Why was Surtur able to kick over castles in the mortal sandbox?

[Thanatosia]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html

In today's Strip, Thor explains there are god-laws that prevent him from intervening directly in mortal conflicts, but for some reason Surtur seemed to have free reign there to devour a bunch of mortals when Thor failed to directly intervene to save them?

[Peelee]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html

In today's Strip, Thor explains there are god-laws that prevent him from intervening directly in mortal conflicts, but for some reason Surtur seemed to have free reign there to devour a bunch of mortals when Thor failed to directly intervene to save them?

Because it was strip 40, where the Order was still supposed to wander the dungeon forever and the current story wasn't really a thing yet.

even once I decided that the strip would follow the same characters every installment—my first plan called for the comic to be an anthology of gags using a different party each time—I still thought that they would simply wander the dungeon forever. It wasn't until around #93 that I started thinking about wrapping up the dungeon and moving on. I wish I could say what, exactly, made me change my mind but I don't remember. I know that I thought I was leaving a lot of good jokes on the table by never having them go to town or on a wilderness adventure, though.

[Emanick]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html

In today's Strip, Thor explains there are god-laws that prevent him from intervening directly in mortal conflicts, but for some reason Surtur seemed to have free reign there to devour a bunch of mortals when Thor failed to directly intervene to save them?

My assumption is that this was on the Outer Planes - maybe Ysgard - where the rules against divine intervention may not apply. (To be clear, this is not my idea - somebody else suggested it in a previous thread, although I can't remember who.)

[Synesthesy]

Surtur is going to kill some mortal, and that's a violation of the rules. This is why Thor went there to kick him down.
Nothing is against the last strip's details: you can violate the rules even if you shouldn't, but then the other gods can violate them too to put you back to your place. Hel said it too some strip ago: the problem is not who break the rules, but who broke them first.

[Mad Humanist]

My assumption is that this was on the Outer Planes - maybe Ysgard - where the rules against divine intervention may not apply. (To be clear, this is not my idea - somebody else suggested it in a previous thread, although I can't remember who.)

I think it is pretty clear that the strip predates the plot. However this is the best way of retrospectively reconciling the strip to the current plot. I fully expect that if it ever comes up this will be the explanation. However bear in mind that the Colon Tumor Phone service was in the gag a day period and we have seen Thor's reaction to that.

[Fyraltari]

I think it is pretty clear that the strip predates the plot. However this is the best way of retrospectively reconciling the strip to the current plot. I fully expect that if it ever comes up this will be the explanation. However bear in mind that the Colon Tumor Phone service was in the gag a day period and we have seen Thor's reaction to that.

Yes, I think it safe to assume that unless it directly contradicts something established later and is without any room for justification/is in terrible taste (like the spiked tentacles of forced intrusion), it happened.

EDIT: Sorry about the multiple edits, trying to get my thought clear.

[Mad Humanist]

Yes, I think it safe to assume that unless it directly contradicts something established later and is without any room for justification/is in terrible taste (like the spiked tentacles of forced intrusion), it happened.

EDIT: Sorry about the multiple edits, trying to get my thought clear.

I don't see any reason to assume that the spiked tentacles of forced intrusion did not happen. If there was then for most of what Belkar did, he didn't.

[Fyraltari]

I don't see any reason to assume that the spiked tentacles of forced intrusion did not happen. If there was then for most of what Belkar did, he didn't.

V can't cast those kind of spells. Also Belkar and V are very different characters and Belkar still is not a rapist.

[zimmerwald1915]

V can't cast those kind of spells. Also Belkar and V are very different characters and Belkar still is not a rapist.
Mr. Burlew stated somewhere that this and stinking cloud we're instances of Vaarsuvius casting shadow conjuration.

And by"somewhere," I mean here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19156714&postcount=6).

[Fyraltari]

Mr. Burlew stated somewhere that this and stinking cloud we're instances of Vaarsuvius casting shadow conjuration.

And by"somewhere," I mean here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19156714&postcount=6).
Yes meaning that V did not summon spiked tentacles with which to anally rape Trigak. In the same way, if it turned out that what we saw was Elan using his illusion powers to amuse himself while Durkon was praying*, I would say that Surtur didn't casually murder a bunch of people on-panel.


*Which it wasn't.

[hamishspence]

My assumption is that this was on the Outer Planes - maybe Ysgard - where the rules against divine intervention may not apply. (To be clear, this is not my idea - somebody else suggested it in a previous thread, although I can't remember who.)

In the thread for strip 1115, there was this:



Also I don't think that gods fighting over villages meshes well with the canon the Giant decided on for the OOTS verse. Else Thor would have just "accidentally" crushed Lurkon first chance he got or something.

I assume that the village is in the outer planes, where Thor and Surtur both operate freely.

GW

[Kish]

It sure didn't look to me like Trigak didn't believe in the tentacles, and thus they were functionally real. "It's Trigak's fault he didn't make his Will save!" would be...an unusual form of victim-blaming.

[Fyraltari]

It sure didn't look to me like Trigak didn't believe in the tentacles, and thus they were functionally real. "It's Trigak's fault he didn't make his Will save!" would be...an unusual form of victim-blaming.

Wait, would failing his will save have made the tentacles actually real or just made him believe they were?

Because while I do still believe "make someone think they've been raped" is a terrible thing to do it is still a step up from "actually raping them".

[KorvinStarmast]

It sure didn't look to me like Trigak didn't believe in the tentacles, and thus they were functionally real. "It's Trigak's fault he didn't make his Will save!" would be...an unusual form of victim-blaming. It would be the fault of the dice if one misses a saving throw, not the fault of Trigak.

"I got a four!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0090.html)

Unless you want to be more like Belkar, and get into blaming others for failing a saving throw. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0111.html)

[Peelee]

Wait, would failing his will save have made the tentacles actually real or just made him believe they were?

In D&D, does it matter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantasmalKiller.htm)?

[zimmerwald1915]

Wait, would failing his will save have made the tentacles actually real or just made him believe they were?

Because while I do still believe "make someone think they've been raped" is a terrible thing to do it is still a step up from "actually raping them".
Shadow spells, unlike other illusions, are partially real. The difference between not making a will save and making a will save against shadow conjuration is the difference between feeling 100% of the spell's effect and 20%, with 80% being illusory.

[Fyraltari]

Right. Disregard what I've said then. :smallannoyed:

[woweedd]

Guys, we are treading dangerously close to forum-banned topics. Either way, I think we can assume the tentacles are, effectively, retconned out of canon, or, at least, the implications of them are.

[Riftwolf]

Surtur is going to kill some mortal, and that's a violation of the rules. This is why Thor went there to kick him down.
Nothing is against the last strip's details: you can violate the rules even if you shouldn't, but then the other gods can violate them too to put you back to your place. Hel said it too some strip ago: the problem is not who break the rules, but who broke them first.

I agree with this reading (just to get this back to forum-friendly subiect matter (assuming that's what people want (despite the overwhelming evidence it isn't)))

[Ramza00]

Remember we don't know all the rules so there may be rules where they temporary shelve the rules.

For example I can easily forsee a situation where this is a rule where in some instances it is okay to let out some steam as "sibling gods" and they are allowed to have their little "mortal interventions" in a controlled but still chaotic sense, and also the other gods can get involved in those mortal interventions in a controlled sense. I think of this like sibling rivalry (even if they are not siblings) where two siblings fight but they are also bonded to each other and in other circumstances the two siblings will cooperate at a deep level against other stimuli.

Yet we know from the backstory so far in over 1145 strips that these things need to be controlled for too much disagreements between gods and snarl energy is released and they can attract the snarl or create a new snarl.

[Synesthesy]

Yet we know from the backstory so far in over 1145 strips that these things need to be controlled for too much disagreements between gods and snarl energy is released and they can attract the snarl or create a new snarl.

Not always: to create a Snarl, you need at least two different quiddity. So you can do whatever you like within your own pantheon without risks.

[D.One]

Not always: to create a Snarl, you need at least two different quiddity. So you can do whatever you like within your own pantheon without risks.

That was not quite stated in canon. In fact, to create a Snarl, what seems to be needed is for two or more gods (Pantheon notwhithstanding) to be stretchin the threads of reality. That said, a 1-color Snarl should be easier to undo.

[Vinyadan]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html

In today's Strip, Thor explains there are god-laws that prevent him from intervening directly in mortal conflicts, but for some reason Surtur seemed to have free reign there to devour a bunch of mortals when Thor failed to directly intervene to save them?

The answer is: lots and lots of paperwork. Surtur had to send his application to the Interloping Department of the Infragod Commission, with a request of access to the mortal plane with purposes of Self-Indulgent Amusement. For the application to be accepted, however, he had to have all the gods in the Northern Pantheon sign it; the Commission would then request a confirmation of authorization by representatives of the other pantheons partecipating to the Commission, to make sure that their interests were not hurt. Finally, one member of the Northern Pantheon had to present himself as Supervisor for Surtur during his visit to the mortal plane; the Supervisor had to have a different alignment than the applicant, and happened to be Thor.

[Grey Watcher]

It's possible that Surtur's status as a demigod has something to do with it. Since ascended mortals seem to end up in this category (at least until they achieve some critical mass of BWDS to elevate them further), it would stand to reason they have more access to the mortal realm than their fully-fledged counterparts.

That, or, as has been speculated, the scene with Surtur is happening somewhere other than the Prime Material, where there aren't as many restrictions on the gods. (Although Thor is worried about going directly to The Dark One's home, so it would seem a Snarl could form anywhere; the Snarl is in the Prime Material because that happened to be where the gods were getting all up in each others' proverbial grilles.)

[Bacon Elemental]

Clearly Sutur is puppeting a giant golem shaped like himself so that he can stomp on Thor's peeps without causing a dimensional whoopsie

[Grey Watcher]

a dimensional whoopsie

Off-topic, but thank you for bringing a smile to my morning commute.

[xroads]

It's possible that Surtur's status as a demigod has something to do with it. Since ascended mortals seem to end up in this category (at least until they achieve some critical mass of BWDS to elevate them further), it would stand to reason they have more access to the mortal realm than their fully-fledged counterparts.


This is what I was thinking. In addition, while Surtur is not a god, he's probably considered a god level threat. So maybe Thor was given a little leeway in handling Surtur.

Hmmm... maybe it was a simulation. In classic Norse mythology, Valhalla is where the dead would fight each other all day. But when evening came their wounds would heal and they'd be ready for a night of food and drink. Maybe the Norse gods join in the fray and have practice runs? :smallbiggrin:

[Goblin_Priest]

My assumption is that this was on the Outer Planes - maybe Ysgard - where the rules against divine intervention may not apply. (To be clear, this is not my idea - somebody else suggested it in a previous thread, although I can't remember who.)

I've stated that there was nothing to indicate that this was the prime material plane, the last few times it came up, though others might have pointed that out before me.

Ysgard is a fairly good bet, if that's the case.

Alternatively, the guy who said "maybe Surtur breaking the rules is exactly what allowed Thor to step in" does have a workable theory, but I think the outer plane theory is more probable, as it's more plausible, to me, that "the rules were never broken" than "the rules are broken now and then and the gods fought it out, but somehow managed to avoid escalating it to the level necessary to create a new snarl".

As for Thor being afraid to visit the Dark One, I've always interpreted that as fear of personal harm from The Dark One, his minions, and whatever traps/defenses he may have, more than out of fear of creating a snarl on the outer planes.


Yes meaning that V did not summon spiked tentacles with which to anally rape Trigak. In the same way, if it turned out that what we saw was Elan using his illusion powers to amuse himself while Durkon was praying*, I would say that Surtur didn't casually murder a bunch of people on-panel.


*Which it wasn't.

Technically, there's no proof that Trigak got raped, anally or otherwise. While there's no way of imagining that spell in a way that isn't at least a little bit horrible, it could, technically, have been completely non-sexual in nature.

[D.One]

I really think we are overthinking here, because:

1) That's from the Just-Joke Era

2) The rules say the gods are not allowed to interfere (that much), not that they physically can't do it. I'm with the "Surtur got out of line, Thor went to discipline him" hypothesis. The Ysgard hypothesis also works fine.

[xroads]

I really think we are overthinking here, because:


Most certainly. But that's really half the fun of these forums.

I suspect that if over analyzing ever stopped, the forums would atrophy. :smallbiggrin:

[Fyraltari]

Technically, there's no proof that Trigak got raped, anally or otherwise. While there's no way of imagining that spell in a way that isn't at least a little bit horrible, it could, technically, have been completely non-sexual in nature.

Technically there's no proof Tarkin killed anyone when the Death Star fired on Alderaan either, technically, they could all have been on vacation on Dantooine.

[Dion]

Technically there's no proof Tarkin killed anyone when the Death Star fired on Alderaan either, technically, they could all have been on vacation on Dantooine.

That always seemed to me to be the most likely explanation. After all, the movie was rated PG.

[Peelee]

Technically there's no proof Tarkin killed anyone when the Death Star fired on Alderaan either, technically, they could all have been on vacation on Dantooine.

But he said Dantooine was far too remote for an effective vacation!

[Jasdoif]

But he said Dantooine was far too remote for an effective vacation!Wait...you mean the whole altercation was a refutation of their estimation of their vacation destination?

[Goblin_Priest]

Technically there's no proof Tarkin killed anyone when the Death Star fired on Alderaan either, technically, they could all have been on vacation on Dantooine.

Well, thing is, the OotS has a few pretty "good" members, and you'd think they'd... probably find it morally objectionable, instead of merely uncomfortable to watch?

Which leaves the following conundrum: which is most plausible? That a good party led by good PCs had its elf wizard brutally anally rape a monster, without ever making a fuss out of it, or that the strip was merely worded suggestively in order to make the readers imagine that's what happened, while something much less morally objectionable was what the good PCs saw and reacted to?

Because, honestly, if it did what it sounded like it did... that seems fairly deep into "evil" territory.

[Peelee]

Wait...you mean the whole altercation was a refutation of their estimation of their vacation destination?

I can provide verification.

[Fyraltari]

But he said Dantooine was far too remote for an effective vacation!
Not as remote as you might think. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJp-JJjb-oc)

Well, thing is, the OotS has a few pretty "good" members, and you'd think they'd... probably find it morally objectionable, instead of merely uncomfortable to watch?

Which leaves the following conundrum: which is most plausible? That a good party led by good PCs had its elf wizard brutally anally rape a monster, without ever making a fuss out of it, or that the strip was merely worded suggestively in order to make the readers imagine that's what happened, while something much less morally objectionable was what the good PCs saw and reacted to?

Because, honestly, if it did what it sounded like it did... that seems fairly deep into "evil" territory.
That the strip made a "villain got anally raped by spiked tentacles" joke because the author did not think the implications through. Or cared at the time.

Because, seriously, if the comic suggests something and then never contradicts it, then that's what happened.

EDIT: for comparison these are the same good members who beheaded goblins in their sleep at the time too.

[Goblin_Priest]

Not as remote as you might think. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJp-JJjb-oc)

That the strip made a "villain got anally raped by spiked tentacles" joke because the author did not think the implications through. Or cared at the time.

Because, seriously, if the comic suggests something and then never contradicts it, then that's what happened.

"Rape" is never mentionned anywhere, though, whatever the form of it.

There are other orifices that could be intruded. Technically, the tentacles could be intruding wounds that their spikes create, and there could be absolutely nothing remotely sexual about it. Just because it was clearly a "rape joke", doesn't mean that's what actually happened in-universe. ;)

[Fyraltari]

"Rape" is never mentionned anywhere, though, whatever the form of it.

There are other orifices that could be intruded. Technically, the tentacles could be intruding wounds that their spikes create, and there could be absolutely nothing remotely sexual about it. Just because it was clearly a "rope joke", doesn't mean that's what actually happened in-universe. ;)

#TarkinDidNothingWrong.

[Monday]

Wait...you mean the whole altercation was a refutation of their estimation of their vacation destination?

Quite an elegant summation.

[zimmerwald1915]

Not as remote as you might think. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJp-JJjb-oc)

That the strip made a "villain got anally raped by spiked tentacles" joke because the author did not think the implications through. Or cared at the time.

Because, seriously, if the comic suggests something and then never contradicts it, then that's what happened.

EDIT: for comparison these are the same good members who beheaded goblins in their sleep at the time too.
And the same Good party members who were fine with using en enslaved kobold as a trap-springer.

[rbetieh]

As long as we are overthinking the ancient strips... does anyone know how it was that Loki could switch quiddities? (last panel)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html

[Jasdoif]

As long as we are overthinking the ancient strips... does anyone know how it was that Loki could switch quiddities? (last panel)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.htmlHe didn't. Loki's nausea interacting with his will spontaneously produced a dark cyan ephemeral miasma. What we're seeing is the miasma highlighted by the visual display of Loki's quiddity, which of course looks like a change in the color of Loki's aura since the normally transparent miasma is incapable of producing visual effects without the powerful divine energy behind it.

[Peelee]

He didn't. Loki's nausea interacting with his will spontaneously produced a dark cyan ephemeral miasma. What we're seeing is the miasma highlighted by the visual display of Loki's quiddity, which of course looks like a change in the color of Loki's aura since the normally transparent miasma is incapable of producing visual effects without the powerful divine energy behind it.

tl;dr - deific hork.

[Riftwolf]

As long as we are overthinking the ancient strips... does anyone know how it was that Loki could switch quiddities? (last panel)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html

The old comics raises an interesting question.

Durkon has to negotiate with an Evil Cleric who watched him lose his virginity.

Just to up the stakes in that scenario...

[Fyraltari]

The old comics raises an interesting question.

Durkon has to negotiate with an Evil Cleric who watched him lose his virginity.

Just to up the stakes in that scenario...

I'd be surprised if the subject came up.

[woweedd]

Not as remote as you might think. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJp-JJjb-oc)

That the strip made a "villain got anally raped by spiked tentacles" joke because the author did not think the implications through. Or cared at the time.

Because, seriously, if the comic suggests something and then never contradicts it, then that's what happened.

EDIT: for comparison these are the same good members who beheaded goblins in their sleep at the time too.
For god's sake, stop viewing everything Watsoniangly. Rich says it didn't happen, or at least meant that, and, since he's the author, he's right, because this is fiction. Also, i'd argue the murdering goblins their sleep thing wasn't evil. They're enemy combatants, sleeping or no. The rules of war only work if your enemy abides by them/you have some means to punish them for not doing so.

[Kish]

For god's sake, stop viewing everything Watsoniangly. Rich says it didn't happen, or at least meant that,

No he didn't.

He said that he regrets writing it and that spell will never come up again.

That strikes me as semantically identical to saying, "Yes, it was a rape joke." Nowhere, ever, did he so much as hint that it wasn't.


and, since he's the author, he's right, because this is fiction. Also, i'd argue the murdering goblins their sleep thing wasn't evil. They're enemy combatants, sleeping or no.
Roy and the deva both seemed to see a problem with the idea of killing Belkar in his sleep.

(And yes, Belkar was certainly both a combatant and an enemy to Roy--he used his question for the Oracle to ask if he'd ever get to kill him.)

[Fyraltari]

For god's sake, stop viewing everything Watsoniangly. Rich says it didn't happen, or at least meant that, and, since he's the author, he's right, because this is fiction. Also, i'd argue the murdering goblins their sleep thing wasn't evil. They're enemy combatants, sleeping or no. The rules of war only work if your enemy abides by them/you have some means to punish them for not doing so.

First, this has nothing to do with the Doylist/Watsonian divide.

Second, as I said upthread, I am perfectly fine saying that did not happen in-universe. However claiming that it isn't what is shown on the comic is simply wrong.

[woweedd]

No he didn't.

He said that he regrets writing it and that spell will never come up again.

That strikes me as semantically identical to saying, "Yes, it was a rape joke." Nowhere, ever, did he so much as hint that it wasn't.

Roy and the deva both seemed to see a problem with the idea of killing Belkar in his sleep.

(And yes, Belkar was certainly both a combatant and an enemy to Roy--he used his question for the Oracle to ask if he'd ever get to kill him.)
I'm not impling in wasn't a rape joke, i'm implying it's, effectively, non-canon.

[Kish]

Yes, but based on an inaccurate statement. Rich never said it didn't happen, or anything like it. He only said he regretted writing it and it would never happen again. If everything that he regrets is non-canon, how many of the Order members are cis-female? Because he said he regrets the answer being "one."

[Bacon Elemental]

No he didn't.
Roy and the deva both seemed to see a problem with the idea of killing Belkar in his sleep.

(And yes, Belkar was certainly both a combatant and an enemy to Roy--he used his question for the Oracle to ask if he'd ever get to kill him.)

Belkar was most certainly not an enemy combatant to Roy. Roy had literally just claimed responsibility to reform/control him, and he was a mostly-loyal if highly troublesome and thoroughly-evil party member, even if he did ask whether he'd get to kill Roy at one point (And debatably caused him to become a pancake with his stupid bet).

Killing your allies and subordinates while they sleep just for being bad people is a very different matter than killing a group of enemy warriors who suddenly fell asleep in front of you because your wizard is supernaturally boring.

[zimmerwald1915]

Killing your allies and subordinates while they sleep just for being bad people is a very different matter than killing a group of enemy warriors who suddenly fell asleep in front of you because your wizard is supernaturally boring.
If anything, killing your allies and subordinates in their sleep because you know they are bad and dangerous people is better than killing sleeping enemy combatants about whom you know nothing - except that they are protected by the laws of war and could easily be taken prisoner.

[Goblin_Priest]

You can make a joke by alluding to something, without it actually happening. It was, most definitely, a "rape joke". However, if he were to say that no rape occur, it would both be plausible and compatible with everything we did see in-strip. It wouldn't be ret-conned, in that it was never established in canon that rape was actually had. The only thing we know is that there were spiked tentacles, and that whatever they did was uncomfortable to watch and to be victim to, and that they had a highly suggestive name.

[Fyraltari]

You can make a joke by alluding to something, without it actually happening. It was, most definitely, a "rape joke". However, if he were to say that no rape occur, it would both be plausible and compatible with everything we did see in-strip. It wouldn't be ret-conned, in that it was never established in canon that rape was actually had. The only thing we know is that there were spiked tentacles, and that whatever they did was uncomfortable to watch and to be victim to, and that they had a highly suggestive name.

I'm so glad all these people on Alderaan made it out alive.

[Iain]

I'm so glad all these people on Alderaan made it out alive.

Maybe leave this?

It's pretty clear what was being suggested, but the joke wasn't anything along the lines of tentacle rape being funny - it was that messing with a Wizard who has freshly prepared spells is a really bad idea which may result in being met with overwhelming, overkill-level horrific consequences. If it was funny (and face it, lots of us laughed), it was -because- it was over the top and terrible; it wasn't condoning it.

Plus the author has said he regrets it, and I think pretty much all of us will have said something we regret at some point (or would regret if someone pointed out the problem to us) - it's just that most of us don't have it immortalised in this way, so can just learn from it and move on.

[Fyraltari]

Maybe leave this?

It's pretty clear what was being suggested, but the joke wasn't anything along the lines of tentacle rape being funny - it was that messing with a Wizard who has freshly prepared spells is a really bad idea which may result in being met with overwhelming, overkill-level horrific consequences. If it was funny (and face it, lots of us laughed), it was -because- it was over the top and terrible; it wasn't condoning it.

Plus the author has said he regrets it, and I think pretty much all of us will have said something we regret at some point (or would regret if someone pointed out the problem to us) - it's just that most of us don't have it immortalised in this way, so can just learn from it and move on.

Again, I have no problem retconning the scene away, and saying V never cast that spell. But saying that the comic did not present V using magic to rape Trigak is just a lie.

Rich regrets writing that scene because that's what the scene is; if as Goblin_Priest keep insisting for whatever reason, the scene was not V raping Trigak, then Rich would not regret it.

[Kish]

That Roy "claimed responsibility to reform/control" Belkar only says something bad about Roy, since he didn't even bother to try to stop Belkar from casually (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html) murdering (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0133.html) people except when Shojo or the deva made an issue of his not doing so. The closest he ever came to actually trying to reform or control Belkar was, very-eventually, "yay, he's going to die soon."

As for why Roy didn't arbitrarily decide that righthand goblin in panel 1 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html) should be kept around and encouraged to kill the Order's enemies when he wasn't doing something out of Roy's sight that Roy didn't have to worry about, well, that's Roy's decision, but don't expect me to agree the distinction he made between that goblin and Belkar had moral weight.

Edited: To be clear, my point here is that Roy's "do you want me to murder him in his sleep?" line is fundamentally manipulative. He knows perfectly well that if he had, at some point when he was instead helping Belkar try to get out of any punishment at all (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html), decided to classify Belkar as an enemy and kill him, thereby saving Solt Lorkyurg's life, there would be absolutely no need for Belkar to be asleep or unprepared in any way; he just dragged in "in his sleep" to hit the deva's OMGMURDERINGTHEHELPLESS recoil button and thus get her to back off on telling him he needed to do something to actually contain Belkar, and thus it is relevant to point out that Roy has an inconsistent attitude toward killing people in their sleep.


Maybe leave this?


Again, I have no problem retconning the scene away, and saying V never cast that spell. But saying that the comic did not present V using magic to rape Trigak is just a lie.

Rich regrets writing that scene because that's what the scene is, if as Goblin-Priest keep insisting for whatever reason, the scene was not V raping Trigak, then Rich would not regret it.
Indeed. "Maybe leave this" is something to direct to Goblin Priest's insistence that what's happening in the "Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion" scene is something other than what it is.

[Goblin_Priest]

Again, I have no problem retconning the scene away, and saying V never cast that spell. But saying that the comic did not present V using magic to rape Trigak is just a lie.

Rich regrets writing that scene because that's what the scene is; if as Goblin_Priest keep insisting for whatever reason, the scene was not V raping Trigak, then Rich would not regret it.

Rich regrets it because "rape jokes", along with a bunch of other stuff, are not things he would do anymore. Not because of what it means in-universe or for the story, but because of how his morals and sens of responsibility, as an author, evolved.

The only thing the scene shows is V using suggestively-named magic with horrific results. There was no textual or graphical mention of rape.

The allusion to Alderaan is ridiculous. We saw the planet get blown up. It was done by evil people. And the good people on scene were shocked about it. In this case, we only saw a grapple. The act was done by a neutral character in an overall good party. And the good characters didn't really think much of it. If Leia had just shrugged it off, that Han had been the one to press the button, and that we hadn't actually seen the planet explode, then yea, you'd have a parallel.

Yes, the readers were meant to think of rape. No, the joke doesn't need it to be true to "work". Making things sound much more awful than they really were is often used when making jokes, as humor is often found in unexpected extremes.

[monomer]

The only thing the scene shows is V using suggestively-named magic with horrific results. There was no textual or graphical mention of rape.

Oh, come on. The next strip Trigak exclaims "I'm not comfortable being grappled there!" The allusion doesn't get much clearer than that.

[Peelee]

The allusion to Alderaan is ridiculous. We saw the planet get blown up.

But we saw no people on it, so even though it alludes to its population dying, they could have been off-planet at the time. All of them. The whole population. Sure, it's a genocide reference, but we don't actually see the genocide.

[Kish]

Indeed. The suggestion that the people of Alderaan survived is ridiculous? Exactly as ridiculous as the suggestion that Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion did something other than rape Trigak.

[woweedd]

Yes, it was a Rape joke. Rich regrets it, I don't consider it part of my personal canon, and I don't imagine he does either. The comic presented it, but it has now, I assume, been more-or-less reconnected. Another shameful artifact form the old Rich. "Shadow Evocation" was basically a way of saying "I regret third, and thus, I am retconning it such that one of my main characters is not a Rapist.

[Jasdoif]

"Shadow Evocation" was basically a way of saying "I regret third, and thus, I am retconning it such that one of my main characters is not a Rapist.Are you sure? 'cause I thought "shadow evocation" was more like "retconning to allow the scene to have taken place while maintaining consistency with Vaarsuvius' barred schools". It'd be rather odd to retcon it out of existence by justifying its presence.

Also, this whole book has a theme along the lines of "things exist whether you acknowledge them or not", I suspect there could be a connection here....

[Synesthesy]

Am I the only one who never had any kind of problem in the Trigark fight, and that feels no urge neither to retcon nor to delete that scene?

[woweedd]

Am I the only one who never had any kind of problem in the Trigark fight, and that feels no urge neither to retcon nor to delete that scene?
Guessing that's for the same reason I didn't used to: Namely, because I read it when I was 13, and, thus, didn't even get that that was the intended meaning.

[Goblin_Priest]

But we saw no people on it, so even though it alludes to its population dying, they could have been off-planet at the time. All of them. The whole population. Sure, it's a genocide reference, but we don't actually see the genocide.

And you ignore all the other arguments, quoting them out.

It's not plausible the whole planet was evacuated. They didn't know the attack was coming, and evacuating a whole planet is utterly ridiculous anyways.

There's nothing utterly ridiculous about summoning tentacles to merely grapple and damage a foe. It's actually a spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm). Should every time someone casts that spell, everyone should immediately assume that it's canon that there is rape involved? Guess I'm gonna have to go notify my DM...


Yes, it was a Rape joke. Rich regrets it, I don't consider it part of my personal canon, and I don't imagine he does either. The comic presented it, but it has now, I assume, been more-or-less reconnected. Another shameful artifact form the old Rich. "Shadow Evocation" was basically a way of saying "I regret third, and thus, I am retconning it such that one of my main characters is not a Rapist.

Shadow evocation is just a consistency thing to justify the use of a spell from a barred school. The spell is partly real anyways, and morally-speaking, if the victim feels and believes it to be real, saying "it's 80% illusion!" is rather irrelevant.

[Zholvar]

Am I the only one who never had any kind of problem in the Trigark fight, and that feels no urge neither to retcon nor to delete that scene?

Well i did compare it with "getting whiped with barbwire" when i first read it ->extremly painfull.

[Peelee]

And you ignore all the other arguments, quoting them out.

It's not plausible the whole planet was evacuated. They didn't know the attack was coming, and evacuating a whole planet is utterly ridiculous anyways.


You seem to have missed the point. Which is odd, since Kish even kindly stated it explicitly:

The suggestion that the people of Alderaan survived is ridiculous? Exactly as ridiculous as the suggestion that Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion did something other than rape Trigak.

There's nothing utterly ridiculous about summoning tentacles to merely grapple and damage a foe.
It's actually a spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm). Should every time someone casts that spell, everyone should immediately assume that it's canon that there is rape involved? Guess I'm gonna have to go notify my DM...
No, because that spell is called "Black Tentacles," and not "Rape Tentacles." That's a fairly significant difference, I must point out. If V cast a spell called Waterball and off panel there was a scream out "glurb," would you argue that the person off camera didn't necessarily get wet, it's not required for the joke to work, and anyone who says it does may as well be suggesting that Fireball (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm) also gets people wet by? Surely you csn see how ridiculous that stance is. I say optimistically.

[Grey Watcher]

You seem to have missed the point. Which is odd, since Kish even kindly stated it explicitly:


No, because that spell is called "Black Tentacles," and not "Rape Tentacles." That's a fairly significant difference, I must point out. If V cast a spell called Waterball and off panel there was a scream out "glurb," would you argue that the person off camera didn't necessarily get wet, it's not required for the joke to work, and anyone who says it does may as well be suggesting that Fireball (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm) also gets people wet by? Surely you csn see how ridiculous that stance is. I say optimistically.

Additionally, Black Tentacles just says they grab the target. Icky Cthulhu imagery aside, it's no different from catching them in a net or a lasso. On the other hand, the spell in OOTS specifically mentions the intrusion part by name.

[hroþila]

I mean, the spell had "Forced Intrusion" right there in the name. Not a lot of room for interpretation.

However, I don't think Goblin_Priest is arguing that the scene was intended to be taken as anything but a rape joke, but rather that it could be retconned in a way that is theoretically not impossible, even if it's obviously a huuuuge stretch.

[Fyraltari]

I mean, the spell had "Forced Intrusion" right there in the name. Not a lot of room for interpretation.

However, I don't think Goblin_Priest is arguing that the scene was intended to be taken as anything but a rape joke, but rather that it could be retconned in a way that is theoretically not impossible, even if it's obviously a huuuuge stretch.
I mean, this does not let much room to interpretation either :


if he were to say that no rape occur, it would both be plausible and compatible with everything we did see in-strip. It wouldn't be ret-conned, in that it was never established in canon that rape was actually had.
Emphasis mine.

[hroþila]

I mean, this does not let much room to interpretation either :


Emphasis mine.
I had missed that. I disagree with Goblin_Priest that it wouldn't be a retcon, but I sorta see where they're coming from.

[Dion]

I kinda disagree with the idea that Giant should retcon the scene. I mean, I don’t like the joke, and it might be nice if he put a disclaimer on the bottom saying he didn’t like it either. But I don’t think he should delete the whole comic, like the way George Lucas retcon’d greedo shooting first.

[zimmerwald1915]

I kinda disagree with the idea that Giant should retcon the scene. I mean, I don’t like the joke, and it might be nice if he put a disclaimer on the bottom saying he didn’t like it either. But I don’t think he should delete the whole comic, like the way George Lucas retcon’d greedo shooting first.
I think it should remain. It establishes Vaarsuvius's character. . . let's say "succinctly."

If any strip should be retconned, it should be the "unholy blight" strip.

[Fyraltari]

And you ignore all the other arguments, quoting them out.
Fine, let's run through those:


Rich regrets it because "rape jokes", along with a bunch of other stuff, are not things he would do anymore. Not because of what it means in-universe or for the story, but because of how his morals and sens of responsibility, as an author, evolved.
Really? Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html) is Rich implying rape as part of a joke again.

The difference between that scene and this one, is that in this one the raping is clearly framed as being wrong, and the joke lies on Taquin's pun, while in the older scene the rape is the joke.

Because for centuries men getting raped has been treated as a joke rather than the horror it is, and at the time Rich did thought so as well, like most of us have done/still do.


The only thing the scene shows is V using suggestively-named magic with horrific results. There was no textual or graphical mention of rape.
Indeed the scene does not show the rape in itself, because this was never some king of edgy "EXTREEEME!" gory comic (in other-words self-censorship).
What it does show is a suggestive name .I will spare you the lecture on the symbolism of the squid or its place in pornography, and focus on the forced intrusion (that doesn't leave any doubt), and the reactions of shock from both Trigak and the onlooking heroes "Wait, what ?", "Oo, that has got to be uncomfortable.", "I can't watch", In the future remind me to wait until late afternoon to insult Vaarsuvius... at the earliest", "The horror, the horror" and "I'm not comfortable being grappled there" with a sonor backdrop of "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGHH", the comic never portrays any other kind of violence as provoking that strong of reactions anywhere else.

Also the very fact that what's happening to Trigak is off-panel while we focus on people reacting to it is indicative of its sexual nature.


The allusion to Alderaan is ridiculous.
Deliberately so, as Kish pointed out.

We saw the planet get blown up.
Just as we saw V cast V's spell.

It was done by evil people.
Ah so when the vilains of a story have some action you disapprove of happen off-panel, it is definite they did it, but when the heroes do, it has to be confirmed? What a (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality) peculiar system (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralMyopia).

And the good people on scene were shocked about it.
As was Elan.

In this case, we only saw a grapple.
Well, I only saw a planet explode, didn't see any deaths.

The act was done by a neutral character in an overall good party. And the good characters didn't really think much of it.
Remember, kids, always judge the actions on the people who perform them. Never the other way around. :smallsigh:

If Leia had just shrugged it off, that Han had been the one to press the button, and that we hadn't actually seen the planet explode, then yea, you'd have a parallel.
Hey let's play a game, I'm going to make a list of all the times Alderaan is brought up again after its destruction in the entire Original Trilogy!


Pfiou, what along list. It really was terrible, for that poor Leia, I especially liked the scene, just after their escape from the Death Star where Luke put aside his grief over the death of some hermit guru he met the day before to console her for the loss of her entire world... Wait a minute...


Yes, the readers were meant to think of rape. No, the joke doesn't need it to be true to "work". Making things sound much more awful than they really were is often used when making jokes, as humor is often found in unexpected extremes.
That requires the author to show what actually happens though. Communication is based on the fact that the other people is not a mind reader, if an author implies something happened and then never contradicts it afterwards then that's what happenend. Why do you have trouble with such a basic concept?


It's not plausible the whole planet was evacuated. They didn't know the attack was coming, and evacuating a whole planet is utterly ridiculous anyways.
But it's entirely plausible that a spell called "EVAN'S SPIKED TENTACLES OF FORCED INTRUSION" does not rape its victim? Get out of here.



There's nothing utterly ridiculous about summoning tentacles to merely grapple and damage a foe.
If you name the spell like that, yes it is.

It's actually a spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm). Should every time someone casts that spell, everyone should immediately assume that it's canon that there is rape involved? Guess I'm gonna have to go notify my DM...
The name implies nothing of the sort.



I kinda disagree with the idea that Giant should retcon the scene. I mean, I don’t like the joke, and it might be nice if he put a disclaimer on the bottom saying he didn’t like it either. But I don’t think he should delete the whole comic, like the way George Lucas retcon’d greedo shooting first.
Retconning one event that had no bearing on the plot would not be "delet[ing] the whole comic". What are you even talking about?

[woweedd]

I think it should remain. It establishes Vaarsuvius's character. . . let's say "succinctly."

If any strip should be retconned, it should be the "unholy blight" strip.
Personally, i'd prefer V not to be a rapist, both because it renders their redemption arc hollow, and because, having a murderer as one of your cast, and one who is acknowledged as a despicable tool, is one thing. A rapist...Well, let me put this way.. I doubt anyone reading the comic has been murdered. I'm pretty sure at least one person reading the comic has been raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted.

[zimmerwald1915]

Personally, i'd prefer V not to be a rapist, both because it renders their redemption arc hollow, and because, having a murderer as one of your cast, and one who is acknowledged as a despicable tool, is one thing. A rapist...Well, let me put this way.. I doubt anyone reading the comic has been murdered. I'm pretty sure at least one person reading the comic has been raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted.
The redemption arc was already hollow. If it takes Vaarsuvius being a rapist to get that point through, then that's just another argument for keeping it in.

[woweedd]

The redemption arc was already hollow. If it takes Vaarsuvius being a rapist to get that point through, then that's just another argument for keeping it in.
To you, maybe.

[Fyraltari]

The redemption arc was already hollow. If it takes Vaarsuvius being a rapist to get that point through, then that's just another argument for keeping it in.
*Coughs*

Remember, kids, always judge the actions on the people who perform them. Never the other way around. :smallsigh:
*Coughs*

[Dion]

Retconning one event that had no bearing on the plot would not be "delet[ing] the whole comic". What are you even talking about?

That’s how your retroactively remove something from the continuity of the strip. You delete the offending comic and you say it never happened.

I disagree with people who say that the comic should be retconned, because I disagree with deleting the comic in question.

[Fyraltari]

That’s how your retroactively remove something from the continuity of the strip. You delete the offending comic and you say it never happened.

I disagree with people who say that the comic should be retconned, because I disagree with deleting the comic in question.

Oh, by "comic" you meant #20 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0020.html)? My bad, carry on.

[Kish]

I don't really think the level of viciousness demonstrated by Vaarsuvius in #20 is significantly different from that demonstrated in #639, or for that matter #835, for my part. Either you're prepared to accept the redemption of a horrifying sadist with a long history of gleefully and brutally torturing their enemies (if you're reaching for your keyboard to challenge this characterization, I suggest you reread the scenes in #640 where they gloat to the ancient black dragon about what they just did) or you are not.

[woweedd]

I don't really think the level of viciousness demonstrated by Vaarsuvius in #20 is significantly different from that demonstrated in #639, or for that matter #835, for my part. Either you're prepared to accept the redemption of a horrifying sadist with a long history of gleefully and brutally torturing their enemies (if you're reaching for your keyboard to challenge this characterization, I suggest you reread the scenes in #640 where they gloat to the ancient black dragon about what they just did) or you are not.
imena...In the objective sense, you are right, inasmuch as genocide is a worse crime then rape. That said, i'd say my feelings on it are swayed by A. The personalness of it. Genocide is an abstract crime. It's evil, but evil in the way that most people will never encounter. Rapists are, sadly, dime-a-dozen. It's the same reason Belkar, a serial killer, as a protagonist, feels "better" then a rapist, even if the crimes are on roughly the same level. and B. It's not the crimes, it's the acknowledgee. V's genocide was acknowledged as wrong and they're trying to fix it, inasmuch as such a thing is possible. The rape, has not been.

[Grey Watcher]

Didn't this thread used to be about Surtur? :smallconfused:

[Peelee]

Didn't this thread used to be about Surtur? :smallconfused:

I'm, too, am upset that the Star Wars references didn't end up taking control of the conversation. :smallwink:

[Dion]

I'm, too, am upset that the Star Wars references didn't end up taking control of the conversation. :smallwink:

We haven’t even started to discuss if Surtr’s fireblade is more or less powerful than a lightsaber. I’m sure this conversation still has legs.

[Fyraltari]

We haven’t even started to discuss if Surtr’s fireblade is more or less powerful than a lightsaber. I’m sure this conversation still has legs.

Well Surtur's blade can destroy a world (I think?), while the Death Star's superlaser is powered by the same crystals than lightsabers are. So If you build a lightsaber big enough they should be roughly equals.

[Grey Watcher]

Well Surtur's blade can destroy a world (I think?), while the Death Star's superlaser is powered by the same crystals than lightsabers are. So If you build a lightsaber big enough they should be roughly equals.

...

Did you just say the Death Star is a giant lightsaber?

[Dion]

...

Did you just say the Death Star is a giant lightsaber?

Yes. The Death Star is a lightsaber. It’s on the internet, and therefore true.

[Goblin_Priest]

No one's convincing anyone, but I find the debate still fairly amusing.

So for the sake of argument, could we say that maybe they didn't kill everyone on Alderaan, because maybe that's wasn't actually the planet they were at, and it was all just a bluff?

Maybe nobody did die!

Oh, wait, didn't Yoda say something about a bunch of people being snuffed out?

[Vinyadan]

We haven’t even started to discuss if Surtr’s fireblade is more or less powerful than a lightsaber. I’m sure this conversation still has legs.

I guess it was the conversation with the high ground!

[martianmister]

No he didn't.

Well...he did it, once.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=271002&postcount=137


I think it should remain. It establishes Vaarsuvius's character. . . let's say "succinctly."

If any strip should be retconned, it should be the "unholy blight" strip.

Your posts never cease to amuse me.


As long as we are overthinking the ancient strips... does anyone know how it was that Loki could switch quiddities? (last panel)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html

Incestuous thoughts? Explains Eastern Pantheon's quiddity.

[Mordaedil]

No one's convincing anyone, but I find the debate still fairly amusing.

So for the sake of argument, could we say that maybe they didn't kill everyone on Alderaan, because maybe that's wasn't actually the planet they were at, and it was all just a bluff?

Maybe nobody did die!

Oh, wait, didn't Yoda say something about a bunch of people being snuffed out?

Yoda wasn't introduced until Empire Strikes Back. That was Alec Guinness as Obi wan Kenobi. Maybe it's about time to watch the movies again? :smallsmile:

I can't believe the discussion shifted in this direction, seems kinda disturbing, honestly.

Sometimes it is best to let sleeping goats lie.

[Goblin_Priest]

Well...he did it, once.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=271002&postcount=137


HA! HA!!! :smallbiggrin:


Yoda wasn't introduced until Empire Strikes Back. That was Alec Guinness as Obi wan Kenobi. Maybe it's about time to watch the movies again? :smallsmile:

I can't believe the discussion shifted in this direction, seems kinda disturbing, honestly.

Sometimes it is best to let sleeping goats lie.

Oh, right. Yea, it's been a while since I saw those movies. Are they on Netflix? :smallbiggrin:

I'm totally on the "nobody died on Alderaan" camp now, though, because now I know, it wasn't Alderaan at all. But they did snuff out a whole random planet for giggles.

I mean, after all, who has time to go all the way the Alderaan? Must have been a border rim planet. Hence why nobody really cared about it. After all, Alderaan pays a lot of taxes, and death stars aren't cheap, you know? Even if they manage to make a new and bigger one every movie... (no wonder the galaxy is running out of space fuel)

[Synesthesy]

So Alderaan is the new Gallifrey?

[Jasdoif]

I mean, after all, who has time to go all the way the Alderaan? Must have been a border rim planet.Oddly enough, Alderaan was the only planet shown in the original version of original trilogy that was not in the Outer Rim.

[Peelee]

Oddly enough, Alderaan was the only planet shown in the original version of original trilogy that was not in the Outer Rim.

Funny story, I was looking into Star Wars scenery to see if I could try to recreate any for backgrounds, and I noticed that (almost certainly due to the advent of CGI) the Prequels had way more setting changes than the OT.

[zimmerwald1915]

Funny story, I was looking into Star Wars scenery to see if I could try to recreate any for backgrounds, and I noticed that (almost certainly due to the advent of CGI) the Prequels had way more setting changes than the OT.
And a corresponding number of W I P E S.

[Mordaedil]

Would be funny if the princess was merely acting like she was shocked while really thinking "that's not Alderaan, that's the moon commonly mistaken for Alderaan". :smallamused:


Funny story, I was looking into Star Wars scenery to see if I could try to recreate any for backgrounds, and I noticed that (almost certainly due to the advent of CGI) the Prequels had way more setting changes than the OT.

There are a few things you can give earnest praise to the prequels for, and sets and planetary settings are definitely in there. Podracing is also in there, even if it was just a literal copy of The Pinchcliffe Grand Prix animated movie.

[Emanick]

Would be funny if the princess was merely acting like she was shocked while really thinking "that's not Alderaan, that's the moon commonly mistaken for Alderaan". :smallamused:



There are a few things you can give earnest praise to the prequels for, and sets and planetary settings are definitely in there. Podracing is also in there, even if it was just a literal copy of The Pinchcliffe Grand Prix animated movie.

I think you mean Ben-Hur, which predated the Norwegian film by sixteen years. Although I guess it's it's possible that the direct inspiration came from The Pinchcliffe Grand Prix, which in turn came from Ben-Hur; a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything definitive on that front.

[Jasdoif]

Funny story, I was looking into Star Wars scenery to see if I could try to recreate any for backgrounds, and I noticed that (almost certainly due to the advent of CGI) the Prequels had way more setting changes than the OT.Yeah; I assume with the overhead of moving equipment/crew to physical locations, they wanted to get their money's worth out of the footage.

In a related note, The Clone Wars CGI had a fondness for establishing shots (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:Pantoran_city.png).

[Goblin_Priest]

And a corresponding number of W I P E S.

And thus came the "swipe left/right" generation. XD

[Mordokai]

Because it was strip 40, where the Order was still supposed to wander the dungeon forever and the current story wasn't really a thing yet.

I am in total agreement with you there, but about that quote from Rich...

Any chance we could get a compilation book based on those jokes he mentioned? :smallbiggreen: I loved the first book and would love to see some more of jokes like that. Yo see them in the new art style would make me positively giddy.

[Mordaedil]

I think you mean Ben-Hur, which predated the Norwegian film by sixteen years. Although I guess it's it's possible that the direct inspiration came from The Pinchcliffe Grand Prix, which in turn came from Ben-Hur; a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything definitive on that front.

You know, given George Lucas' filmatographic background(as a movie nerd prior to making Star Wars I mean), I reckon he was more inspired by Ben Hur (given the desert-wise setting, it also makes more sense) it was just a common critique in newspapers here around the time, so it got stuck in my head as the truth.

I wish we'd know for sure though, my mine gripe was mostly that it went uncredited and people claiming it was wholesale original. (which I guess I've been firmly set straight on with condition of Pinchcliffe Grand Prix now :smallamused: )

[DavidSh]

You know, given George Lucas' filmatographic background(as a movie nerd prior to making Star Wars I mean), I reckon he was more inspired by Ben Hur (given the desert-wise setting, it also makes more sense) it was just a common critique in newspapers here around the time, so it got stuck in my head as the truth.


I think the question is more between then 1925 and the 1959 versions of Ben-Hur.

[Kish]

I am in total agreement with you there, but about that quote from Rich...

Any chance we could get a compilation book based on those jokes he mentioned? :smallbiggreen: I loved the first book and would love to see some more of jokes like that. Yo see them in the new art style would make me positively giddy.
Check Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tales.

[Mordokai]

Check Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tales.

Well played good sir :smallsmile: I totally forgot about that one.

Guess that saves me time and money, which is great by any extent of imagination :smallbiggrin:

Have an internet cookie, you've deserved it.

[Winthur]

I briefly skimmed the thread and my understanding is that Vaarsuvius raped everyone on Alderaan, but we didn't see it because Rich regrets ever having written Surtur eating castles.

[Fyraltari]

I briefly skimmed the thread and my understanding is that Vaarsuvius raped everyone on Alderaan, but we didn't see it because Rich regrets ever having written Surtur eating castles.

This sort of post is why I come to this forum. :biggrin:

[Peelee]

Well played good sir :smallsmile: I totally forgot about that one.

Guess that saves me time and money, which is great by any extent of imagination :smallbiggrin:

Have an internet cookie, you've deserved it.

Well now Kish may just have to clear their cache.

[Emanick]

I briefly skimmed the thread and my understanding is that Vaarsuvius raped everyone on Alderaan, but we didn't see it because Rich regrets ever having written Surtur eating castles.

I dearly hope I am forgiven for how hard I laughed at this. :smalltongue: