How did gods survive before mortals?

[Mister Biffo]

If gods need those four things from mortals to continue existing, how did they get them originally before mortals? And if they're made by belief in the first place, who made them?

Could their origin be the planet in the rift?

Woz.

[Jasdoif]

If gods need those four things from mortals to continue existing, how did they get them originally before mortals?Presumably, they didn't need mortals before there were mortals, for whatever reason.



....the fact that the gods are the way they are now does not preclude them having existed in some other form in the past—one that we might not have thought of as "gods." It's just that the mechanism for change isn't reproduction and evolution. Or rather, it's memetic evolution, not genetic.

EDIT: I also think you're forgetting that the gods originated "from beyond the chaos (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html)." Their initial creation and/or ascension would involve how things work in that other place, wherever that might be, and has little bearing on the story.

[Draconi Redfir]

I like to think of it as sort of like the Keto diet.

When you're on the Keto diet, you focus on ultra-low carbs and high fats. When you're on the diet, your body actually functions slightly different then when you're not, it digests things differently. When you first go on this diet, or if you stray from it, you'll have a chance of going through a "Keto flu", a state of transition between Ketosis and not-ketosis in which you feel ill.

At one point the Gods were Not-keto, and could survive on Not-Keto foods. When they became as we know them now though, they went on Keto, and their bodies changed how and what they can digest. For them though it's more extreme, if they stray from their new diet, rather then getting sick, they could outright die.

[BaronOfHell]

Gods live off souls.

Say the gods were somehow made out of the chaos, but unlike e.g. the sun, the gods are free willed. Like the sun eats the hydrogen it is made of (later the leftover helium, etc.), the gods most likely also ate something, given they later depends on souls.

Since the gods made the planet which in principle is a soul factory (souls create more souls), I imagine whatever process the gods used to create the first creatures of the planet is the same process that they lived off in the first place. Perhaps like an ancient sea bed, the bigger gods ate the stuff that potentially could have turned into new gods, similar to how some mortals become gods themselves, in stead of being used for soul energy.

I don't know if the gods had a sustainable way of getting food before the first world, given the risk of the Dark One not making it, and previous gods not making it between worlds, I kind of doubt it. Also I don't know how big of a gamble seeding the planet with e.g. 1000 creatures was, but since then, except for the occasional Snarl attack, the gods have had plenty of food, and some of this food has also become gods themselves.

[DavidBV]

They probably had far less power than now, but without a Snarl and without the "cycles" threatening their destruction, it was ok.

[Ron Miel]

There wasn't a before. Making the world was the first thing they did.

[mjasghar]

A) Power reserve
B) like pandas they become dependent on worship
C) the loss of the 4th pantheon makes the worship etc they get less real which is why they can starve

[Steveio]

At first they didn't need mortals to survive. Then at some point, the mortals believed the gods needed them to survive. And so they suddenly did. The end. :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

I also think you're forgetting that the gods originated "from beyond the chaos." Their initial creation and/or ascension would involve how things work in that other place, wherever that might be, and has little bearing on the story. Rich isn't trying to narrate the alpha and the omega of OoTS world. He's taking a particular place in time and writing about "whats' the most urgent/exciting thing taking place now?"
(He mentioned something about that idea which he gleaned from a writing workshop a few years back).

His goal isn't world building in the sense of building a cosmos. All he needs to tell us about is enough of the cosmos as it relates to the story he is telling about ... The Order Of The Stick... this six characters who, in all of their imperfections stumbled across the urgent and exciting need to save the world that they live in.

Asking for a diversion to satisfy a craving for "a comsos that makes perfect sense" is asking for effort to be expended on a low value, collateral concern when the major concern is the story of the six main characters and their world.

[Anymage]

Asking for a diversion to satisfy a craving for "a comsos that makes perfect sense" is asking for effort to be expended on a low value, collateral concern when the major concern is the story of the six main characters and their world.

While true and I don't expect Rich to answer a lot of questions that are entirely irrelevant to the narrative, there is a reason that fan theories exist. Looking for plausible and sensible reasons for why things happen does drive a lot of people.

Granted, it is on us to find the answers that we like. Rich feeling compelled to have answers to everything would be a lot of pointless intellectual busywork that just detracts from his ability to make progress on more important things.

[KorvinStarmast]

While true and I don't expect Rich to answer a lot of questions that are entirely irrelevant to the narrative, there is a reason that fan theories exist. Sturgeon's Law, squared, and possibly cubed, applies to fan theories. :smallcool: I've tossed out a few, to include the green sword / green quiddity match up, but the value of that one, as with most others, is either very small or zero.

[Mastikator]

If we apply occams razor and remove unnecessary entities then they weren't gods, they were just the vaguest possibly quiddity barely existing in the astral plane. In the process of making the first world, and the snarl they created beings which believed the gods into shapes. And from there on they grew in complexity. Some gods didn't make it. Other gods were created over time. There was no "before" that and nothing existed besides that.

[Edea]

Also, Shojo's story might well be incomplete.

We know that it left out the 'oh, by the way, the current world isn't #2, might want to add some digits to that number,' thanks to the Astral Graveyard strip, and apparently even the gods themselves are in the dark about the possibility of planets inside the Snarl's current demiplane-prison (though apparently the exact amount of time it took for the Snarl to rip the very first planet apart is known to be 27 minutes, which is...interesting).

[Goblin_Priest]

(Gross oversimplification for rhetoric purposes ahead)

Bees require flowers to sustain them and (eventually) reproduce, while flowering plants require bees to fertilize them and reproduce. So how did these two co-dependant things come to be, what was going on when only one of the two existed?

I have no issues in my head-cannon about the gods both pre-dating and requiring mortals. The gods simply formed differently than what they turned out being "now". Mortal worship made them what they are now, and depriving them of this would change them beyond recognition. Perhaps to extinction. Nature is full of examples of specialist species requiring a very specific environment/food/host/etc., which would not be able to survive without it, and yet still they necessarily had an ancestor which lacked this requirement because none of it was around "at the dawn of time", when the first living organism emerged.

That the gods are so deeply affected by worship further supports the theory that, if "natural selection" and evolution does not apply to the current OotS prime material plane, it does apply to the gods themselves. Odin and Hel have suffered from changing environments, Odin was lastingly modified by one stint, death is mentioned as a menace, and yet new arrivals also exist to possibly fill in the voids left by dying or changing gods, like the elven gods and TDO. For example, maybe the elves wouldn't have been so quick to promote their own elven god of magic if the incumbent god of Magic (Odin) hadn't been so handicapped from prior nutritive stress. A world where not only elves, but more magic-wielders decided to switch to a new arrival rather than the old loon could plausibly have led to an utter replacement.

[Precure]

You should use MST3K mantra In circumstances like this.

[JSSheridan]

Yeah, if the first dozen or so worlds they made after the snarl awoke only lasted a few years, there probably weren't many souls to give them sustenance then either

I just don't think about things like that

[Jason]

B) like pandas they become dependent on worship
When did pandas become dependent on worship?

[Precure]

When did pandas become dependent on worship?

Since most of their natural habitats were destroyed and they became dependant on WWF publicity.


Yeah, if the first dozen or so worlds they made after the snarl awoke only lasted a few years, there probably weren't many souls to give them sustenance then either

https://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/Thor.png "In hindsight, maybe we didn't think this through."

[Dr.Zero]

Everything in the OOTS multiverse is made out of ideas. Even gods.
Clearly, gods were created by ideas from other people.
My conclusion: gods started as a a creation -a conglomerate of thoughts and ideas- from people of another dimension. A completely different one.
Maybe these people worshipped them, maybe for them the gods were only comic characters. Whatever.
When that other dimension's people came to extinction (or their universe died of enthropic death) the gods started to lose powers slowly, courtesy of theologic particles escaping from their singlualirty horizon.
At that point they tried to create people able to worship them again, this time in their (OOTS multiverse) dimesion. It worked well enough, if not for the Snarl.

The rest is known.

(Of course, this is only my personal theory)

[Precure]

My conclusion: gods started as a a creation -a conglomerate of thoughts and ideas- from people of another dimension. A completely different one.
Maybe these people worshipped them, maybe for them the gods were only comic characters.

And then oots will end with Elan and Haley coming out into the real world, like Sophie's World style, leaving that crapsack story world behind of them.

[Dr.Zero]

And then oots will end with Elan and Haley coming out into the real world, like Sophie's World style, leaving that crapsack story world behind.

Seriously, even if OT: my pet theory about the end of oots is that we will end up seeing the players behind and the group starting another campaign.
I believe this since, like, ever

[Schroeswald]

Seriously, even if OT: my pet theory about the end of oots is that we will end up seeing the players behind and the group starting another campaign.
I believe this since, like, ever

Based on everything Rich has said (like “there are no players” and “we will never see the real world” I doubt that, Summon Banana V for the quotes!)

[Precure]

Seriously, even if OT: my pet theory about the end of oots is that we will end up seeing the players behind and the group starting another campaign.
I believe this since, like, ever

Considering how many times the author denied that there is any players (despite of constant references to PC races and player characters) I would count that ending as a cheating. Himym finale comes to mind.

[Dr.Zero]

Based on everything Rich has said (like “there are no players” and “we will never see the real world” I doubt that, Summon Banana V for the quotes!)


Considering how many times the author denied that there is any players (despite of constant references to PC races and player characters) I would count that ending as a cheating. Himym finale comes to mind.

Fun fact: I think I asked this myself and some user even posted me some quotes. But either they were not definitive or my subconscious didn't want to accept them!

[Precure]

Fun fact: I think I asked this myself and some user even posted me some quotes. But either they were not definitive or my subconscious didn't want to accept them!

Sometimes it's better to listen your subconscious.

[KorvinStarmast]

Since most of their natural habitats were destroyed and they became dependant on WWF publicity. Heh, better than the WWE publicity, or at least more tasteful. (And by the way, spot on!)

My conclusion: gods started as a a creation -a conglomerate of thoughts and ideas- from people of another dimension. A completely different one. That would in fact be this dimension, and this world. :smallwink: Which means that, from an in-OoTS perspective, you are correct.
And then oots will end with Elan and Haley coming out into the real world, like Sophie's World style, leaving that crapsack story world behind of them. While I'd like to see that as the ending, I am pretty sure that isn't Elan's idea of a happy ending, and he gets a happy ending. (Unless the oracle is bigger lying sack of feces than I suspect ...)

[Psyren]

And then oots will end with Elan and Haley coming out into the real world, like Sophie's World style, leaving that crapsack story world behind of them.

Even in this unlikely event, I'm guessing they'd be even more disillusioned with our world (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html) than with theirs.

[Crusher]

When did pandas become dependent on worship?

Ever since they created the world, of course. It’s pandas all the way down.

[Riftwolf]

Ever since they created the world, of course. It’s pandas all the way down.

Only in the expansion pack, before then only one or two were ever recorded.

[mjasghar]

When did pandas become dependent on worship?

Pandas are naturally omnivores and survivor better on fruit and meat
But once they start on bamboo they become dependent on it even though they need to eat masses more in weight.

[The Pilgrim]

The Gods survived by drinking Mountain Dew.

Unfortunately, they lost the formula, so they had to create the mortals.

[Grey Watcher]

At first they didn't need mortals to survive. Then at some point, the mortals believed the gods needed them to survive. And so they suddenly did. The end. :smallbiggrin:

I'll take that headcanon. Have it shipped to my PO box.

[RatElemental]

This is like asking what happened before time began. There was no before time, that's kind of how time works as weird as it is to us.

While there was a time before mortals, that time was entirely devoted to the creation of mortals. Unless you think time extended back before the gods existed, but the gods didn't need mortals yet in that case.

[Jaziggy]

If gods need those four things from mortals to continue existing, how did they get them originally before mortals? And if they're made by belief in the first place, who made them?

Could their origin be the planet in the rift?

Woz.

I really enjoy this question- it's not something with a solid answer but it sure is fun to think about. To my mind, when the Gods were created In The Beginning, they were immortal creatures of immense power but were not 'Gods' in the D&D sense of the term. They used their power to create the world, and the world they created eventually began to worship them, increasing their power and making them true Gods. This meshes with what we know about The Dark One- a being of immense power who ascended to godhood through worship.

As for whether losing their worship would actually destroy them, that's an open question. It's certainly possible that they metamorphosed from their proto-God-selves into a new being that *requires* worship to survive, but it's also possible that they have become so accustomed to and pleased by worship that the shell of themselves they would be without it doesn't seem like a survivable existence, looking back on that distant blip of their existence from the distance of an infinity of time. None of them has ever actually tried starving themselves of worship, or been destroyed naturally by the lack of worship between worlds.

Thor says that The Dark One would die between worlds. Assuming he is correct (and he may be mistaken or even lying), it doesn't follow from that though any God would ultimately die without worship. The Dark One's original form is mortal, and frail compared to the immortal Gods. So perhaps the traditional Gods can survive without worship and the Dark One couldn't.

[WanderingMist]

Since most of their natural habitats were destroyed and they became dependent on WWF publicity.



https://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/Thor.png "In hindsight, maybe we didn't think this through."


Pandas are naturally omnivores and survivor better on fruit and meat
But once they start on bamboo they become dependent on it even though they need to eat masses more in weight.

Yeah, while pandas are threatened by habitat loss, they're even more threatened by their own stupidity. They refuse to eat anything but bamboo (despite being carnivores who literally do not have the enzymes required to digest it, relying instead on bacteria in their stomachs for the work) which gives them so little energy that they need to eat 30 lbs or so a day. They are also terrible parents. The fathers do no help raising the child, which isn't uncommon. But the mothers will also leave their dens for hours at a time to search for food leaving the cub defenseless.

[RatElemental]

I really enjoy this question- it's not something with a solid answer but it sure is fun to think about. To my mind, when the Gods were created In The Beginning, they were immortal creatures of immense power but were not 'Gods' in the D&D sense of the term. They used their power to create the world, and the world they created eventually began to worship them, increasing their power and making them true Gods. This meshes with what we know about The Dark One- a being of immense power who ascended to godhood through worship.

As for whether losing their worship would actually destroy them, that's an open question. It's certainly possible that they metamorphosed from their proto-God-selves into a new being that *requires* worship to survive, but it's also possible that they have become so accustomed to and pleased by worship that the shell of themselves they would be without it doesn't seem like a survivable existence, looking back on that distant blip of their existence from the distance of an infinity of time. None of them has ever actually tried starving themselves of worship, or been destroyed naturally by the lack of worship between worlds.

Thor says that The Dark One would die between worlds. Assuming he is correct (and he may be mistaken or even lying), it doesn't follow from that though any God would ultimately die without worship. The Dark One's original form is mortal, and frail compared to the immortal Gods. So perhaps the traditional Gods can survive without worship and the Dark One couldn't.

Loki and Thor certainly seem to think (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1177.html) Hel can starve to nonexistence.

[Precure]

I really enjoy this question- it's not something with a solid answer but it sure is fun to think about. To my mind, when the Gods were created In The Beginning, they were immortal creatures of immense power but were not 'Gods' in the D&D sense of the term. They used their power to create the world, and the world they created eventually began to worship them, increasing their power and making them true Gods. This meshes with what we know about The Dark One- a being of immense power who ascended to godhood through worship.

They were powerful enough to accidentally create an abomination that can kill gods due to their infighting.

[AceOfFools]

Couple of thoughts:

Outsiders exist; souls exist outside the world in the afterlives (powering gods through the time between worlds). There's no reason to assume that the first mortals to exist didn't exist before the the first mortal world.

Gods, like all astral plane objects are made of thoughts, ideas. The idea of death doesn't go away when e.g. Hades died; and indeed there are multiple gods for ideas. While gods may die, the ideas there made of don't go away, and therefore whatever process turned those ideas into gods in the first place might repeat, becoming gods again.

Therefore I postulate that the current gods weren't the first gods, and before the creation of a fixed worlds gods were born and faded back into the astral sea on the regular. Eventually some of them came together to create souls, self sustaining thought generates that could prevent that dissolution and reformation. This was why the gods first gathered together to create a world in the first place, to preserve themselves (much they way someone who reincarnates would want to preserve a particular version of themself).

We know that the strands of reality are a finite resource, since the gods can't build a new prison for the snarl without access to the ones in use by the current world. If they could they wouldn't need to destroy this world to build a new prison, they could just nest this world within a bigger one. We also know that 1) the Snarl doesn't permanently destroy them when it destroys their prison, but 2) the Snarl did destroy Green-quiddity gods in such a way that green strands never came back. Given how many worlds there have been, we can assume that if gods could spontaneously generate from ideas, they would have done so by now.

I will further postulate that without the green strands that are tied up in the snarl, there isn't a critical mass for green theogenesis, or that the existence of the Snarl otherwise fouls the process, perhaps preventing the theomorphic resonances to form properly.

Now looking at these postulates, are there any conclusions I could draw?

Well, assuming it's true, theogenesis could occur without input from the existing gods (a fact consistent with the existence of the Dark One). This imples that there could be gods or godlike beings inside the rift. It also implies that if the heroes did fail, and the Dark One starved, the purple strands making up the Dark One might also reform into a new (demi)god... eventually. He's not unique but a 1 in however many million, and another however many million tries, the gods will get a new chance.

I also think that it makes the Snarl scarier. If gods normally, let's use the word "reincarnate", but don't when ended by the Snarl, that is More Bad than if the Snarl is "just" capable of killing normally immortal creatures, since it disrupts their natural afterlife (much as the way it does mortals).

[KorvinStarmast]

Gods live off souls. And the gods existed before there were souls, as far as we know. (Enjoyed your post, in any event)

There wasn't a before. Making the world was the first thing they did. As far as we know, yes.

The Gods survived by drinking Mountain Dew.

Unfortunately, they lost the formula, so they had to create the mortals. This makes as much sense as any other theory, speaking as a one time Mountain Dew addict (college years).

There's no reason to assume that the first mortals to exist didn't exist before the the first mortal world. Not sure how you got there.

Gods, like all astral plane objects are made of thoughts, ideas.
But do ideas require mortals to exist, or can ideas come from elsewhere? I'd suggest the latter, so we don't end up in yet another chicken/egg loop. (Enjoyed your post/musing, nicely done).

Given how many worlds there have been, we can assume that if gods could spontaneously generate from ideas, they would have done so by now. Aye.

[Goblin_Priest]

A baby can live off small quantities of breastmilk, I don't think an adult can live off the same.

The most plausible explanation, in my mind, is that the gods outgrew whatever they were before. The existence of mortals altered them. Since they seemingly predate mortals, it'd be safe to assume they did not need mortals at first, but eventually they did, because belief turned them into something they were not before. Domesticated them, of sorts.

It's also possible that they don't predate mortals. Maybe under some situations mortals can be spontaneously generated, and their arrival led to the generation of the gods.

And whether gods or mortals came first, it also doesn't answer when "ideas" came into being. Maybe the ideas are cosmic forces, which leech into mortals, instead of being aggregates of shared mortal beliefs.

I don't think Rich will ever elaborate on the matter. He probably has an idea, but writing out the finer details of the origin of the gods in this setting doesn't really contribute to much. In the current context, anyhow, I suppose it could potentially be a plot point down the line.

[KorvinStarmast]

The most plausible explanation, in my mind, is that the gods outgrew whatever they were before. The existence of mortals altered them. This also makes sense.

[BaronOfHell]

And the gods existed before there were souls, as far as we know. (Enjoyed your post, in any event)

Glad you liked it, thanks for the compliment! :)

[AceOfFools]

Outsiders exist; souls exist outside the world in the afterlives (powering gods through the time between worlds). There's no reason to assume that the first mortals to exist didn't exist before the the first mortal world.

Not sure how you got there.
Aye.

We’ve seen several souls in the afterlife, so clearly souls can exist outside of a mortal world.

We know that gods in the astral plane arguing face-to-face can create a two color snarl, that’s the reason for the godsmoot to work the way it does. I extrapolate from that the gods could create things much smaller than worlds, if they wanted.

From this I argue it’s possible to create mortals that live and die in the outer planes.

For most large projects, especially the first time a thing is made, the first step is prototyping, building a smaller working piece. Often when you do this you learn about the process, like “hey, dedication is so sustaining” It’s natural to me that the gods would want to do some prototyping. This is projecting real world human processes onto literal gods.

From this I argue it’s a reasonable thing to believe happened. I don’t argue that it had to happen that way, just that it seems more likely to me than not.

[KorvinStarmast]

We’ve seen several souls in the afterlife, so clearly souls can exist outside of a mortal world.

We know that gods in the astral plane arguing face-to-face can create a two color snarl, that’s the reason for the godsmoot to work the way it does. I extrapolate from that the gods could create things much smaller than worlds, if they wanted.

From this I argue it’s possible to create mortals that live and die in the outer planes.

For most large projects, especially the first time a thing is made, the first step is prototyping, building a smaller working piece. Often when you do this you learn about the process, like “hey, dedication is so sustaining” It’s natural to me that the gods would want to do some prototyping. This is projecting real world human processes onto literal gods.

From this I argue it’s a reasonable thing to believe happened. I don’t argue that it had to happen that way, just that it seems more likely to me than not. :smallsmile: Heh, with my engineering experience, all of that makes sense. Nice.

[Goblin_Priest]

We’ve seen several souls in the afterlife, so clearly souls can exist outside of a mortal world.

That souls can *be* in the Outer Planes does not mean that souls can *spawn* in the Outer Planes.

I'm not really aware of any settings that clarifies where souls come from, and, well, their whole cycle of life. The OotS-verse says that when mortals die, their souls are freed to the outer planes most resembling them, where they are slowly absorbed as some sort of nourishment. It doesn't say where the souls come from, though, and at what point does a living creature earn its soul, where does the soul spawning take place in the reproductive cycle, and what the soul is made out of.

Outsiders in a typical D&D setting, if I remember correctly, are basically recycled mortal souls. Can new souls be created outside of the material plane, in this context? Is it a faculty that's tied to the material plane, or to its typical inhabitants? If you take mortals to the Outer Plane or Outsiders to the Material Plane, what's the impact on their abilities to procreate? In other words, is a human's ability to spawn a new soul (infant) tied to its innate characteristics (mortal/humanoid), or to its environment (Material Plane)?

I think that with the lore as we know it, both from OotS specifics and generic D&D settings, really doesn't go in enough depth about these details to be able to deduce what came first. The possibilities are endless.

[KorvinStarmast]

Outsiders in a typical D&D setting, if I remember correctly, are basically recycled mortal souls.
That really depends on which edition you are talking about

[mjasghar]

Depends on the specific being
Outsider is a general term for any non Material plane being - your place of birth has a tie to your spirit
In death souls migrate (sometimes, depends on setting) to other planes and then become tied to their new plane
They can then go through processes that transform them (or not, see Einheirar) into various beings
There’s also mortal outsiders which covers humans etc born on the outer planes and the source of the summon monster spells
And then there’s elementals who aren’t created from prime material souls - most are native species though there’s some suggestions they are created and shaped by belief in the elements as a force.

[hamishspence]

"Outsider" is separate from "Extraplanar".

Mortals who have migrated to the Outer Planes and become native to the plane they emigrated to, gain the Extraplanar subtype, rather than replacing their existing type with the Outsider type.

So, humans who have emigrated to the Lower Planes and adapted to them, for example, become fiendish humans. And so on.


Whereas outsiders are a bit more "spiritual". Ones native to the Outer Planes have "do not need to eat or sleep", for example.

Native outsiders are the often the offspring of extraplanar outsiders and mortals. They do need to eat and sleep.

[RatElemental]

That souls can *be* in the Outer Planes does not mean that souls can *spawn* in the Outer Planes.

I'm not really aware of any settings that clarifies where souls come from, and, well, their whole cycle of life. The OotS-verse says that when mortals die, their souls are freed to the outer planes most resembling them, where they are slowly absorbed as some sort of nourishment. It doesn't say where the souls come from, though, and at what point does a living creature earn its soul, where does the soul spawning take place in the reproductive cycle, and what the soul is made out of.

Outsiders in a typical D&D setting, if I remember correctly, are basically recycled mortal souls. Can new souls be created outside of the material plane, in this context? Is it a faculty that's tied to the material plane, or to its typical inhabitants? If you take mortals to the Outer Plane or Outsiders to the Material Plane, what's the impact on their abilities to procreate? In other words, is a human's ability to spawn a new soul (infant) tied to its innate characteristics (mortal/humanoid), or to its environment (Material Plane)?

I think that with the lore as we know it, both from OotS specifics and generic D&D settings, really doesn't go in enough depth about these details to be able to deduce what came first. The possibilities are endless.

Some settings actually do answer the question of where souls come from, but that doesn't help us since there's no reason OotS would be anything at all like them. I suspect the actual answer from the giant would be "Imagine whatever makes the story make sense to you, this is about the order not cosmology."

[Dion]

How did chickens survive before eggs?

[Goblin_Priest]

That really depends on which edition you are talking about

Well, 3.5 of course being the only one of interest here, or just about.


"Outsider" is separate from "Extraplanar".

Mortals who have migrated to the Outer Planes and become native to the plane they emigrated to, gain the Extraplanar subtype, rather than replacing their existing type with the Outsider type.

So, humans who have emigrated to the Lower Planes and adapted to them, for example, become fiendish humans. And so on.


Whereas outsiders are a bit more "spiritual". Ones native to the Outer Planes have "do not need to eat or sleep", for example.

Native outsiders are the often the offspring of extraplanar outsiders and mortals. They do need to eat and sleep.

Outsiders is a type, native and extraplanar are subtypes. Let's quote the more relevant passages:


Outsider Type

An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence.

Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.

Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native outsiders breathe, eat, and sleep.


Extraplanar Subtype

A subtype applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. Monster entries assume that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have when on its home plane). Every extraplanar creature in this book has a home plane mentioned in its description. Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane, and they gain the extraplanar subtype if they leave the Material Plane. No creature has the extraplanar subtype when it is on a transitive plane, such as the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, and the Plane of Shadow.


Native Subtype

A subtype applied only to outsiders. These creatures have mortal ancestors or a strong connection to the Material Plane and can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be. Creatures with this subtype are native to the Material Plane (hence the subtype’s name). Unlike true outsiders, native outsiders need to eat and sleep.

The wording on these is somewhat vague, ambiguous, and conflicting. Sure, we can use the "specific trumps generic" rule, but the fact that native outsiders can be resurrected doesn't really say much on whether everything else about the "single nature" stays intact or not. Which leads to puzzling situations given how various templates can result in outsiders spawning on the Material Plane, plus native outsider races.

[BaronOfHell]

How did chickens survive before eggs?

Well, perhaps they didn't?

Dun dun DUN!!!♪♪

[Psyren]

How did chickens survive before eggs?

They didn't - the egg came first, laid by something that wasn't a chicken.

[RatElemental]

They didn't - the egg came first, laid by something that wasn't a chicken.

Evolution is a bit less cut and dry than that: At no point did something that wasn't a chicken lay an egg that contained a chicken. The first population of chickens would have arisen from a population of almost chickens, though.

[Dr.Zero]

Evolution is a bit less cut and dry than that: At no point did something that wasn't a chicken lay an egg that contained a chicken. The first population of chickens would have arisen from a population of almost chickens, though.

Which, when you look at the single specimen, means the same
Mind you, I understood your point, yet, if I take a modern chicken and go back toward generations, I will come to a point where I can say "ok, this is too far from my definition of chicken", and that way we had exactly an example of a not-chicken who laid a (close-enough-to-)chicken. It can be very far in the past or very close, depending from how strictly we define our chicken parameters, but it is bound to happen.

[KorvinStarmast]

Evolution is a bit less cut and dry than that: At no point did something that wasn't a chicken lay an egg that contained a chicken. The first population of chickens would have arisen from a population of almost chickens, though.
It was approaching the status of chicken asymptotically, and eventually ran out of digits of precision to the right of the decimal ...

[Goblin_Priest]

Well if you adhere to the idea that you can always positively identify an individual as being a chicken or not, then necessarily the chicken has a very precise starting point. Or multiple starting points. All of which being with the chicken embryos preceding the chicken adults.

Practically speaking, though, nobody could credibly identify when a chicken was first born from a non-chicken. "Chicken" is an abstract concept, which seems really set and objective, with a latin name and official description and all, but it really all starts falling apart the closer you look at it.

[Dion]

it really all starts falling apart the closer you look at it.

*blue* about how close do you have to look at a chicken before it falls apart?.

[Dr.Zero]

Well if you adhere to the idea that you can always positively identify an individual as being a chicken or not, then necessarily the chicken has a very precise starting point. Or multiple starting points. All of which being with the chicken embryos preceding the chicken adults.

Practically speaking, though, nobody could credibly identify when a chicken was first born from a non-chicken. "Chicken" is an abstract concept, which seems really set and objective, with a latin name and official description and all, but it really all starts falling apart the closer you look at it.

It's not that the chicken is an abstract concept or that we can't -more or less arbitrarily- set some parameters (even regarding DNA) to call a living being a "chicken".
It's that we enter in the paradox of the heap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox) territory, so we have a difficult time to accept even the idea to set such parameters.

[Dion]

It's not that the chicken is an abstract concept or that we can't -more or less arbitrarily- set some parameters (even regarding DNA) to call a living being a "chicken".
It's that we enter in the paradox of the heap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox) territory, so we have a difficult time to accept even the idea to set such parameters.

Suppose the criteria is “a chicken is any animal that can mate with any of the population of existing live chickens and have viable offspring more than 5% of the time.”

If that were the criteria we chose, then I’d imagine there were many many generations where a lot of chickens had non-chicken offspring, and a lot of non-chickens had chicken offspring.

But I’m certainly not some sort of evolutionary biologist. I’m just some guy thinking “Huh, Here’s a wacky hypothesis. I wonder if it’s true? Oh, no matter. I’ll type it into the internet and let someone else do the work of proving it wrong. That seems like a good use of everyone’s time!”

Also, maybe gods can also get their energy from the radioactive decay of unobtanium, but the multiverse ran out of unobtanium a billion billion years ago.

[Dr.Zero]

Suppose the criteria is “a chicken is any animal that can mate with any of the population of existing live chickens and have viable offspring more than 5% of the time.”

If that were the criteria we chose, then I’d imagine there were many many generations where a lot of chickens had non-chicken offspring, and a lot of non-chickens had chicken offspring.


Probably.
But I can't see your point.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's not that the chicken is an abstract concept or that we can't -more or less arbitrarily- set some parameters (even regarding DNA) to call a living being a "chicken".
It's that we enter in the paradox of the heap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox) territory, so we have a difficult time to accept even the idea to set such parameters. If it walks like a chicken, flies like a chicken, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what is it?

[Schroeswald]

If it walks like a chicken, flies like a chicken, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what is it?

Charles Dickens, duh

[KorvinStarmast]

Charles Dickens, duh Charles Duckins? :smallconfused:

[Dr.Zero]

If it walks like a chicken, flies like a chicken, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what is it?

An ingredient for a new recipe.

[Emmit Svenson]

Once upon a time, a race of alien wizards coalesced out of the astral plane.

Like other mortals to come, many of these alien wizards wanted to become immortal. They came up with a way to crowdsource their magic, and created a world full of mortals who would believe in them and worship them, thereby fueling their immortality. There was just one snarl...

Over time, the beliefs of created mortals about these alien wizards affected them in diverse ways, transforming their personalities and even their memories.

[KorvinStarmast]

Either that, or the Xel'Naga created them in a petri dish and they are yet another failed experiment run amok.

[RatElemental]

Suppose the criteria is “a chicken is any animal that can mate with any of the population of existing live chickens and have viable offspring more than 5% of the time.”

If that were the criteria we chose, then I’d imagine there were many many generations where a lot of chickens had non-chicken offspring, and a lot of non-chickens had chicken offspring.

This definition has a pretty glaring flaw, in that it uses the word it's defining in the definition. It's akin to defining an anvil as a thing that is shaped like an anvil.

This is a pretty fundamental problem to categorizing life forms, it's hard to define things.


But I’m certainly not some sort of evolutionary biologist. I’m just some guy thinking “Huh, Here’s a wacky hypothesis. I wonder if it’s true? Oh, no matter. I’ll type it into the internet and let someone else do the work of proving it wrong. That seems like a good use of everyone’s time!”

And as someone whose hobby is being pedantic on the internet, I salute you for generating content to be pedantic about.

[Goblin_Priest]

It's not that the chicken is an abstract concept or that we can't -more or less arbitrarily- set some parameters (even regarding DNA) to call a living being a "chicken".
It's that we enter in the paradox of the heap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox) territory, so we have a difficult time to accept even the idea to set such parameters.

Well, those two are essentially the same. The paradox of the heap comes from the fact that a "heap" is an abstract concept that is poorly defined. Which is what I said "species" were. Which is both applicable to the species' evolution through time (when did it stop being something else and then become a chicken?) and at any specific time (which individuals are chickeny enough to be considered chicken?).


Suppose the criteria is “a chicken is any animal that can mate with any of the population of existing live chickens and have viable offspring more than 5% of the time.”

If that were the criteria we chose, then I’d imagine there were many many generations where a lot of chickens had non-chicken offspring, and a lot of non-chickens had chicken offspring.

But I’m certainly not some sort of evolutionary biologist. I’m just some guy thinking “Huh, Here’s a wacky hypothesis. I wonder if it’s true? Oh, no matter. I’ll type it into the internet and let someone else do the work of proving it wrong. That seems like a good use of everyone’s time!”

Also, maybe gods can also get their energy from the radioactive decay of unobtanium, but the multiverse ran out of unobtanium a billion billion years ago.

As another said, needing the term in the definition of said term is problematic. Furthermore, many species can crossbreed, and produce viable offspring. Many species can't or can barely produce viable offspring. And do you only consider natural breeding, or artificial breeding? Because humans can toy with chromosomes to make novel fertile hybrids, in plants at least. And animal breeding has resulted in animals (like broad breasted white turkeys) that have difficulty breeding naturally.


Either that, or the Xel'Naga created them in a petri dish and they are yet another failed experiment run amok.

Obviously, the Xel'Naga made the egg-laying dinosaurs, and Amon's taint turned them into chickens.

[GreatWyrmGold]

First off, having that kind of ontological paradox (where gods couldn't have existed without mortals, and mortals only exist because of gods) is fairly mild as far as mythology is concerned. Taking Greek mythology as an example, I can think of two bigger ontological paradoxes off the top of my head. First, the Gigantomachy seems to have taken place before humanity existed, but was won by Heracles, who was born of a human mother. Second and clearer, Hephaestus built a golden dog to protect baby Zeus, who is Hephaestus's father.

Second...if I had to make up a semi-specific "Gods were X before they fed on mortals" possibility, I'd draw on the mythological motif of creating the world from the dead body of a great (usually serpentine) monster representing primordial chaos. The gods drew sustenance from that monster somehow, perhaps being its servants who it willingly gave some of its power. But the monster abused its power over the gods, as so often happens, and they came together to overthrow the monster and make a world like the one we know.
I assume most of the gods in the modern pantheons weren't alive then—partly because that was a lot of worlds ago and that's plenty of time for gods to starve and be replaced, but mostly because it would be super weird for Tiamat specifically to participate in that kind of thing.


EDIT:

Suppose the criteria is “a chicken is any animal that can mate with any of the population of existing live chickens and have viable offspring more than 5% of the time.”

If that were the criteria we chose, then I’d imagine there were many many generations where a lot of chickens had non-chicken offspring, and a lot of non-chickens had chicken offspring.

But I’m certainly not some sort of evolutionary biologist. I’m just some guy thinking “Huh, Here’s a wacky hypothesis. I wonder if it’s true? Oh, no matter. I’ll type it into the internet and let someone else do the work of proving it wrong. That seems like a good use of everyone’s time!”
Might as well weigh in on this, since evolutionary biology is the closest thing I have to a specialty.
For strict definitions of "chicken," you're basically right. In fact, this very issue is the source of a lot of confusion around specifically human evolution. Some anti-evolutionists (which apparently is a word) point to how scientists classify and reclassify hominid specimens, not realizing that this is exactly what you'd expect if evolution was true.

If we had fossils of every ancestor of humankind over the past, say, three million years and tried to classify every single one into a specific species, it would be a nightmare. Let's say we organized the specimens into a great family tree. Well, at one end we'd have Homo sapiens, at the other end we'd have australopithecines, and somewhere in the middle we'd need to figure out where Australopithecus turns to Homo—and, for that matter, where Homo habilis turns to erectus to heidelbergensis to neanderthalis and sapiens. (Also, there are multiple species of Australopithecus, but there's no consensus on which evolved into Homo, so the chain stops back there.)

Right away we've got a problem, because as we now know, H. neanderthalis and H. sapiens interbred occasionally. Even if we ignore that, if we classified every specimen, there mathematically must have been at least two Australopithecus whose children were Homo, and the same for each species transition. But this is ludicrous; in any population, an individual will resemble its immediate ancestors and descendants more closely than it resembles other members of the population, because that's what heredity means. So by necessity, because species change into other species over time, there would necessarily need to be H. sapiens which resemble some H. heidelbergensis more closely than they resemble other H. sapiens. Combine that with how small the physical differences between different hominid species are, and it's no surprise that scientists would argue over the taxonomic designation of individual hominid specimens!

...wait, what were we talking about? Oh, right, chickens. If "chicken" was defined in evolutionary terms, the first chicken would need to be hatched from an egg laid by non-chickens. But the egg would still count as an egg, so it came first.

[rbetieh]

Guys, this was all solved in the other thread "The Hammer"

The outer planes are powered by souls (aka Ethereal Commoners). There is a fixed amount and those replenish always to their fixed amount. The "gods" were very powerful wizards that figured out how to generate new souls and thus expand their planes. First you grow a commoner, and when it's ripe, you convert it to an Ethereal Commoner and move it to another plane.

So the "gods" got together, took a portion of their Ethereal Commoner power and created a Commoner Garden, to grow more power.

For some reason, they allow the Commoners to apportion themselves based on their own life experiences instead of sharing the total equally, which is why the "gods" are always fighting each other....

[ijuinkun]

Thor established in his exposition dump that the Outer Planes are collections of ideas, and thus souls gravitate towards whichever one most closely resembles themselves, barring specific effort from Outsiders or Gods to redirect them--an example of such redirection being the auto-assigning of Dwarves to Hel if they die without honor.