eugene going to hell is not a reasonable possibility, but him going to a Neutral afterlife certainly is.

[ORione]

That said, she WAS a Cleric of Rat, IIRC.

She's a cleric of all the Southern gods (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=13053125&postcount=20).

[B. Dandelion]

Well - in theory st least - whatever happens, we know that dead souls no longer develop (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19680985&postcount=21), so whatever Eugene is, he was that before he died. There's a very good chance he'll be getting rejected from Celestia and kicked over to another afterlife, but I thunk that wood have happened regardless, even if they didn't have to wait fire the Blood Oath to clear. He just is waiting, because of that same path (he will not rest in this life or any other, IIRC).

In that very same thread, just a few posts down (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19683417&postcount=34), the Giant specifically notes that Eugene isn't IN Celestia yet -- in context, the inference being that present-Eugene couldn't rightly be compared to a hypothetical Eugene who had gone in already. They're different from each other. I gather that it's actually souls processed into the afterlife who cease to develop, not dead souls specifically.

I think you might be right that Eugene might not have ever been eligible to get in to begin with, but that statement from the Giant doesn't rule out the possibility that he could have gotten in originally but for the blood oath, only to have disqualified himself by changing alignments while waiting on the cloud.

[The MunchKING]

She's a cleric of all the Southern gods (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=13053125&postcount=20).

Ah, fair enough then. Even less of a reason Rat would notice her case specifically.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I'm a bit of cracked record on this point, but I still want to know what's stopping the Gods from just smacking Xykon with thunderbolts.

Oh come now, we all know that undead are immune to lightning attacks. Next you're going to suggest we set an ifrit on fire.

[Basement Cat]

I think Eugene is wrong, though, about this being because he kidnapped and impersonated a Deva. He did that in late Book 2, and as of Book 4 when Roy was dead, the Devas were still speaking to him and even entrusted him with an important message (about Vaarsuvius' evil actions).

I think Eugene burning that message and approving of Vaarsuvius' actions is what burned his final bridge. Most spirits don't change after their permanent death, but most spirits don't have the capacity to influence events like Eugene does. He took an action in support of a horrifically evil act - and unlike Vaarsuvius, he has not reconsidered and recognized that the act was, in fact, evil. On top of that, his recent conversation with Roy shows that he no longer cares about the wellbeing of others, only about his chances of getting into Celestia - that in itself seems like a disqualifier for getting in.



Eugene burning the message was one of the things I'd forgotten to include in my OP but resonates heavily with the subject.

The deva in question clearly considered the message to be extremely important but Eugene just reduced it to ashes and given that the Celestial Accountants tend to be like Santa Claus they'd be aware that Roy hadn't received the message.

They'd be gravely concerned about the IFCC and its intentions to be sure. So Eugene's actions could have a wider impact--a potential multiverse wide impact--than might be immediately apparent. :smalleek:

Definitely a bad mark in his book.

[Peelee]

In that very same thread, just a few posts down (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19683417&postcount=34), the Giant specifically notes that Eugene isn't IN Celestia yet -- in context, the inference being that present-Eugene couldn't rightly be compared to a hypothetical Eugene who had gone in already.

I don't see that inference at all. Nobody, Giant included, seems to have talked about a hypothetical Eugene which had gone in already. Only present, dead Eugene.

[B. Dandelion]

I don't see that inference at all. Nobody, Giant included, seems to have talked about a hypothetical Eugene which had gone in already. Only present, dead Eugene.

The conversation went like so:


And as far as talking to people with a different point of view, doesn't Eugene offer counter proof that statement? Supposing that there was a Eugne-clone identical in all respects to Roy's father, except that there wasn't the unfulfilled Blood Oath barring him from heaven. Would not Eugene-clone and Roy have plenty to disagree about, despite the identical entry in the alignment section of their character sheet?


Is Eugene in Celestia yet?

(Bolding mine.)

[Peelee]

The conversation went like so:





(Bolding mine.)

Aha. I'd completely missed that.

[hamishspence]

Have you noticed that your avatar seems to be gone? Maybe the site hosting it doesn't host it any more?

[Keltest]

The conversation went like so:





(Bolding mine.)

given that this is coming from the same guy who deliberately indicated that Durkon was in control of the vampire body without explicitly saying so, I'm not inclined to take anything other than an absolute statement from him at face value. As the author, Rich is rather well incentivized to avoid spoiling things like that, in either direction.

[Peelee]

Have you noticed that your avatar seems to be gone? Maybe the site hosting it doesn't host it any more?

I have. I've been meaning to get around to fixing it. Thanks, though!

ETA: Ahhh, that's better.

[B. Dandelion]

Aha. I'd completely missed that.

Sorry, I really should have quoted the tiny relevant passage from the Wall o' Text in the first place.


given that this is coming from the same guy who deliberately indicated that Durkon was in control of the vampire body without explicitly saying so, I'm not inclined to take anything other than an absolute statement from him at face value. As the author, Rich is rather well incentivized to avoid spoiling things like that, in either direction.

Are you comparing being misleading in the comic proper to being deceptive on the forums? On the board it seems more like he just doesn't engage with questions that might spoil a reveal.

[Emanick]

Sorry, I really should have quoted the tiny relevant passage from the Wall o' Text in the first place.



Are you comparing being misleading in the comic proper to being deceptive on the forums? On the board it seems more like he just doesn't engage with questions that might spoil a reveal.

I think Keltest was referring to an actual forum quote of The Giant's that implied, without explicitly stating as much, that Durkon was in control of his body. It was something to do with domain spells, IIRC.

[Kish]

Rich's post about domain spells had nothing to do with who was in control of his body (which, at the time, would have been Malack, with no ambiguity). It was a response to someone protesting that Rich was going too far by having Vampire Durkon still be able to cast spells at all.

I second what I'm seeing as B. Dandelion's implied "citation needed" to Keltest. Rich never posted implying Durkon was in control of his body.

[goodpeople25]

I thought the heavy implication without actually saying so was that vampire Durkon was a godless cleric and drawing power from a negative energy plane or somesuch. (On the subject of Durkon being able to cast spells) I also think Rich commented on that one after the reveal but I'm less confident on that one.

Also pretty sure domains were involved and the subject matter does have a relation with Durkon being in control of his body in regards to any misremembering.

[Emanick]

I thought the heavy implication without actually saying so was that vampire Durkon was a godless cleric and drawing power from a negative energy plane or somesuch. (On the subject of Durkon being able to cast spells) I also think Rich commented on that one after the reveal but I'm less confident on that one.

Also pretty sure domains were involved and the subject matter does have a relation with Durkon being in control of his body in regards to any misremembering.

Yeah, I remember both of those quotes. I looked around in the Index for a few minutes and didn't see them, though, so now I'm off to do other stuff.

[ORione]

Found it!


You know, you're right. I have gone too far this time. I'll stop making new strips now. Everyone, go home. The comic is over. My bad, I went too far.

:smallannoyed:

Tell you what, you read the vampire template entry, particularly the part where it explicitly says that vampire clerics can still cast spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) just with different domain access, and you tell me where it says anything about gods or temporary loss of access there. It doesn't. Vampire clerics do not need to worship a god to cast spells, because NO cleric needs a god to cast spells. The rules specifically allow for "non-theistic" clerics, and explains exactly what the effects of turning into a vampire has on a cleric: Rebuke instead of Turn, different domains. Period.

The only thing worse than the usual irrelevant rules pedantry is incorrect irrelevant rules pedantry.

Whether or not clerics, vampire or otherwise, need a deity to cast spells isn't important to whether or not Greg can cast spells. But he mentioned that they could to hide the Hel reveal.

[Emanick]

Found it!



Whether or not clerics, vampire or otherwise, need a deity to cast spells isn't important to whether or not Greg can cast spells. But he mentioned that they could to hide the Hel reveal.

Wasn't there another quote along similar lines? I saw that one, but I thought there was another.

[ORione]

Wasn't there another quote along similar lines? I saw that one, but I thought there was another.

Not that I remember, but maybe.

[B. Dandelion]

Found it!



Whether or not clerics, vampire or otherwise, need a deity to cast spells isn't important to whether or not Greg can cast spells. But he mentioned that they could to hide the Hel reveal.

Hey, thanks. I couldn't find it in the Index, and my Google-fu failed me as well.

I don't really regard that as "deceptive" exactly. But even if someone did... I don't think it's relevant to the quote I brought up, honestly. I brought it up specifically because it cast doubt on the idea that dead souls were identical to souls in the afterlife. If you cast doubt on the casting of doubt, where does that get you exactly? The Giant didn't say anything definitively in the quote I mentioned, he just rhetorically asked a question the readers already know the answer to. Saying "well we can't take him at face value" in that scenario mostly takes you on a 360 degree spin back to where you started -- where you can't say things for sure.

[Kish]

Not that I remember, but maybe.
It's logically impossible to prove a negative.

[Emanick]

Hey, thanks. I couldn't find it in the Index, and my Google-fu failed me as well.

I don't really regard that as "deceptive" exactly. But even if someone did... I don't think it's relevant to the quote I brought up, honestly. I brought it up specifically because it cast doubt on the idea that dead souls were identical to souls in the afterlife. If you cast doubt on the casting of doubt, where does that get you exactly? The Giant didn't say anything definitively in the quote I mentioned, he just rhetorically asked a question the readers already know the answer to. Saying "well we can't take him at face value" in that scenario mostly takes you on a 360 degree spin back to where you started -- where you can't say things for sure.

Yeah, I agree that it doesn't make sense to say that "The Giant once said something true but misleading on the forum to preserve/increase suspense, and that means you can't take anything else he says at face value." Rich is generally pretty straightforward when he posts on the forums; his occasional playfulness doesn't erase that fact.

[Keltest]

Yeah, I agree that it doesn't make sense to say that "The Giant once said something true but misleading on the forum to preserve/increase suspense, and that means you can't take anything else he says at face value." Rich is generally pretty straightforward when he posts on the forums; his occasional playfulness doesn't erase that fact.

Rich is usually straightforward because he typically only responds either as a moderator or to specifically clear up a misunderstanding, both of which require straightforwardness. The quote in question is unusual both in that it is not particularly straightforward, and also that rich is not coming at the answer from "three different directions", to borrow from how he has described his communication style.

Furthermore, its touching on events in the comic that haven't happened yet, so I have no doubts at all that he was being deliberately vague there in order to try and avoid indicating that Eugene will or will not get up the mountain.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Have you noticed that your avatar seems to be gone? Maybe the site hosting it doesn't host it any more?

The internet is becoming a very annoying space since Photobucket decided to replace all linking to that f***ing dial for anyone not paying them $400 a year. Avatars are just the most prevalent issue.

[LadyEowyn]

Well, someone said "Durkula can't cast spells, because he has no deity", and Rich responded with "clerics don't need a deity in order to cast spells", which led people to the conclusion that Durkula had no deity. A piece of misdirection that was probably intentional on Rich's part, since pointing in any other direction would have spoiled the big reveal, but he didn't say anything that was untrue.

So yes, I think we can conclude that Rich isn't going to give us information via the forum that spoils big plot twists. I have no issue with that.

The basis of my conclusion that Eugene isn't getting into Celestia is that the comic's gone out of its way to show him behaving and reasoning in a highly morally dubious way, even when (as with the latest converstion with Roy) his behaviour has no immediate effect on the plot. As well as dropping information like all the other oathspirits being gone, which seems like too big a coincidence to just be "oh, it happens that their oaths all got fulfilled by their descendents just recently". So I'm concluding that there will be some payoff to Eugene's behaviour.

Another thing that stands out to me is that Eugene's sharp turn for the worse seems to have been a reaction to Roy getting into Celestia - now he's not just impatient, he's bitter and jealous and resentful and impatient. That's when he starts showing a lack of concern for life in general and for anyone other than himself. Prior to Book 4, he was annoying, but he didn't show such obvious callousness towards all the non-Eugene inhabitants of the universe.

[Kish]

Not in the online comics, anyway. There's still the print-only strip where he told Shojo Roy didn't have a chance against Xykon but all he cared about was that he might get some useful information for Julia.

[SilverCacaobean]

It's logically impossible to prove a negative.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here, but that statement is not true. I've seen several examples of negative statements being proven in physics and maths... Besides, isn't that a negative statement itself? So, if it were true it would be unable to be proven.


On topic, I agree that Rich wants to do something with Eugene. I'm just not sure what. It might be he wants to make him a jerk who gets his comeuppance and loses heaven, but I think there will be more than this (that is, it's very possible he will, but it will be more than comeuppance). His last time meeting with Roy was certainly no resolution to their relationship and I think his relationship with Roy is more important than where on the alignment spectrum d&d rules put him.

[Kish]

Besides, isn't that a negative statement itself?
No, the closest negative I can think of would be "nothing can be proven." Easy to disprove (just prove something, anything), impossible to prove (you'd need to test everything imaginable and demonstrate that it can't be proven and that you definitely didn't miss anything).

Similarly, someone could easily cite Rich implying that Durkon was in control of his undead body, if he had done such, but there's no way to anti-cite Rich never doing so.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here, but that statement is not true. I've seen several examples of negative statements being proven in physics and maths... Besides, isn't that a negative statement itself? So, if it were true it would be unable to be proven.

You are talking different things. In both math and logic negative statements are still statements and therefore are provable from axioms*. E.g. "42 is not a prime" can be proven. In logic, it's even easier, like my logic teacher put it: one of the key characteristics of Aristotelian or propositional logic is that "no statement can be both true and false". This is provable from axioms (and I had to do it, but I'm afraid I've seen forgotten the proof. I'm sure you can find it on the Internet, though). It is also the key difference between Aristotelian and fuzzy logic, fwiw.

What Kish is talking about is real world global negative statements, like "Rich never said X", which would require a time machine and constant supervision.

Grey Wolf

*Or not, but not because they are negative, but because of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

[SilverCacaobean]

No, the closest negative I can think of would be "nothing can be proven." Easy to disprove (just prove something, anything), impossible to prove (you'd need to test everything imaginable and demonstrate that it can't be proven and that you definitely didn't miss anything).

Similarly, someone could easily cite Rich implying that Durkon was in control of his undead body, if he had done such, but there's no way to anti-cite Rich never doing so.

Your example sentences can't be proven, but that's not because they're negatives. The first is simply fallacious because it's either always wrong or an axiom. Even if you demonstrate that one thing can't be proven you've already got proof of something then and there. Conversely, if you can't prove anything at all, it's an axiom, along with everything else... The second can't be proven not because it is a negative statement but because proving non-existence of something can be hard, in some cases. It usually is practically, not logically, impossible. "It's logically impossible to prove a negative" is a negative of the statement: "It's logically possible to prove a negative".

EDIT:

You are talking different things. In both math and logic negative statements are still statements and therefore are provable from axioms*. E.g. "42 is not a prime" can be proven. In logic, it's even easier, like my logic teacher put it: one of the key characteristics of Aristotelian or propositional logic is that "no statement can be both true and false". This is provable from axioms (and I had to do it, but I'm afraid I've seen forgotten the proof. I'm sure you can find it on the Internet, though). It is also the key difference between Aristotelian and fuzzy logic, fwiw.

What Kish is talking about is real world global negative statements, like "Rich never said X", which would require a time machine and constant supervision.

Grey Wolf

*Or not, but not because they are negative, but because of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Oh, then we're talking fuzzy logic here! :smalltongue: Carry on then.

[Lacuna Caster]

Not in the online comics, anyway. There's still the print-only strip where he told Shojo Roy didn't have a chance against Xykon but all he cared about was that he might get some useful information for Julia.
Which book is that in?

[hamishspence]

Which book is that in?

War & XPs, after 310- it was 310b.

[Ruck]

Eugene was Lawful Good but he was never a saint, to be sure. But ever since his Blood Oath forced him to squat outside heaven's gates until one of his descendants (i.e. Roy) destroys Xykon he's become increasingly bitter and arguably less "Good".

He's also become more ruthless--even to the point of advocating that Roy let the world be destroyed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1047.html).

So my question is: Has Eugene burned his bridge? When the time comes will the Celestial Accountants reassess him and subsequently deny him entry? I can actually see it happen for the sake of drama: Roy succeeds but Eugene is kicked out into the Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, or even Neutral afterlife.

I think he has burned his bridge, and I think he's not actually Lawful Good, but I went into (possibly excessive) detail with my argument at the time that last series of strips with him was published. The cliffs notes version is: Maybe he lived a really Lawful Good life off-panel, but every time we see him on-panel, he's entirely concerned with self-interest and not particularly Lawful (to paraphrase the deva, "Breaking a blood oath is not an act that screams 'Lawful'")-- and I find it unlikely he was written to be one way off-panel when we see him as another way on-panel, except maybe to make a specific point about the crappiness of D&D alignment at filtering out who's a good person and who isn't.

edit: The point was so nice, but I didn't need to make it twice.

[Jasdoif]

Wasn't there another quote along similar lines? I saw that one, but I thought there was another.Maybe this one?

[Keltest]

Maybe this one?

was that in the index? I couldn't find it when I searched.

[Jasdoif]

Maybe this one?was that in the index? I couldn't find it when I searched.No, I remembered the "which this comic is not" line which narrowed it down to a single post.

The inner quote there was in the Index for a few years but removed after a vote; partly because after the fact it no longer applied to Durkon, and partly because the comic having shown a non-theistic cleric that had cast spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0995.html) removed the value the quote had regarding non-theistic clerics in general.

[Keltest]

No, I remembered the "which this comic is not" line which narrowed it down to a single post.

The inner quote there was in the Index for a few years but removed after a vote; partly because after the fact it no longer applied to Durkon, and partly because the comic having shown a non-theistic cleric that had cast spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0995.html) removed the value the quote had regarding non-theistic clerics in general.

The irony being I'm pretty sure I'm one of the people who pushed to have that quote removed.

Well then.

[Emanick]

The irony being I'm pretty sure I'm one of the people who pushed to have that quote removed.

Well then.

The moral of the story is that one should never ever throw anything away. Ever. :smalltongue:

[Rogar Demonblud]

As well as dropping information like all the other oathspirits being gone, which seems like too big a coincidence to just be "oh, it happens that their oaths all got fulfilled by their descendants just recently". So I'm concluding that there will be some payoff to Eugene's behaviour.

Not really a determinate. We never knew how many oathspirits there were waiting. We only saw two (Eugene and the woman he was dating {Violet?}), and the text uses a plural, so presumably they had enough for bridge. But beyond that? No clue. For all we know, there's a constant turnover.

We do know the Blood Oath of Vengeance was removed from play at some point after Eugene swore it, so there's no new oathspirits being made. And apparently the only people stuck outside are the ones who didn't make a good faith effort at fulfilling the vow anyway.

[Basement Cat]

Not really a determinate. We never knew how many oathspirits there were waiting. We only saw two (Eugene and the woman he was dating {Violet?}), and the text uses a plural, so presumably they had enough for bridge. But beyond that? No clue. For all we know, there's a constant turnover.

We do know the Blood Oath of Vengeance was removed from play at some point after Eugene swore it, so there's no new oathspirits being made. And apparently the only people stuck outside are the ones who didn't make a good faith effort at fulfilling the vow anyway.

When/where was the Blood Oath removed? I don't remember it happening in the regular series.

[Emanick]

When/where was the Blood Oath removed? I don't remember it happening in the regular series.

I'm pretty sure it never happened, unless it was mentioned in the extra commentaries available in the PDF versions of the old books, which I haven't read. Everything else I've read multiple times and I have no recollection of such an event ever transpiring.

[Kish]

I think Eugene said he was "the only oathspirit left" at some point or other. If read literally, that would imply no one else is making afterlife-binding oaths anymore. However, I wouldn't want to argue that such a statement should be parsed literally, least of all from someone as self-centered as Eugene.

[Ruck]

There might have been something about the Blood Oath being discontinued in the prequels, but I don't remember that, and I don't have them handy to look it up.

[Rezby]

I think Eugene will die after the Snarl thing is resolved, when the FCC make their play. He'll realize something something family, and end up sacrificing his eternal soul to save Roy - when the evil adventuring party attacked celestia, Roy asked can resting souls even be killed? They responded with some joke along the lines of let's find out and then were promptly taken down by Roy and Greenhilt. Seems like a simple throwaway line, but I think that, combined with everything else about Eugene, means that he will indeed never make it to Celestia - because he will just be gone. His ghost will 'die'. Be unmade, or something else that'll be the equivalent of death.

Edit: perhaps the FCC's play will happen during the resolution of the Snarl event, and the snarl will be the method by which Eugene 'dies'.

[Lacuna Caster]

War & XPs, after 310- it was 310b.

Cheers. What is up with all these disappearing avatars, btw?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Photobucket requires you to pay them for third party hosting now. So everyone who had their avatar there needs to either delete the link or move somewhere else (imgur is popular) and update the link.

[wumpus]

I don't think they can work against the Dark One like that without risking another snarl.

EDIT: I mean like that

The only real danger is an all out war between the gods. I don't see the dark gods supporting the Dark One in this battle (it looks like it is the Dark One vs. all other gods). The only real issue is that they (the gods) would probably go after the patsy, Xykon, instead of the real danger (it would be a lot easier to drum up support of smiting a post-mortal sorcerer than a high priest of any god).

[factotum]

The only real danger is an all out war between the gods.

That's totally not what we've seen in the strip? The Snarl was originally created due to the Gods being slightly narked with each other, so if a god-killing (and world-destroying) abomination can be created just due to slight annoyance, I dread to think what would be created by an all-out war. This is why all those rules were instituted, rules that even the most Chaotic of the gods follow.

[TidePriestess]

Except the details still matter. The idea is that all the souls eventually "burn out their mortal lusts" and eventually climb Mt. Celestia to the top. They fundamentally *do* advance in the afterworld. They might not advance anywhere else on their character sheet, but the alignment does change (although probably in smaller degrees).

I don't have the book where Eugene went through the first audit, but it didn't sound like he was going to go to a different plane. This is a bit of a surprise in that you can still wind up in Arcadia after pinging "lawful good" on all alignment checks (I'm convinced Miko is there). I doubt Miko or Vaarsuvius were ever in real danger for Hell (well more than 20 more minutes), much less Eugene. But D&D has some fine distinctions and I suspect Arcadia might fit him (Arcadia really does sound like a place built for Miko. I suspect she got over missing Celestia quite quickly).
I'd actually disagree, given that killing Lord Shojo was at least as much a contravention of law as it was of good, and one of Miko's issues was believing herself to be above the law. Indeed, it'd make slightly more sense for her to go to Bytopia than Celestia, assuming that souls would ever even go to the in-between outer planes (everything I've read about Hell seems to indicate that it has a monopoly on LE souls, for instance). But we do have a tiebreaker to decide this: combining what Rich said about not being able to see people with different alignments than you in the afterlife with Soon telling Miko that she would be able to see Windstriker, I think that more or less confirms that she did make it to Celestia.

[Chei]

But we do have a tiebreaker to decide this: combining what Rich said about not being able to see people with different alignments than you in the afterlife with Soon telling Miko that she would be able to see Windstriker, I think that more or less confirms that she did make it to Celestia.

Soon said that Windstriker would visit Miko as much as he was able, and also that he would usher Miko to her destination as well as the paladin souls. This pretty strongly implies that Miko is not going to Celestia, where the Lawful Good paladins/mounts are going.

[Kish]

I think Windstriker is probably another paladin's mount now, and "he will visit you as much as he is able" says neither that Miko is in Celestia (rules about the souls of the dead not being able to go between planes normally have nothing to do with a celestial companion horse) nor that she isn't in Celestia (Windstriker's duties continue to take up much of his time), though they do indicate that she's somewhere a celestial horse can visit her (so, probably not the Abyss).

[Lacuna Caster]

I'd actually disagree, given that killing Lord Shojo was at least as much a contravention of law as it was of good, and one of Miko's issues was believing herself to be above the law.
Obligatory counter-example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html). Later on, maybe.

[TidePriestess]

Obligatory counter-example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html). Later on, maybe.
It's a damn shame that it couldn't have manifested sooner, and we could have been rid of the little jerk.

[Ruck]

Obligatory counter-example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html). Later on, maybe.
Well, later on is when she kills Shojo, and it's pretty obvious she feels herself above the law when she does that (she even says something to that effect about the tainted courts).

[Cazero]

Well, later on is when she kills Shojo, and it's pretty obvious she feels herself above the law when she does that (she even says something to that effect about the tainted courts).
Paladins ought to go beyond the law of the land when the courts are corrupt. They may even have to murder the local Evil lord. Miko didn't fall because Paladins are never allowed to do it, she fell because her assumption that the situation warranted it was very deeply and very obviously flawed.

[Lacuna Caster]

Well, later on is when she kills Shojo, and it's pretty obvious she feels herself above the law when she does that (she even says something to that effect about the tainted courts).
Oh, it's pretty clear that someone screaming "The laws have no meaning!" is not acting in a maximally lawful fashion.


It's a damn shame that it couldn't have manifested sooner, and we could have been rid of the little jerk.
Oh, it did. Then this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) happened.

[TidePriestess]

Oh, it did. Then this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) happened.
Well, that's why it would have to have been sooner, before Vaarsuvius hated Miko more than Belkar. Also, I really don't buy Roy's defense of Belkar, alignment-wise.