What Was Girard Draketooth's Issue With the 12?

[Reathin]

In the flashbacks to the Order of the Scribble (or messages left behind into the present), we've seen Girard Draketooth make some rather pointed insults at Soon regarding his worship of the twelve gods ("glorified barnyard animals", for instance. Do we have any idea what brought this on? Is it just an extension of his irrational hatred for authority figures (and, being gods, they had a lot of that)? Did he disbelieve they were divine? Or did he just want to poke fun at Soon in general and the figures he worshiped seemed a prime target? Something else? I haven't read all the non-comic stories, so maybe I missed something, but I'm curious what exactly his issue with them is.

[Morty]

I assume it was part of his distrust of authority figures combined with their being the deities worshipped by someone he clearly hated. But there are some things we don't know about the Order of the Scribble's breakup yes.

[woweedd]

Girard hates authority, and no one is a higher authority then the Gods themselves.

[ORione]

What Morty and woweedd said, plus he's probably exaggerating his lack of respect for them to annoy Soon.

[KorvinStarmast]

In the flashbacks to the Order of the Scribble (or messages left behind into the present), we've seen Girard Draketooth make some rather pointed insults at Soon regarding his worship of the twelve gods ("glorified barnyard animals", for instance. Do we have any idea what brought this on? Is it just an extension of his irrational hatred for authority figures (and, being gods, they had a lot of that)? Did he disbelieve they were divine? Or did he just want to poke fun at Soon in general and the figures he worshiped seemed a prime target? Something else? I haven't read all the non-comic stories, so maybe I missed something, but I'm curious what exactly his issue with them is. It's means whatever you think it means. Any or all of the above and maybe other stuff too.

[Precure]

For a start, they were supporting an organization bend on genocide.

[Lacuna Caster]

In the flashbacks to the Order of the Scribble (or messages left behind into the present), we've seen Girard Draketooth make some rather pointed insults at Soon regarding his worship of the twelve gods ("glorified barnyard animals", for instance. Do we have any idea what brought this on? Is it just an extension of his irrational hatred for authority figures (and, being gods, they had a lot of that)?
One of the things about OotSverse as a setting that never exactly gets resolved is that you really aren't going to have a lot of characters that are religiously agnostic let alone actively antitheistic in this setting unless you are really really gutsy about bucking the system. Girard can despise the Gods as much as he wants but when he dies he's still going to get hauled before a review board run by the Celestial Bureaucracy that's going to decide the disposition of his soul (or whatever the CN equivalent might be.) Any rational forward-thinking person is going to want some kind of divine/demonic patron to maximise their chances of a pleasant or at least tolerable afterlife and there would be enormous social pressures to this effect in every society on the face of the planet. (This is spelled out explicitly for the dwarves, but everyone is terrified of the Hells/Abyss- the dwarves just have unusually stringent criteria for their souls' salvation.)

Then again, for all we know the Draketooths have a shrine to Tiamat tucked away somewhere in the back of the pyramid. Hard to say.

[Peelee]

One of the things about OotSverse as a setting that never exactly gets resolved is that you really aren't going to have a lot of characters that are religiously agnostic let alone actively antitheistic in this setting unless you are really really gutsy about bucking the system.
Literally the main character (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)of the comic, during a specific focus on him getting into the afterlife.

Any rational forward-thinking person is going to want some kind of divine/demonic patron to maximise their chances of a pleasant or at least tolerable afterlife and there would be enormous social pressures to this effect in every society on the face of the planet.
See above.

[TRH]

For a start, they were supporting an organization bend on genocide.

I think he was shown decapitating a previous Crimson Mantle bearer in one of the SOD flashbacks. Girard was probably a bit complicit in that part.

[Lacuna Caster]

Literally the main character (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)of the comic, during a specific focus on him getting into the afterlife.
Yes. That's my point. The setting and most of the characters therein are not coherent.

[woweedd]

One of the things about OotSverse as a setting that never exactly gets resolved is that you really aren't going to have a lot of characters that are religiously agnostic let alone actively antitheistic in this setting unless you are really really gutsy about bucking the system. Girard can despise the Gods as much as he wants but when he dies he's still going to get hauled before a review board run by the Celestial Bureaucracy that's going to decide the disposition of his soul (or whatever the CN equivalent might be.) Any rational forward-thinking person is going to want some kind of divine/demonic patron to maximise their chances of a pleasant or at least tolerable afterlife and there would be enormous social pressures to this effect in every society on the face of the planet. (This is spelled out explicitly for the dwarves, but everyone is terrified of the Hells/Abyss- the dwarves just have unusually stringent criteria for their souls' salvation.)

Then again, for all we know the Draketooths have a shrine to Tiamat tucked away somewhere in the back of the pyramid. Hard to say.
As we saw, the afterlife doesn’t actually gives a damm about your piety or lack thereof. If you’re a full-on Cleric, you get sent to your God’s afterlife, everyone else, default package.

[Lacuna Caster]

As we saw, the afterlife doesn’t actually gives a damm about your piety or lack thereof. If you’re a full-on Cleric, you get sent to your God’s afterlife, everyone else, default package.
Yes. Which doesn't make sense. The Gods feed off the belief of their mortal followers, cleric and otherwise, which means they are strongly incentivised to incentivise piety towards them, which means they need to disincentivise a lack of piety toward any God at all. Good-aligned faithless might no be sent outright to hell, but the faithful are definitely gonna get some extra perks and privileges in the afterlife.

[woweedd]

Yes. Which doesn't make sense. The Gods feed off the belief of their mortal followers, cleric and otherwise, which means they are strongly incentivised to incentivise piety towards them, which means they need to disincentivise a lack of piety toward any God at all. Good-aligned faithless might no be sent outright to hell, but the faithful are definitely gonna get some extra perks and privileges in the afterlife.

I was under the impression that, if you go to the generic alignment afterlives, you sorta give power to every god of that alignment. Keep in mind: if actual D&D is any guide, almost all the gods have their domains ON the alignment planes. I assume people who go to the generic one would feed energy into all the Gods on that plane, so Roy’s soul would feed all the Lawful Good deities, but Durkon’s soul would feed Thor and Thor only.

[Peelee]

Yes. That's my point. The setting and most of the characters therein are not coherent.

It does, you just seem to dislike it. It not being the way you specifically would write it does not make it objectively nonsensical.

[Fyraltari]

As we saw, the afterlife doesn’t actually gives a damm about your piety or lack thereof. If you’re a full-on Cleric, you get sent to your God’s afterlife, everyone else, default package.

Not true. That one dwarf wasn't a Cleric and yet she was sent to Thor's place. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1144.html)

[woweedd]

Not true. That one dwarf wasn't a Cleric and yet she was sent to Thor's place. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1144.html)

…She isn’t? Given that she’s shown with Thor’s high priest and has a weird helmet matching that of both Minrah and said high priest, I would certainly say it’s more likely she is then not.

[hamishspence]

…She isn’t? Given that she’s shown with Thor’s high priest and has a weird helmet matching that of both Minrah and said high priest, I would certainly say it’s more likely she is then not.

The absence of holy symbol, is the main clue that she's not a cleric, but something else - perhaps a "lay worshipper" (or a paladin).

Going by Complete Divine, if you are strongly devoted to your deity, you go to your deity's domain, even if your alignment doesn't quite match.

LN characters can get into an LG afterlife, for example, with strong devotion to their deity that resides in that afterlife.

Without this kind of strong devotion, your afterlife destination is determined primarily by your alignment, instead.


"Strong devotion" rather than "being a cleric" is the key factor in overriding standard afterlife rules.

[woweedd]

The absence of holy symbol, is the main clue that she's not a cleric, but something else - perhaps a "lay worshipper" (or a paladin).

Oh, yeah. I stand corrected.

[Fyraltari]

…She isn’t? Given that she’s shown with Thor’s high priest and has a weird helmet matching that of both Minrah and said high priest, I would certainly say it’s more likely she is then not.

I think that cap is just the standard issue dwarven military helmet. Logann's troopers wear it (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1163.html) and so did (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1127.html) Sigdi's (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0991.html).

Also, I doubt Rubyrock is High Priestess yet in that panel, she's wearing bog-standard Cleric of Thor robes and looks just as young as she did when Durkon was ordinated (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1086.html).
Her presence in that flashback is, I am guessing, to clue us that the conflict with the bugbears was recent and involved Durkon's home town.

[pearl jam]

For a start, they were supporting an organization bend on genocide.

I don't think we have any evidence to suggest that Girard feels any differently about goblinoid equality than society as a whole is suggested to feel. Also, in all likelihood the organization you're referring to didn't exist yet, nor did the campaign against the goblinoids.

[Lacuna Caster]

It does, you just seem to dislike it. It not being the way you specifically would write it does not make it objectively nonsensical.

I was under the impression that, if you go to the generic alignment afterlives, you sorta give power to every god of that alignment. Keep in mind: if actual D&D is any guide, almost all the gods have their domains ON the alignment planes. I assume people who go to the generic one would feed energy into all the Gods on that plane, so Roy’s soul would feed all the Lawful Good deities...
That might or might not be true and the underlying game theory might or might not be coherent, but since a significant portion of the Gods' nourishment comes from prayer and belief while a mortal is still alive, it's still in their interest to use afterlife outcomes to incentivise specific piety towards them. (Not to mention that all your pious friends and relations- and ancestors, whom it's possible to speak with in a D&D setting- are going to want you to wind up in the same corner of the afterlife of them, which would exert considerable social pressure to be similarly pious.)

Even just the threat of going to the Hells/Hades/Abyss would have pretty seismic implications for the wider society- because nobody is going to willingly do evil on a regular basis unless they are idiots, have a specific demonic patron to offset the risks involved, or are planning to cheat the afterlife entirely (e.g, becoming undead.) Most societies would be nearly evil-free because all the clerics can use Detect Evil to scan the congregation on sundays.
.

[Fyraltari]

That might or might not be true and the underlying game theory might or might not be coherent, but since a significant portion of the Gods' nourishment comes from prayer and belief while a mortal is still alive, it's still in their interest to use afterlife outcomes to incentivise specific piety towards them. (Not to mention that all your pious friends and relations- and ancestors, whom it's possible to speak with in a D&D setting- are going to want you to wind up in the same corner of the afterlife of them, which would exert considerable social pressure to be similarly pious.)

And what makes you think they don't do that?

[Lacuna Caster]

And what makes you think they don't do that?
The general lack of any visible piety on the part of, say, 90% of the characters who show up in the strip. You never see the Order kneeling down to mutter sutras to their patrons in the morning or saying grace before meals or swearing by Vafthrudnir or Baldir or Tyr, or what have you (aside from Durkon.) Religiosity was completely pervasive in traditional medieval/ancient societies, and while some aspects of D&D rules would have a large impact on social structure (clerical magic reducing infant mortality, for example), I suspect that theocratic tendencies would not be reduced (https://youtu.be/Qn8IlJb0GDU?t=279) in a universe with objectively real divine agency.

I mean, fine, it's a stick-figure webcomic, not everything is going to make sense. But when you go out of your way to make religious incentives shaping Dwarven society a major and critical plot-point, I think it does become reasonable to point out that every other society would face similar incentives to varying degrees.

[Riftwolf]

Yes. Which doesn't make sense. The Gods feed off the belief of their mortal followers, cleric and otherwise, which means they are strongly incentivised to incentivise piety towards them, which means they need to disincentivise a lack of piety toward any God at all. Good-aligned faithless might no be sent outright to hell, but the faithful are definitely gonna get some extra perks and privileges in the afterlife.

My impression is it takes more energy/effort to build and maintain a specific afterlife than buying shares in the generic afterlife which souls gravitate to anyway.

[hamishspence]

Religiosity was completely pervasive in traditional medieval/ancient societies, and while some aspects of D&D rules would have a large impact on social structure (clerical magic reducing infant mortality, for example), I suspect that theocratic tendencies would not be reduced (https://youtu.be/Qn8IlJb0GDU?t=279) in a universe with objectively real divine agency.


Keep in mind that it's an extremely polytheistic world.

[Peelee]

I mean, fine, it's a stick-figure webcomic, not everything is going to make sense. But when you go out of your way to make religious incentives shaping Dwarven society a major and critical plot-point, I think it does become reasonable to point out that every other society would face similar incentives to varying degrees.

But the Dwarves don't have an incentive to be religious. They have an incentive to be honorable. Hel does not get them if they die while not religious, she gets them if they die while not honorable. Thor did not say they created the most religious culture on the planet, he said they created the most honorable one. The fact that they went whole hog towards Thor is separate from the honor-afterlife issue, and is almost certain solely because Thor is the one who told them about it and thus threw them a lifeline. It's likely they would have treated similarly to anyone else, even a moral, who discovered the bet and told them about it.

[Fyraltari]

The general lack of any visible piety on the part of, say, 90% of the characters who show up in the strip. You never see the Order kneeling down to mutter sutras to their patrons in the morning or saying grace before meals or swearing by Vafthrudnir or Baldir or Tyr, or what have you (aside from Durkon.) Religiosity was completely pervasive in traditional medieval/ancient societies, and while some aspects of D&D rules would have a large impact on social structure (clerical magic reducing infant mortality, for example), I suspect that theocratic tendencies would not be reduced (https://youtu.be/Qn8IlJb0GDU?t=279) in a universe with objectively real divine agency.

I mean, fine, it's a stick-figure webcomic, not everything is going to make sense. But when you go out of your way to make religious incentives shaping Dwarven society a major and critical plot-point, I think it does become reasonable to point out that every other society would face similar incentives to varying degrees.

You are assuming that the characters we focus on are representative of the world they live in. Adventurers are, almost by definition, extraordinary people.

You are also assuming that the provability of the gods would increase religiosity but that's not guaranteed. After all if one can interact with the gods, their flaws are more apparent and one is less likely to see them in a transcendent manner. If "the gods" aren't the origin of Good and aren't all powerful and all-knowing (which we know they are not in this universe) why would you worship them?

Let's look at the Order:
-Roy was raised by a man who saw the gods as very powerful alien life-forms with a gimmick to their magic.
-Haley was raised to be a paranoid self-reliant thief.
-Vaarsuvius is a worshipper of the elven god of knowledge.
-Durkon is religious.
-Elan founded his own religion.
-Belkar is, well, he's Belkar.

So, what do you think the Northern Pantheon could offer to the four of them who aren't following an established god (I am granting you Elan here) that would convince them?

Edit: And about the incentives, it seems to me, that Durkon's extended family wishes to go to Valhalla and would not want to go to Celestia. So there are incentives, it's just that some people care about those and some don't.

[Lacuna Caster]

But the Dwarves don't have an incentive to be religious. They have an incentive to be honorable. Hel does not get them if they die while not religious, she gets them if they die while not honorable. Thor did not say they created the most religious culture on the planet, he said they created the most honorable one. The fact that they went whole hog towards Thor is separate from the honor-afterlife issue...
It really isn't, given that if you need to be honourable anyway you might as well worship the deity that most consistently rewards honour.


You are assuming that the characters we focus on are representative of the world they live in. Adventurers are, almost by definition, extraordinary people.
Granted, but the Order weren't thrown together by reason of being extraordinary, they were thrown together at random because they washed up at the fringes of society and Roy needed to scrape a crew together at short notice. And even then, you'd expect people like innkeepers and ships-captains and other common folk being surprised and even suspicious when they don't pray together at meals or stop off at one of the temples after their journeys. (I realise the early-strip Order in particular are likely to treat passing NPCs as if they were movable furniture, but still.)


You are also assuming that the provability of the gods would increase religiosity but that's not guaranteed. After all if one can interact with the gods, their flaws are more apparent and one is less likely to see them in a transcendent manner. If "the gods" aren't the origin of Good and aren't all powerful and all-knowing (which we know they are not in this universe) why would you worship them?
For all the reasons I went over before. You can love them or hate them, but they still pull the strings of the Celestial Bureaucracy and to a large extent decide who counts as naughty or nice. (The argument that Being Lawful Good is enough to permit entrance to Celestia is clearly false, for example, or the Astral Devas would just be waving everyone who pings LG past the pearly gates.)

I'm aware that the Order are canonically supposed to be quirky and idiosyncratic people (aside from Durkon), but making a conscious decision to ignore the Gods is extremely ballsy in this kind of universe and if you want to argue (as OotS generally does) that People Are The Product Of Their Society then it somewhat undercuts that premise when the protagonists wandered in ex nihilo as fully-fledged products of 21st-century secular humanism.

(I'm not counting V's patron for this purpose by the way- the deity he worships is never named and only ever referenced in one strip for gag purposes- it's like taking the strip where Belkar is transformed into a paragon of mercy by Owl's Wisdom as some kind of deep commentary on his underlying character.)
.

[Fyraltari]

It really isn't, given that if you need to be honourable anyway you might as well worship the deity that most consistently rewards honour.
And what makes you think that's Thor and not Tyr or Dvalin?



Granted, but the Order weren't thrown together by reason of being extraordinary, they were thrown together at random because they washed up at the fringes of society and Roy needed to scrape a crew together at short notice.
People at the fringes of society are not ordinary.

And even then, you'd expect people like innkeepers and ships-captains and other common folk being surprised and even suspicious when they don't pray together at meals or stop off at one of the temples after their journeys. (I realise the early-strip Order in particular are likely to treat passing NPCs as if they were movable furniture, but still.)
And maybe they were. Who cares what they think?



For all the reasons I went over before. You can love them or hate them, but they still pull the strings of the Celestial Bureaucracy and to a large extent decide who counts as naughty or nice.
No they don't.

(The argument that Being Lawful Good is enough to permit entrance to Celestia is clearly false, for example, or the Astral Devas would just be waving everyone who pings LG past the pearly gates.)
Damn, one would almost expect them to check whether the applicants are LG. Maybe with some sort of lengthy review process going over their life or something.


I'm aware that the Order are canonically supposed to be quirky and idiosyncratic people (aside from Durkon), but making a conscious decision to ignore the Gods is extremely ballsy in this kind of universe
So you say. I struggle to find a downside that can't be resolved in another manner.

and if you want to argue (as OotS generally does) that People Are The Product Of Their Society then it somewhat undercuts that premise when the protagonists wandered in ex nihilo as fully-fledged products of 21st-century secular humanism.
Or maybe that society more closely resemble the 21st century secular societies than you think? You are blaming the comic for not being something it has no interest in being, you understand that? The questions it wishes to adress are not "what would a society be like if factors X, Y and Z were applied." The story isn't about the world it's about the characters and details about the world (like the dwarfs and the Bet) will only ever come up if they matter to the characters' personnal journeys.


(I'm not counting V's patron for this purpose by the way- the deity he worships is never named and only ever referenced in one strip for gag purposes- it's like taking the strip where Belkar is transformed into a paragon of mercy by Owl's Wisdom as some kind of deep commentary on his underlying character.)
Considering Belkar's redemption arc started with him realizing how self-destructive his behaviour was, I don't think that comparison makes the point you want it to.

[Mic_128]

making a conscious decision to ignore the Gods is extremely ballsy in this kind of universe

Not necessarily. Gods themselves aren't making grand gestures that would cause people to worship them directly. Like Roy said, he figured as long as he didn't actively offend the gods, they'd leave him alone. I can see that being a not-uncommon method of thinking.

[Lacuna Caster]

Not necessarily. Gods themselves aren't making grand gestures that would cause people to worship them directly. Like Roy said, he figured as long as he didn't actively offend the gods, they'd leave him alone. I can see that being a not-uncommon method of thinking.
My point is that either the setting would not work this way, and if it is being asserted to work this way then the setting doesn't make a lot of sense. The Gods have every reason to incentivise mortals to worship them directly, both before and after death, because otherwise they go hungry and die.


And what makes you think that's Thor and not Tyr or Dvalin?
I don't know. Maybe 33% of dwarves each do worship those deities, or maybe we can just toss it on the pile of "things that don't make sense about the setting".

Damn, one would almost expect them to check whether the applicants are LG. Maybe with some sort of lengthy review process going over their life or something.
Yes, that's my point. People are arguing that 'being lawful good' is enough to get you into heaven even without faith in a specific deity, but being LG by itself is clearly not good enough. It would be perfectly possible for the Gods to just tell their devas to turn away the faithless if that system was to their advantage.

Or maybe that society more closely resemble the 21st century secular societies than you think? You are blaming the comic for not being something it has no interest in being, you understand that?
All criticisms of a story are in some sense requests for a different story. This isn't a rebuttal of criticism.

I realise that there are always going to be some creaky elements (https://dionetaofavalon.tumblr.com/tagged/Gandalf%27s-Counsel) when a relatively light and playful comic narrative gets shoehorned into a larger epic fantasy world, but this doesn't mean critics aren't entitled to point out the creakiness.

[hamishspence]

For all the reasons I went over before. You can love them or hate them, but they still pull the strings of the Celestial Bureaucracy and to a large extent decide who counts as naughty or nice. (The argument that Being Lawful Good is enough to permit entrance to Celestia is clearly false, for example, or the Astral Devas would just be waving everyone who pings LG past the pearly gates.)


People are arguing that 'being lawful good' is enough to get you into heaven even without faith in a specific deity, but being LG by itself is clearly not good enough.



That's not about "whether a character pings" - that's about whether the character's true alignment matches "the alignment they wrote on their character sheet", metaphorically speaking.

Roy genuinely believes he is "truly Lawful Good" - the review is an assessment to see whether Roy's belief is correct.

[Lacuna Caster]

That's not about "whether a character pings" - that's about whether the character's true alignment matches "the alignment they wrote on their character sheet", metaphorically speaking.
If you want to discern someone's true alignment, you use Detect X spells. Either that true alignment is decided by the underlying forces of the universe and the devas' post-mortem assessment is superfluous, or alignment is being decided by the celestial bureaucracy and continuously updated over a person's lifetime, in which case there's no need to rehash the work once the person is dead. The only purpose of the pre-afterlife interview would be to kick people out (or let people in) for reasons other than their alignment.

[hamishspence]

If you want to discern someone's true alignment, you use Detect X spells.

Not necessarily. Detect spells can give wrong answers. For undead, for example. Regardless of a ghost's actual alignment, it will detect as Evil.


The only purpose of the pre-afterlife interview would be to kick people out (or let people in) for reasons other than their alignment.

The Giant actually stated that "to see Roy's true alignment" was what the review was for:





There are only 17 Outer Planes; Roy's alignment would have to match one of them, because you can't not have an alignment. The deva only got "first look" because Lawful Good was the alignment Roy declared himself to be. It was his goal, and the review was to see if he had really met that goal. If he didn't, that would mean he actually had some other alignment, in which case the powers-that-be on that plane would have been happy to have him. Generally speaking, a character who really is alignment X on the inside will be admitted to plane X with no problems, except in certain special circumstances (Eugene, for example).

[Fyraltari]

The Gods have every reason to incentivise mortals to worship them directly, both before and after death, because otherwise they go hungry and die.
And given that there are mortals who do worship them, then they most likely do. Else why would those mortals worship the gods?



I don't know. Maybe 33% of dwarves each do worship those deities, or maybe we can just toss it on the pile of "things that don't make sense about the setting".
Why wouldn't it make sense? "Thor is popular among the dwarves because he told them how not to be tortured forever" makes plenty of sense.

Yes, that's my point. People are arguing that 'being lawful good' is enough to get you into heaven even without faith in a specific deity, but being LG by itself is clearly not good enough.
How is that "clearly" not good enough when the whole point of Roy's interview was to check whether he was Loyal Good?

It would be perfectly possible for the Gods to just tell their devas to turn away the faithless if that system was to their advantage.
The gods didn't design the afterlives' system. The faithless aren't sent to them in the first place.


All criticisms of a story are in some sense requests for a different story. This isn't a rebuttal of criticism.
Right, but you are stating that the comic makes no sense for failing to adress your assumptions about things the comic doesn't even try to explore. It's one thing to complain that the economy in A Song of Ice and Fire makes no sense whatsoever, it's another to ask how Superman can lift planets when his muscles are about as developped as a bodybuilder's.
Edit: Superman isn't a good example since there are no good answers to that. A better one would be "How could Sherlock Holmes not know that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the opposite, that makes no sense!" There are ways Holmes could have never been taught that, but the books don't explain it, because Conan Doyle wasn't writing about Holmes' school days.

[Dion]

The Gods have every reason to incentivise mortals to worship them directly, both before and after death, because otherwise they go hungry and die.

And apparently they also have reasons not to provide those incentives.

It boils down to you saying “given very limited set of rules I know about, the correct way for the gods to min-max their power levels is to do a specific thing”, and then complaining when the thing isn’t shown in the comic.

Maybe there are other rules you don’t know about.

Maybe the gods don’t care to min-max.

Maybe the gods do the thing you say, and you don’t see it?

I feel like you’re picking on things with incredibly limited information, and jumping to conclusions without evidence.

[Lacuna Caster]

And given that there are mortals who do worship them, then they most likely do. Else why would those mortals worship the gods?
{scrubbed} My beef is not with whatever percentage of mortals do worship Gods, it's with why the Gods would tolerate anyone not worshipping them when harvesting worship was the whole point of creating the world in the first place.


Not necessarily. Detect spells can give wrong answers. For undead, for example. Regardless of a ghost's actual alignment, it will detect as Evil.
Then use whatever epic-level magic was installed to allow Eugene to scry at will on the material plane to create a Perfect And Infallible Actual True Alignment Detector. (In a sense this is what the planes already are, since souls already intrinsically gravitate toward whichever plane their soul is most attuned to, which makes the whole setup doubly redundant.)

This is not a universe where subjective moral judgments count for much (or where self-deception is even really sustainable.) You either take extra damage from smite evil or you don't, the well-intentioned extremists are not immune to this. Paladins either lose their powers or they don't, regardless of how much conviction in the justice of their actions they might hold (as has been pointed out extensively.) Monks and Barbarians and Druids and Clerics face alignment restrictions, and they suffer damage from Dictum or Word of Chaos as appropriate. Their opinions on the topic do not matter except to the extent that opinion may drive behaviour that accords with a given true alignment.


The Giant actually stated that "to see Roy's true alignment" was what the review was for:
I am aware of why the author wrote the scene. I am pointing out this is totally superfluous within the context of D&D's pre-existing metaphysical framework. Either the work of review was already done, or it never needed doing in the first place.

[Dion]

it's with why the Gods would tolerate anyone not worshipping them when harvesting worship was the whole point of creating the world in the first place.


They seem to get the worship they need now; if they’re getting what they need, why would they do all the extra work you suggest they should do?

I don’t think the “maximize shareholder value at any cost” idea you seem to promote has any utility beyond a very limited set of capital markets.

Since the gods don’t seem to exist on a stock exchange, then I don’t think any of your ideas apply.

[Lacuna Caster]

They seem to get the worship they need now; if they’re getting what they need, why would they do all the extra work you suggest they should do?
To jockey for relative position, to have more divine calories with which to benefit their mortal followers and clerics, and just possibly to incentivise mortals doing all the stuff they regard as the correct thing to do.


Right, but you are stating that the comic makes no sense for failing to adress your assumptions about things the comic doesn't even try to explore. It's one thing to complain that the economy in A Song of Ice and Fire makes no sense whatsoever, it's another to ask how Superman can lift planets when his muscles are about as developed as a bodybuilder's...
I am not demanding that Rich Burlew bring his work to a screeching halt, go back and spend fifteen years rewriting his opus to conform with ]{scrubbed}, any more than I would demand that George RR Martin go back and rewrite his opus to conform with Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage. But if GRRM (or his TV series adaptation) were to depict characters travelling with suspicious rapidity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYanlP2xI5M&ab_channel=IGN) around several enormous continents in ways that appeared to be impossible in earlier books and chapters, I would expect that criticisms to this effect would be noted as valid and legitimate and not dismissed with facile tautologies, even if it's too late to do much about it now.

.

[Fyraltari]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{scrubbed}

My beef is not with whatever percentage of mortals do worship Gods, it's with why the Gods would tolerate anyone not worshipping them when harvesting worship was the whole point of creating the world in the first place.
Because they already have enough and it's not worth the extra effort. Because the faithless souls power up Cosmic Forces of Good, Evil, Chaos and Law and the assorted Outsiders and the Gods think it's better to those around. Because their anti-Snarl rules prevent them from acting to directly on the Material Plane. Because the Good gods don't want to and the Neutral gods think it'd be bad PR. Because having a large group of non believers to potentially rally to their cause mean the other gods are less likely to try to convert their flock. Because the faith has to be genuine to count and some people just won't ever be fit to worship the gods. Pick however many reasons you like.



Then use whatever epic-level magic was installed to allow Eugene to scry at will on the material plane to create a Perfect And Infallible Actual True Alignment Detector.
That's probably how they got the data the Deva is analysing.

[woweedd]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote} My beef is not with whatever percentage of mortals do worship Gods, it's with why the Gods would tolerate anyone not worshipping them when harvesting worship was the whole point of creating the world in the first place.


Then use whatever epic-level magic was installed to allow Eugene to scry at will on the material plane to create a Perfect And Infallible Actual True Alignment Detector. (In a sense this is what the planes already are, since souls already intrinsically gravitate toward whichever plane their soul is most attuned to, which makes the whole setup doubly redundant.)

This is not a universe where subjective moral judgments count for much (or where self-deception is even really sustainable.) You either take extra damage from smite evil or you don't, the well-intentioned extremists are not immune to this. Paladins either lose their powers or they don't, regardless of how much conviction in the justice of their actions they might hold (as has been pointed out extensively.) Monks and Barbarians and Druids and Clerics face alignment restrictions, and they suffer damage from Dictum or Word of Chaos as appropriate. Their opinions on the topic do not matter except to the extent that opinion may drive behaviour that accords with a given true alignment.


I am aware of why the author wrote the scene. I am pointing out this is totally superfluous within the context of D&D's pre-existing metaphysical framework. Either the work of review was already done, or it never needed doing in the first place.
Yes, it would be stupid if that was the case, if Detect Alignment was all you really needed to determine someone's true nature. So, logically, we can conclude it is in fact, not. That, or you're asserting that you, rando ono the Internet, know this system then the people who have, in-universe, been running it for literal millenia. In general, I find critiques of the nature
And, as for why they don't...My assumption was that faithless souls DO power the Gods, they jsut power all the Gods, of whatever plane they're on, rather then powered one and only one. And, being as not all Gods are Hel, it's entirely possible some of them decide that jealously guarding their own power like that is something they shouldn't do, either because they want their ally gods to get power too, or because it'll piss off other Gods. Hel kinda gives a skewed view, but not all Gods are concerned solely and entirely with their own power and nothing else.

[Dion]

I would expect that criticisms to this effect would be noted as valid and legitimate ...

But it is invalid.

Nobody’s enjoyment of OotS hinges on whether or not the gods min-max their builds like a bunch of middle school D&D dice rollers.

Criticism that the gods don’t min-max isn’t addressing anything that the author or or the readers care about.

[hamishspence]

My assumption was that faithless souls DO power the Gods, they jsut power all the Gods, of whatever plane they're on, rather then powered one and only one.
As was mentioned here:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1144.html

mortals are capable of contributing 4 things "to the gods and the cosmos" - worship is only one of them.

Roy has contributed 1 of the 3 things he can contribute in life - by "knowing the gods exist".

[Precure]

My point is that either the setting would not work this way, and if it is being asserted to work this way then the setting doesn't make a lot of sense. The Gods have every reason to incentivise mortals to worship them directly, both before and after death, because otherwise they go hungry and die.


Look, I'm not going to engage with you if you're not making a good-faith effort to acknowledge the point here. My beef is not with whatever percentage of mortals do worship Gods, it's with why the Gods would tolerate anyone not worshipping them when harvesting worship was the whole point of creating the world in the first place.

But what are you expecting them to do? As long as there is free will, there has to be people who doesn't care about the gods.

[Lacuna Caster]

Because they already have enough and it's not worth the extra effort.
What extra effort? All they have to do is tell their devas to kick out the faithless or shunt them off to the Economy Class side of the mountain.

Because the faithless souls power up Cosmic Forces of Good, Evil, Chaos and Law and the assorted Outsiders and the Gods think it's better to those around. Because their anti-Snarl rules prevent them from acting to directly on the Material Plane. Because the Good gods don't want to and the Neutral gods think it'd be bad PR. Because having a large group of non believers to potentially rally to their cause mean the other gods are less likely to try to convert their flock. Because the faith has to be genuine to count and some people just won't ever be fit to worship the gods...
It is incoherent to argue that some people will be outright impossible to convert and that the Gods need to make special provisions to ensure that the faithless exist. (In any case, that's more the situation with Belkar than Roy.)

Pick however many reasons you like.
...No. I don't think I will. Because it's not my job to rewrite the author's story to make sense.


Yes, it would be stupid if that was the case, if Detect Alignment was all you really needed to determine someone's true nature. So, logically, we can conclude it is in fact, not...
Maybe you think D&D is a stupid setting, or a stupid game, or a stupid set of metaphysical assumptions. I can see arguments for it. Nevertheless, this is in fact how it works in a D&D setting, and you can't really extricate that from OOTS without rendering it unrecognisable.

[Dion]

What extra effort? All they have to do is tell their devas to kick out the faithless or shunt them off to the Economy Class side of the mountain.

Yawn. Sounds like effort, and probably reduces the gods enjoyment of being gods.

Ugh. Who wants to min-max like that all the time? So tiresome. Not me, if I was a god.

And it’s not like being a god is some cutthroat libertarian market where only the most ruthless profit motivated gods survive. There’s super high barriers to entry, and they have a monopoly on it. They can be inefficient without repercussions.

It’s not like they have a bunch of taxi medallions and Uber is going to eat their lunch. They’re *gods*.

[hamishspence]

Hel's malnutrition (from having to subsist on Belief without Worship or Dedication) may be something the gods haven't encountered before, to this extent.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yawn. Sounds like effort, and probably reduces the gods enjoyment of being gods.

Ugh. Who wants to min-max like that all the time? So tiresome.
I'm sure the task of surviving on accumulated belief over millions of years gets pretty tiresome, yes. Nevertheless, you either do this at least as well as your competitors or you cease to exist.

[Dion]

. Nevertheless, you either do this at least as well as your competitors or you cease to exist.

Citation needed.

[hamishspence]

What extra effort? All they have to do is tell their devas to kick out the faithless or shunt them off to the Economy Class side of the mountain.


Perhaps The Book prevents them from doing it. The deva tells Roy that his "lack of piety" isn't an issue:


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html


so why would the gods necessarily be able to rewrite The Book?

[Mic_128]

My point is that either the setting would not work this way, and if it is being asserted to work this way then the setting doesn't make a lot of sense. The Gods have every reason to incentivise mortals to worship them directly, both before and after death, because otherwise they go hungry and die.

I need to eat things or I'll go hungry and die. That doesn't mean I go around eating non-stop, or butchering every animal I see for sustenance.


What extra effort? All they have to do is tell their devas to kick out the faithless or shunt them off to the Economy Class side of the mountain.

And I'm sure when people get resurrected and word starts going around that the Gods are going to screw everyone out of a fair afterlife because they didn't worship them, that there would be no negative repercussions to that. Mortals are very sensible creatures, after all.

[Fyraltari]

I am not demanding that Rich Burlew bring his work to a screeching halt, go back and spend fifteen years rewriting his opus to conform with {scrub the post, scrub the quote}, any more than I would demand that George RR Martin go back and rewrite his opus to conform with Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage. But if GRRM (or his TV series adaptation) were to depict characters travelling with suspicious rapidity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYanlP2xI5M&ab_channel=IGN) around several enormous continents in ways that appeared to be impossible in earlier books and chapters, I would expect that criticisms to this effect would be noted as valid and legitimate and not dismissed with facile tautologies, even if it's too late to do much about it now.
I am confused, are you saying that the comic used to present the gods as furiously persecuting the faithless and then it stopped at some point? Because if so, where? And if not, I don't see what that example has to do with anything.

What extra effort? All they have to do is tell their devas to kick out the faithless or shunt them off to the Economy Class side of the mountain.
THEY DON'T RUN THE MOUNTAIN!


It is incoherent to argue that some people will be outright impossible to convert and that the Gods need to make special provisions to ensure that the faithless exist. (In any case, that's more the situation with Belkar than Roy.)
The gods aren't making provisions for the faithless, what are you talking about?


...No. I don't think I will. Because it's not my job to rewrite the author's story to make sense.
Okay, you see this? This is your problem. You think the story doesn't make sense if it doesn't adresses the topics you want it toto even though the story has never been about those topics. Worldbuilding isn't the focus of this comic, it has no obligation to explain itself in details to you. The things are the way they are because the story needs them to be so and there are no reasons for them to be otherwise. You are seeing problems that aren't in the comic and dismissing the splutions because they aren't in the comic.

[Precure]

What extra effort? All they have to do is tell their devas to kick out the faithless or shunt them off to the Economy Class side of the mountain.

I doubt that the good aligned gods would like that.

[Peelee]

It really isn't, given that if you need to be honourable anyway you might as well worship the deity that most consistently rewards honour.

Only by your reasoning, which the comic is not abiding by. They need to be honorable to escape Hel's default claim. That's it. That's all. Piety does not enter into the equation, and is a wholly separate issue. I get that you think it should, but it doesn't, so they don't need to worship a god as long as they're at it.

And, to boot, there's no reason to think that Thor rewards honor more than a y other northern God. Again, he was just the on me who helped them out by spilling the beans.

[Lacuna Caster]

I am confused, are you saying that the comic used to present the gods as furiously persecuting the faithless and then it stopped at some point? Because if so, where...
...Okay, you see this? This is your problem. You think the story doesn't make sense if it doesn't adresses the topics you want it toto even though the story has never been about those topics. Worldbuilding isn't the focus of this comic...
This may have been true up to the point where a particular aspect of worldbuilding- Hel's pact regarding the fate of dwarven souls and how this would shape society- was made into an extremely prominent and plot-critical story element. At that point you can no longer claim that world-building is unimportant to OOTS or really even separable from core character development. (I mean, the general tolerance of the faithless would have been odd regardless and it wouldn't be incorrect to point this out, but after Durkon's arc the observation becomes lot less nitpicky.)


I need to eat things or I'll go hungry and die. That doesn't mean I go around eating non-stop, or butchering every animal I see for sustenance.
There are limits to how much food I can usefully consume. There is no apparent limit to how powerful Gods can get (or Hel's storyline makes no sense.)


And I'm sure when people get resurrected and word starts going around that the Gods are going to screw everyone out of a fair afterlife because they didn't worship them, that there would be no negative repercussions to that. Mortals are very sensible creatures, after all.

Perhaps The Book prevents them from doing it... ...why would the gods necessarily be able to rewrite The Book?
There wouldn't be an issue regarding mortal expectations being disappointed if the afterlife was configured in favour of the pious to begin with, which is what I'm contending would be a lot more likely. But even so, what are the mortals going to do after a given world gets wiped out? They're clearly capable of working out new arrangements, or Hel's storyline makes no sense.

[Dion]

There is no apparent limit to how powerful Gods can get (or Hel's storyline makes no sense.).

And we see Hel plans to get powerful with no worshippers.

So your hypothesis about how the world works is falsified.

Your theory has been proven wrong.

[Ionathus]

It's not letting me Quote it, but this is a statement from Rich in the "After vs Life" thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?434019-After-vs-Life/page4), back during the Godsmoot when people were saying that the afterlife doesn't make 100% logical sense and people would be expected to act drastically differently because of it: the quote feels very relevant to the direction this thread has taken.


What it comes down to is that the existence of a known, provable, observable, game-able afterlife system of any sort—OOTS version, D&D version, or any other type—would so thoroughly change human behavior in the living world as to render all of society and personal interaction unrecognizable to us, the real people reading the story. It is in any author's interest, therefore, to not think too much about it, lest these sorts of questions overwhelm whatever actual relatable human story they want to tell. Maybe if that sort exploration is the point of the work, that would make sense, but for anything else? The only reasonable option is to handwave it and get on with the work of telling a good tale.

[Lacuna Caster]

And, to boot, there's no reason to think that Thor rewards honor more than a y other northern God. Again, he was just the on me who helped them out by spilling the beans.
I think I touched on this (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?634739-What-Was-Girard-Draketooth-s-Issue-With-the-12&p=25147876&viewfull=1#post25147876) already.


It's not letting me Quote it, but this is a statement from Rich in the "After vs Life" thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?434019-After-vs-Life/page4), back during the Godsmoot when people were saying that the afterlife doesn't make 100% logical sense and people would be expected to act drastically differently because of it: the quote feels very relevant to the direction this thread has taken.
This appears to be a tacit admission that the setting doesn't actually make sense and the author has just chosen not to care about it. That's his prerogative, but it is not an argument that the setting is in fact coherent.

[hamishspence]

"That D&D has certain flaws that should be criticised" is one of the main reasons the story exists in the first place.

[Mic_128]

There are limits to how much food I can usefully consume. There is no apparent limit to how powerful Gods can get (or Hel's storyline makes no sense.)

They simply might not care about getting 'stronger'. They appear to be happy enough with their current positions, from what we've seen, with the exception of the Dark One, and Hel, after Loki's bet and Thor's "cheating".

Or, heck, we know there's a huge amount of rules governing what the Gods can and can't do, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of those rules was to intentionally take a step back and let the mortals worship who they want to worship (lest they start warning over souls and cause a snarl) and if that means some can choose to worship no one, so be it.

[hamishspence]

This appears to be a tacit admission that the setting doesn't actually make sense and the author has just chosen not to care about it. That's his prerogative, but it is not an argument that the setting is in fact coherent.

That D&D cosmology is incoherent is something The Giant said quite some time before that:


D&D cosmology is utterly incoherent, being a pastiche on several real world religions that's then strained through a fundamentally incompatible alignment system where Good and Evil are both valid life choices with equally powerful patrons. D&D writers have been trying to make it make sense for 40 years; it still doesn't. My version doesn't either. It's good enough for the story to get where it's going.

[Lacuna Caster]

They simply might not care about getting 'stronger'...
...Or, heck, we know there's a huge amount of rules governing what the Gods can and can't do, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of those rules was to intentionally take a step back and let the mortals worship who they want to worship (lest they start warning over souls and cause a snarl) and if that means some can choose to worship no one, so be it.
You can choose something and still be penalised for it. Mortals are allowed to choose Evil too, but by default they'll wind up in an unpleasant destination. I suspect that Gods that don't care about strengthening their position will tend to get usurped by Gods that do, and they certainly risk that outcome if only 10-20% of the population are church-going regulars.


"That D&D has certain flaws that should be criticised" is one of the main reasons the story exists in the first place.
Granted, but papering over the flaws isn't a criticism thereof. I mean, again, it's the author's prerogative to ignore wrinkles in the setting and focus on character development and so forth, but that doesn't make internal cohesion a virtue of the finished product.

I would disagree, by the way, with the sentiment that a world with real Gods and a game-able afterlife would be unrecognisable, except perhaps to modern audiences. By the standards of most people 500 years ago it would be pretty similar to the default norm, albeit exaggerated. And I don't think there's necessarily no point to examining how such a setting would develop, if you want to speculate on the social consequences of religious belief.

[Dion]

I suspect that Gods that don't care about strengthening their position will tend to get usurped by Gods that do,

I’ve seen no evidence for this in the comic.

[hamishspence]

Forgotten Realms D&D did penalise mortals for "not having a patron" or "not truly believing in the gods" or "firmly denying any faith" or "actively opposing the worship of the gods" - with The Wall of the Faithless - being trapped in a moldy wall until your essence dissolves away.

And a hefty portion of the fandom hates this - seeing punishing mortals for "lack of worship" as inappropriate for Good and Neutral deities.


Which is why the errata for the 5E Sword Coast Adventurers Guide dropped the reference to mortals being punished via the Wall.


Errata
Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide

Chapter 1
[NEW] The Afterlife (p. 20). In the second paragraph, the sentence begining “The truly false and faithless ...” has been deleted.

[Lacuna Caster]

I’ve seen no evidence for this in the comic.
Are Gods really going to be turning down 80-90% of the worship that they could otherwise be accruing? If so, one wonders why they bother creating mortals at all.


Forgotten Realms D&D did penalise mortals for "not having a patron" or "not truly believing in the gods" or "firmly denying any faith" or "actively opposing the worship of the gods" - with The Wall the Faithless - being trapped in a moldy wall until your essence dissolves away.
So what? Why is that the only conceivable penalty for faithlessness? If you think that being drawn and quartered is an excessive punishment for tax fraud, does this mean tax fraud should go unpunished and paying taxes should be optional?
.

[hamishspence]

The point is that "Not taking a patron" shouldn't be thought of as a crime at all.

[Lacuna Caster]

The point is that "Not taking a patron" shouldn't be thought of as a crime at all.
{Scrubbed}

[Mic_128]

I suspect that Gods that don't care about strengthening their position will tend to get usurped by Gods that do

Assuming that the laws and rules that the Gods abide by allow this. After all, there are less Good Gods than the rest.

Hel and Thor's bet seems to be an unusual case, caused by Loki specifically to "spice things up" when he found they were doing another fantasy world.

[Dion]

Are Gods really going to be turning down 80-90% of the worship that they could otherwise be accruing? If so, one wonders why they bother creating mortals at all..

Your assertion was that if gods don’t min-max their god power, then other gods would take their place.

But the gods are a *monopoly*. The barrier to entry has been insurmountable for a billion billion years (until TDO). There are no other gods to take their place.

They have a monopoly, so they do t have to screw out the highest possible efficiency like some sort of Harvard MBA at McKinsey.

Your proposed rules that suggest that increasing efficiency would somehow benefit them are directly contradicted by the way monopolies work.

[Ionathus]

This appears to be a tacit admission that the setting doesn't actually make sense and the author has just chosen not to care about it. That's his prerogative, but it is not an argument that the setting is in fact coherent.

Look, I realize this is an online forum, but pedantry is not a self-evident good. Saying the entire setting is incoherent is a bit extreme when the only thing you're examining is the afterlife, which is by definition only tangentially related to the main events of the comic.

This is not a comic about the D&D afterlife. It makes an appearance, it motivates the characters, but it isn't the main focus. It's deliberately vague. Rich is saying "don't think too hard about it" because it isn't that important to the story he wants to tell -- which is, to me at least, entirely coherent.

You are free to pick this stuff apart if you want: I like doing the same thing for certain topics. But an author choosing to handwave some side details isn't some big cardinal sin of storytelling. Fiction is full to bursting with things that don't make sense under a magnifying glass, but I don't want to carry a magnifying glass around constantly.

[hamishspence]

Your assertion was that if gods don’t min-max their god power, then other gods would take their place.

But the gods are a *monopoly*. The barrier to entry has been insurmountable for a billion billion years (until TDO). There are no other gods to take their place.


The Dark One isn't the only ascended deity - there's the elven deities and a few others, such as Dvalin, the ascended dwarf.

What makes the Dark One unique is that he's the only ascended deity with a new quiddity - a new "color" that can be used for improving the binding of the Snarl.


And some new deities have died of "lack of energy" during the "gap between the destruction of one world and the creation of the next" according to Thor:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1144.html

"I've seen new gods with more worshippers than he has fail to make it"


This may, however, not be an issue for long-established deities.

[Lacuna Caster]

Your assertion was that if gods don’t min-max their god power, then other gods would take their place.

But the gods are a *monopoly*. The barrier to entry has been insurmountable for a billion billion years (until TDO)...
That's incoherent for different reasons- no set of power relations would be stable over those timeframes given the kind of behaviour we see the Gods engage in- but in any case monopolies are characterised by a greater interest in rent-seeking, not less.


Look, I realize this is an online forum, but pedantry is not a self-evident good. Saying the entire setting is incoherent is a bit extreme when the only thing you're examining is the afterlife, which is by definition only tangentially related to the main events of the comic.
I... honestly don't think the afterlife can be considered tangential to the story at this point, given that the entirety of Durkon's arc, much of Roy's, and some of V's (either directly or by implication) have crossed into this area. And no, pedantry isn't an intrinsic good, but this forum is currently on the fifteenth iteration (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?615971-MitD-XV-The-Other-Dark-One) of a largely pointless speculation thread over the species of the MitD. I don't think I'm being unusually petty here.

[hamishspence]

If you think that being drawn and quartered is an excessive punishment for tax fraud, does this mean tax fraud should go unpunished and paying taxes should be optional?


Mortals don't owe any individual god their worship, and as a result, they don't owe any of the gods worship.

Worshipping a god in OOTS is not like paying taxes, it's like donating to charity - doing so is nice, but not doing so isn't criminal.

[Dion]

That's incoherent for different reasons- no set of power relations would be stable over those timeframes given the kind of behaviour we see the Gods engage in-

Therefore we know that the gods engage in behavior we do not see them engage in. QED.

I think you’ve mathematically proven your core assumption wrong.

[hamishspence]

What happened to Odin may be of relevance.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1145.html

Northern Mortals, in the previous world, believed that "magic was for fools and simpletons". This damaged Odin.


Why didn't he just impose an afterlife penalty to stop mortals believing this? Because he couldn't.


Similar principles apply to "imposing an afterlife penalty to stop mortals from Not Worshipping Deities".

[Ionathus]

I... honestly don't think the afterlife can be considered tangential to the story at this point, given that the entirety of Durkon's arc, much of Roy's, and some of V's (either directly or by implication) have crossed into this area. And no, pedantry isn't an intrinsic good, but this forum is currently on the fifteenth iteration (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?615971-MitD-XV-The-Other-Dark-One) of a largely pointless speculation thread over the species of the MitD. I don't think I'm being unusually petty here.

Like I said, I definitely like to pick things apart as well. The MitD thread (and the Class & Level Geekery, Number of Appearances, etc) seems like a fun exercise in analyzing clues and playing a complicated guessing game. But "pointless speculation of future plot reveals" still seems a step more productive than "painstaking analysis of already-established plot points."

Fair point on Durkon's arc, and partially Roy's, though I would argue that the afterlife's involvement isn't as significant as you're building it up to be. Durkon isn't the person he is because of the afterlife mechanics -- he's the person he is because his mother made a very complicated choice and sacrificed her own wellbeing for the sake of five strangers' lives, who then became Durkon's family. That choice was informed by afterlife mechanics, but I don't feel like the specific details are all that important.

Same thing for Roy: his arc is truly about "cleaning up the mess his dad saddled him with." And Roy outright states that he would be going after Xykon even without the blood oath, because he's a threat to the entire world. His brief stint in heaven was useful to show us how he became the person he is, but it wasn't really much more than a vehicle for that character development.

It's only partially relevant - the plot doesn't 100% hinge on it, and I doubt the resolution of the story will involve high-concept afterlife mechanics. I expect the resolution will involve mortals in conflict, finding a way to save everyone with their plucky determination and foolish belief in the power of Hope.

Maybe my definition of "relevant" is looser than yours, but I don't find myself thinking about the afterlife stuff. It may inform the characters' backstories, but their actions remain their own, and that's what I think will truly decide the outcome and overall narrative of the story.

[Blue Dragon]

Not true. That one dwarf wasn't a Cleric and yet she was sent to Thor's place. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1144.html)

Since she is a dwarf that died in combat, been sent to Valhalla is the default.

[hamishspence]

Actually, "Not being sent to Hel" is the default for a dwarf who dies with honor - allowing them to go to whatever plane is appropriate.

Presumably, not all the Northern Gods reside in Valhalla. Thor does, so his followers go there when they die. But it's IMO safe to say that many of the Northern gods reside elsewhere. Fenrir/Fenris, for example, probably resides on a CE plane.

[Precure]

I don't think we have any evidence to suggest that Girard feels any differently about goblinoid equality than society as a whole is suggested to feel.

We've informed that Girard and Serini were close to each other and were in contact, so there is reason to believe that they were similar in their views of how to treat those races. Not to mention Girard himself was of black dragon descent and thus has a personal reason to felt sympathy towards them.


Also, in all likelihood the organization you're referring to didn't exist yet, nor did the campaign against the goblinoids.

In the same speech he said "Soon or one of his paladin lackeys," by that he was probably referring to Sapphire Guard.


I think he was shown decapitating a previous Crimson Mantle bearer in one of the SOD flashbacks. Girard was probably a bit complicit in that part.

He was killing a gobling combatant, yes, because they were trying to take control of the rift. That doesn't mean he agrees with those genocide missions. Lirian and Serini was there too, they even were joking about how much goblins they will kill, but then we see that Lirian shown mercy to Redcloak and Right-Eye even though they were goblins. Serini also shown to be treating "monster" races with respect and she even criticized the paladins for their alleged racism.

[hamishspence]

In the same speech he said "Soon or one of his paladin lackeys," by that he was probably referring to Sapphire Guard.


Yup. We may have a date for how long lapsed between the party splitting up, and Girard creating that illusion - less than 12 weeks, otherwise what Girard said might be a bit nonsensical:


"We even have a pool going over how long it will take you to break your word and send someone. If it's been no more than 12 weeks, I just won 10,000."

It wouldn't make sense for Girard to create that illusion more than 12 weeks after Soon "gave his word not to interfere with the other gates."

The fact that "Sapphire Guard" is among the keywords, shows that Girard knows of them, too:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0693.html

[Lacuna Caster]

Like I said, I definitely like to pick things apart as well. The MitD thread (and the Class & Level Geekery, Number of Appearances, etc) seems like a fun exercise in analyzing clues and playing a complicated guessing game. But "pointless speculation of future plot reveals" still seems a step more productive than "painstaking analysis of already-established plot points."
I don't really follow your logic here, and I would really dispute the notion that afterlife mechanics are peripheral details when it comes to Durkon's arc.

In any case, I'm not going to argue you out of enjoying what you enjoy, but I wish other posters were making an argument more similar to yours rather than dogpiling with frantic rationalisations for how the setting must somehow be 100% coherent, or with tautological arguments about how changing the story would result in it not being the same. I can respect "yes, but I don't care" more than I respect {scrubbed}.

[Dion]

frantic rationalisations for how the setting must somehow be 100% coherent,

Nobody is arguing that the setting is coherent.

It is incoherent. We know that. No arguments from anyone on that.

We’re saying that your arguments about why it’s incoherent are wrong, and your proposed changes to make it coherent are also wrong.

Nobody is disagreeing with you that there is a problem. If the strip were a nuclear reactor, it would melt down into radioactive slag in about six seconds.

We’re disagreeing with you about the solutions. You seem to think we can paint the bike shed a different color and solve the problem.

The bike shed isn’t the problem.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding

[Peelee]

What extra effort? All they have to do is tell their devas to kick out the faithless or shunt them off to the Economy Class side of the mountain.

Let's take this to its logical conclusion. God A wants to maximize his power so he refuses entry to any faithless. God B wants to maximize his power, and noticed what God A did, so God B freely allows any faithless that match his alignment, which is the same as God A's. God A gets fewer souls and less power, but he made sure they were all pious, which would provide comfort if nothing else.

Your theory only works here if every God acts as a completely unified bloc. It falls apart the second one God decides to game the system.

[hamishspence]

Literally the main character (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)of the comic, during a specific focus on him getting into the afterlife.

It's also implied that he learned it from Eugene, and that Julia takes the same approach:


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1195.html

[Lacuna Caster]

Nobody is arguing that it is coherent.

It is incoherent. We know that. No arguments..

We’re saying that your arguments about why it’s incoherent are wrong, and your proposed changes to make it coherent are also wrong.
I have no serious expectation (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?634739-What-Was-Girard-Draketooth-s-Issue-With-the-12&p=25147927&viewfull=1#post25147927) that any changes are going to be forthcoming at this point, or even that the author would have any interest in taking notes for future reference, but if folks were not trying to argue that the setting was coherent you could have fooled me.

(The analogy with bikeshedding is rather strange- I'm well aware that actually trying to force a coherent setting on OotS would entail a drastic redesign (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?545494-Questions-about-the-early-strip-and-Sapphire-Guard) of the entire story structure. Which, I suspect, is why posters find the notion of an incoherent setting to be threatening, rather than innocuous.)
.

[Dion]

if folks were not trying to argue that the setting was coherent you could have fooled me.

I’ve seen no-one argue that it’s coherent.

I’ve seen a lot of people tell you that the reasons you believe it’s incoherent are either irrelevant or wrong.

But that’s not the same thing. Saying “you are wrong” does not logically imply “the comic is right”.

However, we no longer seem to be discussing the comic in a meaningful way, and I will drop out.

[KorvinStarmast]

That D&D cosmology is incoherent is something The Giant said quite some time before that: He's put his homebrew of an inconsistent D&D cosmology on the same footing. He points out that it works well enough (and I agree, it works well enough) and I'll further suggest that the perfect is sometimes the enemy of the good.

Saying the entire setting is incoherent is a bit extreme But it is the Giant's position. :smallbiggrin: (Per the citation hamishspence provided)

[Lacuna Caster]

He's put his homebrew of an inconsistent D&D cosmology on the same footing. He points out that it works well enough (and I agree, it works well enough) and I'll further suggest that the perfect is sometimes the enemy of the good.
For what it's worth, I'm not sure I'd say the D&D afterlife necessarily results in an incoherent setting, it's just that it leads to some specific and pervasive consequences that aren't modelled that well. (Basically, evil religions have to offer a high-risk-high-reward afterlife strategy whereas good deities need to offer more relatively equalised outcomes, which means that the former attracts a surprising amount of outstanding talent to compensate for the fact that most societies prefer a more benign set of ethics.) Most societies would tend to swing in one direction or another, with some evil nations being conquered or displaced by good nations with less internal stabbery and some good nations being toppled by the infilitration of corrupt cults that attract the ambitious and able. There wouldn't be a lot of open mixing between their respective faithful and it is really hard (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Morality_and_Fiends#There_is_no_Salvation_or_Redem ption_in_D.26D) to get people to switch sides, so it gets pretty manichaean.

[KorvinStarmast]

so it gets pretty manichaean. LNC model handles that better than the two axis grid. It's a three thing, not a two thing. Best RTS game ever made applied a superb rock/paper/scissors model and made it work.
Starcraft.
If you are going to gamify it, don't do either or.
Go Rock/Paper/Scissors.

[woweedd]

The Gods do not actually run the mountain or the system of Good and Evil. Obviously. If the Gods were in charge of saying what was good, there would be no evil Gods. The Outer Planes answer to fundamental truths, of good and evil, law and chaos, which even the Gods are subject to.

[tanonev]

The general lack of any visible piety on the part of, say, 90% of the characters who show up in the strip. You never see the Order kneeling down to mutter sutras to their patrons in the morning or saying grace before meals or swearing by Vafthrudnir or Baldir or Tyr, or what have you (aside from Durkon.) Religiosity was completely pervasive in traditional medieval/ancient societies, and while some aspects of D&D rules would have a large impact on social structure (clerical magic reducing infant mortality, for example), I suspect that theocratic tendencies would not be reduced (https://youtu.be/Qn8IlJb0GDU?t=279) in a universe with objectively real divine agency.

I mean, fine, it's a stick-figure webcomic, not everything is going to make sense. But when you go out of your way to make religious incentives shaping Dwarven society a major and critical plot-point, I think it does become reasonable to point out that every other society would face similar incentives to varying degrees.

I dispute the claim that characters need to be *visibly* religious in order to be religious, either with respect to the world around them or to the "camera". Faith is about belief, not ritual, and beliefs are not directly visible. Many people in the real world identify as religious, but that doesn't mean that said identity shows up in every activity you see. There are probably many people you interact with on a regular basis who identify as religious but for whom the nature of your interaction with them means their religion will never come up. This is even more so the case when we're looking at a world portrayed in a comic; if the religiosity of the characters portrayed in a panel doesn't matter to the storyline or punchline, then it won't come up. That doesn't mean that we should therefore assume that said characters are non-religious. To use your example of saying grace before meals, notice that a lot of mealtime panels are set up with the meal already well underway.

And as for why characters like Roy aren't shunned for being non-religious? In D&D it's common knowledge that there are many gods and therefore many religions, but it's not common knowledge what the traditions of a religion other than the one you follow are. If a lay character meets someone who doesn't observe the same religion on non-hostile terms, they're not going to scrutinize the other character to figure out which religion (or lack thereof) they belong to. And a reasonable degree of coexistence and religious plurality is beneficial for the gods, since constant religious conflict would threaten the total number of souls they can get.

[RatElemental]

People aside from clerics and dwarves in ootsworld seem to have a sort of transactional relationship with the gods, too. At least worshipers of the western pantheon (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0952.html) do, anyway. In a world where not only do the gods objectively exist, but also objectively grant blessings and portents and whatnot, switching patrons based on who's giving out the best goodies is a rational option, arguably more rational than sticking to your patron come hell or high water.

[Cazero]

I dispute the claim that characters need to be *visibly* religious in order to be religious, either with respect to the world around them or to the "camera". Faith is about belief, not ritual, and beliefs are not directly visible. Many people in the real world identify as religious, but that doesn't mean that said identity shows up in every activity you see.
I'd go even further.
In OotSworld, faith as we know it doesn't exist. After all, it would take a pretty strong delusion to deny that divine intervention is a daily occurence. And without need for faith, piety and religious rituals would be fundamentaly changed to the point that they may be unrecognisable as such.

[hamishspence]

In OotSworld, faith as we know it doesn't exist. After all, it would take a pretty strong delusion to deny that divine intervention is a daily occurence.
The "They're not divine, they're just really powerful" attitude is quite common in Planescape, (with the Athar faction). And the "They're just fancy alien wizards who figured out how to crowdsource their magic" attitude that Eugene taught Julia:


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1195.html


sounds rather Athar-ish.

So, maybe Eugene and Julia aren't contributing Belief:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1144.html

in the strictest sense - to them, Thor isn't "Northern god of thunder" but "Fancy alien wizard claiming to be Northern god of thunder".

[Fyraltari]

The "They're not divine, they're just really powerful" attitude is quite common in Planescape, (with the Athar faction). And the "They're just fancy alien wizards who figured out how to crowdsource their magic" attitude that Eugene taught Julia:


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1195.html


sounds rather Athar-ish.

So, maybe Eugene and Julia aren't contributing Belief:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1144.html

in the strictest sense - to them, Thor isn't "Northern god of thunder" but "Fancy alien wizard claiming to be Northern god of thunder".

What's the difference?

[hamishspence]

What's the difference?

The difference is a little bit of extra respect, a little bit of extra accuracy in the description, which takes the form that's referred to in-strip as Belief, allowing the gods to draw nutrition from it.

An Athar who travels to the Forgotten Realms and then dies, will end up in the Wall of the Faithless - a person who believes "these beings are divine" won't.

[Fyraltari]

The difference is a little bit of extra respect, a little bit of extra accuracy in the description, which takes the form that's referred to in-strip as Belief, allowing the gods to draw nutrition from it.

Heh, I'm not sure you have to buy the gods' hype for Belief to count. Else Thor would (probably?) still be a redhead.

And I don't think the description is more or less accurate than the word since "alien wizards who've figured out how to outsource their magic" is a perfectly fine (if not as respectful as they'd like) summary of what a god is in this universe.

[mjasghar]

Firstly these types of discussions are invariably coloured by people’s own experiences and view on faith and religion and wether they see any differences. Interesting to note that many RL debates have gone on for centuries about the differences between belief and action on that belief (faith vs piety etc)
In the end this comic is partly parody and the writer consistently has weird stuff happen as a commentary on the rules of d&d vs how they are played vs general fantasy tropes. So if you want consistency try somewhere else
With regards to Planescape and the Athar etc. my impression was their view was that truly divine beings should not need to be worshipped to have power nor need material resources. I could allude to this theme but that would cross into real life history and the general rise of monotheism
And let’s get back the original question. Girard was a git. Just because some people like people who are anti lawful doesn’t mean he wasn’t a git. Strange how people fall over themselves to forget about the kidnapping etc

[hamishspence]

Girard was a git. Just because some people like people who are anti lawful doesn’t mean he wasn’t a git. Strange how people fall over themselves to forget about the kidnapping etc

One theory is that the kidnapping didn't actually start till after he died, with one of his offspring being the one who started the kidnapping thing.

Mostly because we have Word of Giant that Girard is CN, and this kind of "seduce, then kidnap the resulting child" thing seems to go all the way into CE.

[elros]

For a start, they were supporting an organization bend on genocide.
{scrubbed}, and the entire "The Sapphire Guard is evil and should be stripped of their paladin status" is such a dead horse that no spell can revive it.

But here is my point about Girard: he trained his family to deceive others, steal their children (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0816.html), and then indoctrinate them into a secret cult that continues to exploit people for generations. But that, and all other acts of evil (everything V has done), are considered not that bad by the readers here.
Girard is a disgraceful human being, and the fact that the Giant considers him "chaotic neutral" makes me question his sense of good and evil.

[hamishspence]

But here is my point about Girard: he trained his family to deceive others, steal their children (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0816.html), and then indoctrinate them into a secret cult that continues to exploit people for generations.

See the aforementioned "we don't know for certain that the kidnappings began in his lifetime" bit.

[pearl jam]

Is there any reason, aside from the fact that the Giant said Girard was CN, to pin it on an offspring?

[Fyraltari]

Is there any reason, aside from the fact that the Giant said Girard was CN, to pin it on an offspring?

Of course not. It might have been a sibling, a cousin, or one of their offspring!

[mjasghar]

CN is usually the alignment given to invading barbarian hordes and to those wild elves who veer into genocidal attitudes. CN is not a ‘nice’ alignment so the whole kidnap stuff is perfectly in line with that. The whole issue with N in relation to morality (as opposed to the L or C axis) is they help their friends and family but will happily exploit and rob ‘outsiders’
The whole kidnap scheme is perfectly in line with that if your ethos is that only those of your blood are family.

[Peelee]

CN also has a really ****ty afterlife to boot.

[hamishspence]

Given that Orrin was able to cast Girard's 9th level Phantasmagoria spell:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html


It's not Epic, it's simply a 9th-level illusion—since there aren't many 9th-level illusions in core, there's conceptual room for one that is pretty heavy-hitting that would still be way above anything Eugene ever tried. My closest rules-based analogy was Microcosm, which is a 9th level psionic power. This spell doesn't seem to have a hit point limit, but it does offer a possible means of escape through internal realization. Because, you know, story.

I don't see Girard as having taken the Epic Spellcasting feat, simply because that was more Dorukan's shtick. And as a multi-class ranger/sorcerer, he would have gotten access to it later and he's not really the type to spend all his time studying (when he could be out "recruiting" his defensive team). But I don't think it's necessary for it to be explicitly Epic to be "really powerful." We're getting to the point where the difference between the high-level OOTS and the low-epic Order of the Scribble is mostly one of degrees anyway.

and given that Girard died at least 20 years before OOTS:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0846.html

I think it's likely that Orrin was the head of the family in the OOTS era.



CN is usually the alignment given to invading barbarian hordes and to those wild elves who veer into genocidal attitudes. CN is not a ‘nice’ alignment so the whole kidnap stuff is perfectly in line with that. The whole issue with N in relation to morality (as opposed to the L or C axis) is they help their friends and family but will happily exploit and rob ‘outsiders’

According to Savage Species, that's more in line with Evil than Neutral;


An evil character or creature can be a loving parent (such as Grendel's mother) a faithful spouse, a loyal friend, or a devoted servant without diminishing their villainy in any way - this merely reflects the way in which people compartmentalize their lives and the fact that they behave in different ways toward different groups - brutalizing those they consider beneath them but treating their peers and loved ones with respect and affection.

A N (on the good-evil axis) is going to have compunctions against killing the innocent, and probably, at least to a degree, against causing harm or suffering to the innocent as well.



People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

...

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

That said, there's room for a degree of shading - a "bottom end of the CN scale" character who belongs in the CN to CE Lower Plane Pandemonium, rather than in the "pure CN" plane Limbo, could be very nasty.

[Lacuna Caster]

LNC model handles that better than the two axis grid. It's a three thing, not a two thing. Best RTS game ever made applied a superb rock/paper/scissors model and made it work.
Starcraft.
If you are going to gamify it, don't do either or.
Go Rock/Paper/Scissors.
I see Law vs. Chaos as more of a matter of strategy than of allegiance within the larger good vs. evil framework. I'm not sure how this would work out a gameplay/strategy level, I'm just talking about consistency in terms of world-building.


I dispute the claim that characters need to be *visibly* religious in order to be religious, either with respect to the world around them or to the "camera". Faith is about belief, not ritual, and beliefs are not directly visible. Many people in the real world identify as religious, but that doesn't mean that said identity shows up in every activity you see. There are probably many people you interact with on a regular basis who identify as religious but for whom the nature of your interaction with them means their religion will never come up...
Yes, but I don't think you see this in the massively conformist theocratic societies that dominated the ancient world and which would be implied by the existence of a verifiable afterlife that rewards piety to specific Gods. Some display of external piety is going to show up in personal interactions and everyday conversation.


And as for why characters like Roy aren't shunned for being non-religious? In D&D it's common knowledge that there are many gods and therefore many religions, but it's not common knowledge what the traditions of a religion other than the one you follow are. If a lay character meets someone who doesn't observe the same religion on non-hostile terms, they're not going to scrutinize the other character to figure out which religion (or lack thereof) they belong to...
Sure they are. It's certainly possible for different deities to coexist and encourage cooperation among their followers, but some of the deities just don't get along and neither do their followers, so it's in your interest to check who is following who. That's how I'd expect it to play out at least.


But here is my point about Girard: he trained his family to deceive others, steal their children (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0816.html), and then indoctrinate them into a secret cult that continues to exploit people for generations. But that, and all other acts of evil (everything V has done), are considered not that bad by the readers here.
Girard is a disgraceful human being, and the fact that the Giant considers him "chaotic neutral" makes me question his sense of good and evil.
Well... in theory Girard might be launching revolts against Tarquin or liberating slave caravans from time to time, so maybe that cancels out, though I really have no idea how he squares his ostensible anti-authoritarian ethos with... all the stuff you mentioned.

D&D more generally has... difficulties distinguishing Chaotic Neutral from outright Evil (creatures like Slaad behave in a way that's functionally indistinguishable, really.)

[hamishspence]

Yes, but I don't think you see this in the massively conformist theocratic societies that dominated the ancient world and which would be implied by the existence of a verifiable afterlife that rewards piety to specific Gods. Some display of external piety is going to show up in personal interactions and everyday conversation.

DMG2 explains exactly why D&D societies are not, normally, massively conformist and theocratic - because it tends to not be fun for the players.

[mjasghar]

Yes, well to my mind that’s a reflection of later interpretations and modern authors attitudes to Law. An attempt to make chaos ‘nice’.
Look at the Tuigan Horde invasion - Yamun knowingly started wars that would cause thousands of innocent deaths for personal aggrandisement. Yet he is never suggested to be Evil. Indeed we have putatively Good commanders and advisers serving him and going all with all deaths he causes and the likely torturing to keep populations in check.

[hamishspence]

Yes, well to my mind that’s a reflection of later interpretations and modern authors attitudes to Law. An attempt to make chaos ‘nice’.
Look at the Tuigan Horde invasion - Yamun knowingly started wars that would cause thousands of innocent deaths for personal aggrandisement. Yet he is never suggested to be Evil.

I got the impression that Yamun's canon alignment was LE. TV Tropes lists it as that:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/ForgottenRealms

Characters: Other

Yamun Khahan

Race: Tuigan human
Class: Fighter
Alignment: Lawful Evil


as does the Forgotten Realms wiki

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Yamun_Khahan

Yamun Khahan

2nd Edition Statistics [3]
Alignment: Lawful evil
Class: Fighter


source - the The Horde 2e splatbook.

[mjasghar]

Yeah I was trying to find that stat
Strange how the novels were more ambiguous especially with regards his relationship to the Shou mixed race general and that monk who definitely didn’t seem to be Evil yet both endorsed his campaign and even participated in the actions
With regards to Slaad they were originally demonic as the basic d&d had chaos as evil
Edit: I’ve just read some of the adventures published with the Horde campaign. Tuigan warriors are described as LN with NE shamans. This seems to go back to the whole obeying orders issue - when they follow Evil orders from Evil superiors are they still Neutral in morality? Also Yamun’s successor is stated as CN with LN soldiers and this description
Hubadai is the khan of the Tuigan army. He is a stern but fair commander, a determined enemy, and a loyal friend. He tends to place a lower value on human life than men from other cultures. Hubadai is a wise and capable leader who is no more fearful of risking his own life than those of his men. Though he demands unquestioning obedi- ence from his subordinates, he rewards loyalty well, treating his allies with warmth and respect. Hubadai is overeager to please his father, Yamun Khahan, the ruler of the Tuigan tribes.
So this suggests that some authors treat alignment as culturally dependant and not entirely a universal designation with hard rules
Edit edit: the final Horde adventure stats Yamun as F18 N. But his behaviour at the same time is pretty dodgy. So I can only shrug

[KorvinStarmast]

Presumably, not all the Northern Gods reside in Valhalla. Thor does, so his followers go there when they die. But it's IMO safe to say that many of the Northern gods reside elsewhere. Fenrir/Fenris, for example, probably resides on a CE plane. I'd not thought that through, and Hel resides in her place, so thanks for that thought.

And the "They're just fancy alien wizards who figured out how to crowdsource their magic" attitude that Eugene taught Julia:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1195.html Eugene is objectively wrong, however, as the Durkon+Minrah meet Thor strips demonstrate.

{scrubbed} But here is my point about Girard: he trained his family to deceive others, steal their children (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0816.html), and then indoctrinate them into a secret cult that continues to exploit people for generations. But that, and all other acts of evil (everything V has done), are considered not that bad by the readers here.
Girard is a disgraceful human being, and the fact that the Giant considers him "chaotic neutral" makes me question his sense of good and evil. I have seen, on various GiTP forum discussions on D&D, the one-for-one substitution of the term "Chaotic Neutral" with "sociopath" which I think describes Girard well enough.
So this suggests that some authors treat alignment as culturally dependent and not entirely a universal designation with hard rules. Consistency not being a hallmark of D&D cosmology in general ... :smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

With regards to Slaad they were originally demonic as the basic d&d had chaos as evil

That's a bit of an oversimplification - 0e D&D (Basic to Immortal sets) had Chaos as usually evil and Law as usually good, but it allowed for exceptions, with some Chaotic monsters being specifically called out as Good and some Lawful ones, as Evil.

As far as I can tell, the only edition where standard red to green slaadi are Chaotic Evil, is 4e, which basically merged all 3 Neutral alignments into "Unaligned", merged NG with CG, and merged LE with NE.

[Ionathus]

But it is the Giant's position. :smallbiggrin: (Per the citation hamishspence provided)

I misspoke: the setting itself doesn't hold together if you think about it too much, yes, but I should've said that the story makes sufficient logical sense, and that's the part that matters anyway

[Precure]

{scrubbed}, and the entire "The Sapphire Guard is evil and should be stripped of their paladin status" is such a dead horse that no spell can revive it.

But here is my point about Girard: he trained his family to deceive others, steal their children (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0816.html), and then indoctrinate them into a secret cult that continues to exploit people for generations. But that, and all other acts of evil (everything V has done), are considered not that bad by the readers here.
Girard is a disgraceful human being, and the fact that the Giant considers him "chaotic neutral" makes me question his sense of good and evil.

Not sure what was there in that "scrubbed" part, but only known kidnapping case happened like 15 years ago, and Girard was already death by then as he's been dead for at least 20 years.

[hamishspence]

only known kidnapping case happened like 15 years ago, and Girard was already death by then as he's been dead for at least 20 years.
True. V does conjecture that massive amounts of kidnapping have been going on for 60 years, rather than being one isolated incident:


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html


but there's room for an "in-between" position between "60 years of massive amounts of kidnapping" and "only one kidnapping, 15 years ago".


Specifically, that there has been massive amounts of kidnapping, but it's only been going on for between 15 and 20 years.

[urbanwolf]

Girard's problem with the 12 gods might of been that he worshipped (or was raised to follow) the Southern gods.

As for kidnapping his heirs, but being neutral it could be a for the greater good kind of deal. You can do evil acts and still be good so doing evil acts and still being neutral is possible.

[Cazero]

To be fair, if one were to use kidnapping and brainwashing to raise an army of illusionnist sorcerers anyway, one could argue that infancy is the least Evil time for the kidnapping to happen.

[hroþila]

The Draketooth kidnapping scheme is the kind of thing that's only ancillary to the plot and it would make very little narrative sense for the story as presented to us (including the panels that show many victims of the Draketooths being killed by Familicide as told by V) to not be the truth. Sure, it's not 100% confirmed that what Orrin did was standard practice among the Draketooths to the exclusion of all other possibilities, but it's clearly the most parsimonious assumption.

[hamishspence]

The Draketooth kidnapping scheme is the kind of thing that's only ancillary to the plot and it would make very little narrative sense for the story as presented to us (including the panels that show many victims of the Draketooths being killed by Familicide as told by V) to not be the truth. Sure, it's not 100% confirmed that what Orrin did was standard practice among the Draketooths to the exclusion of all other possibilities, but it's clearly the most parsimonious assumption.

The point is that everything we see, can still be true, if "kidnapping newborns with a Draketooth parent as a standard way of expanding the clan" began 20 years ago rather than 60 years ago.

[Riftwolf]

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html

I don't know if this is relevant as I'm not sure what the argument is about now, but Thors speech in the Outer Planes splash panel suggests that spirits are drawn to the Outer Planes based on ideas and thoughts. So the afterlives would exist with zero Godly influence beyond the initial creation, and presumably Gods can feed off Outer Planes energy if they sign up to the ideas of that Plane. Individual afterlives are more desirable to Gods as they're more efficient, they have more control over the content and they don't have to share. But without the Outer Planes as the foundation, the whole thing would collapse (as every God would create their own followers, the Pantheons would quarrel about their power going to create beings with no chance of return investment, and the harmony required to build a world without a new Snarl would be ruined) This does leave the cosmology open for non-religious people, who don't buy into a specific afterlife but still go somewhere that the Gods can nom on 'em.

[Precure]

The Draketooth kidnapping scheme is the kind of thing that's only ancillary to the plot and it would make very little narrative sense for the story as presented to us (including the panels that show many victims of the Draketooths being killed by Familicide as told by V) to not be the truth. Sure, it's not 100% confirmed that what Orrin did was standard practice among the Draketooths to the exclusion of all other possibilities, but it's clearly the most parsimonious assumption.

But also:

Draketooth clan looks like a pretty small group of people.

Unlike Orrin's case, Draketooth women doesn't need to kidnap someone's child when they just can do one night stands with random people.

[Doug Lampert]

That's a bit of an oversimplification - 0e D&D (Basic to Immortal sets) had Chaos as usually evil and Law as usually good, but it allowed for exceptions, with some Chaotic monsters being specifically called out as Good and some Lawful ones, as Evil.

As far as I can tell, the only edition where standard red to green slaadi are Chaotic Evil, is 4e, which basically merged all 3 Neutral alignments into "Unaligned", merged NG with CG, and merged LE with NE.

Basic was NOT the original game. The original game was D&D and came in three little booklets called Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and Wilderness Adventures, and had NO Good or Evil alignment till introduced in later suplements.

[hamishspence]

The original game was D&D and came in three little booklets called Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and Wilderness Adventures, and had NO Good or Evil alignment till introduced in later suplements.

Slaadi didn't exist in that edition though, as far as I know - they were introduced in AD&D's Fiend Folio in 1981, after the "9 alignments system" had come into being.

Did those three little booklets have "chaos as evil" as was suggested regarding "the basic D&D"?



With regards to Slaad they were originally demonic as the basic d&d had chaos as evil

[urbanwolf]

But also:

Draketooth clan looks like a pretty small group of people.

Unlike Orrin's case, Draketooth women doesn't need to kidnap someone's child when they just can do one night stands with random people.

That is still someone's child.
Alternately they could also have cousin marriage the you get to have two parents.

Do you think they got something similar to rumspringa where they got to leave the clan and explore the world for a while? Do they choose to stay or are they forced?

[hamishspence]

That is still someone's child.

If you're a man, and you sire a child in a "one-night-stand" and you never find out that you have sired a child, have you really been wronged when the mother never meets you again to tell you she got pregnant?

IMO, no, such a "one-night-stand" father would not be what V meant when V talked about parents "wronged by a Draketooth" - it would have to be parents who stayed together till after the baby was born, for the non-Draketooth parent to meaningfully be wronged.

[woweedd]

Honestly, I tend to assume that the baby-stealing thing was post-Girard, because, if it wasn't, that is...I don't know how one can remain not evil while stealing infants.

[KorvinStarmast]

Did those three little booklets have "chaos as evil" as was suggested regarding "the basic D&D"?The clearest hint at that had to do with clerics.

On the alignment table (p. 9, Men and Magic) the Law one was Patriarch and the Chaos one was Evil High Priest.
There were no neutral clerics, originally. (Druids didn't show up until supplement 3.)
One was either a cleric or an anti-cleric. There was no middle ground.
Note: There are Anti-Clerics (listed below) who have similar powers to Clerics. Those Clerical spells underlined on the table for Cleric Spells have a reverse effect, all others functioning as noted. The chief exception is the Raise Dead spell which becomes:

The Finger of Death: Instead of raising the dead, this spell creates a "death ray" which will kill any creature unless a saving throw is made (where applicable). Range: 12". (A Cleric-type may use this spell in a life-or-death situation, but misuse will immediately turn him into an Anti-Cleric.)
Anti-Clerics: Evil Acolyte, Evil Adept, Shaman, Evil Priest, Evil Curate, Evil Bishop, Evil Lama, Evil High Priest. The spells in question that would be cast with reverse effects were: Cure Light Wounds, Purify Food and Water, Detect Evil, Protectin/Evil, Light, Bless, Cure Disease, Continual Light, Cure Serious Wounds, Protection/Evil, 10'r, Dispel Evil.
And note this:
A full explanation of each spell follows. Note that under lined Clerical spells are reversed by evil Clerics. Also, note the Clerics versus Undead Monsters table, indicating the strong effect of the various clerical levels upon the undead; however, evil Clerics do not have this effect, the entire effect being lost.
Repeated for emphasis: evil clerics could not turn undead and did not get a reverse ability.
Never once saw anyone play a cleric who wasn't just a regular cleric.
Plenty of NPC clerics, though, who contaminated water, caused darkness, and pointed finger of death at us.

[hamishspence]

Examples: On the alignment table (p. 9, Men and Magic) the Law one was Patriarch and the Chaos one was Evil High Priest.

It would appear then that the answer is yes - Good and Evil did exist in the booklets, as alternate names for Law and Chaos - via powerful Chaotic clerics being portrayed as "Evil High Priests".

[Lacuna Caster]

Girard's problem with the 12 gods might of been that he worshipped (or was raised to follow) the Southern gods.

As for kidnapping his heirs, but being neutral it could be a for the greater good kind of deal. You can do evil acts and still be good so doing evil acts and still being neutral is possible.
To work out as good-aligned your good acts would have to outweigh your evil acts considerably, and there are questions regarding psychological consistency depending on what motivates you to do both. It's certainly *possible* that Girard was doing good deeds somewhere off-panel but there's no specific evidence for it, or that he was ever raised to worship the Twelve.


If you're a man, and you sire a child in a "one-night-stand" and you never find out that you have sired a child, have you really been wronged when the mother never meets you again to tell you she got pregnant?
It's an interesting ethical question, though. You could argue that parents have some kind of intrinsic claim to a vested interest in their biological offspring, even if you never meet them.

[urbanwolf]

If you're a man, and you sire a child in a "one-night-stand" and you never find out that you have sired a child, have you really been wronged when the mother never meets you again to tell you she got pregnant?

IMO, no, such a "one-night-stand" father would not be what V meant when V talked about parents "wronged by a Draketooth" - it would have to be parents who stayed together till after the baby was born, for the non-Draketooth parent to meaningfully be wronged.

The man is wronged out of his choice, but also he is dead now because of V. The child is also wronged by never knowing the father, and also any blood oaths(or other blood related thing like diabetes) he is suddenly beholden too.

[hamishspence]

I'd have to disagree, at least in the context of D&D, that the child is being wronged by not being able to find out who their father is.


The man is wronged out of his choice

IMO, if you agree to engage in an unprotected one night stand, part of the risk is that you will sire a child and never know it - and you accept that risk when you agree to it.


Which raises the question - in D&D, can a paladin, or an Exalted Good, character, have a one night stand at all without losing powers for "an evil act"?

Tricky. BOED does suggest that any such act of intimacy needs to include mutual respect - but I could see it as being possible.

[Lacuna Caster]

The man is wronged out of his choice, but also he is dead now because of V. The child is also wronged by never knowing the father, and also any blood oaths(or other blood related thing like diabetes) he is suddenly beholden too.

IMO, if you agree to engage in an unprotected one night stand, part of the risk is that you will sire a child and never know it - and you accept that risk when you agree to it.
I assume this also means that the mother forfeits any claim upon the father for support and protection of the child, then? After all, she knew the risks.

[hamishspence]

If a mother specifically doesn't want any father to find out about their child's existence, then they won't be claiming support from such a father in the first place. That would reveal the child's existence to them.



But these hypotheticals don't really have much to do with Girard and his reasons for badmouthing the 12 Gods - can we get back to the topic?

[Lacuna Caster]

If a mother specifically doesn't want any father to find out about their child's existence, then they won't be claiming support from such a father in the first place. That would reveal the child's existence to them.
Obviously. I am pointing out it would be ethically incoherent to assert that a child who might or might not be sired is simultaneously none of the father's business and a potential source of crushing debt and social stigma, to be decided retroactively at a later date and at the sole discretion of the mother.

[hamishspence]

That's not an OOTS topic though.

I think we've digressed long enough - if you want to talk about it more, post a new thread in the General section.

[hroþila]

I wouldn't be surprised if only men went a-kidnapping for some reason (perhaps something to do with draconic inheritance and the Y chromosome, if such a thing even exists in the OotS universe). Otherwise just sending out Draketooth women on one-night stands might have been easier and much safer - I imagine they needed to keep their own numbers under control in that pyramid, so they wouldn't want to make as many children as humanly possible anyway. Baseless speculation is fun.

[tanonev]

To work out as good-aligned your good acts would have to outweigh your evil acts considerably, and there are questions regarding psychological consistency depending on what motivates you to do both. It's certainly *possible* that Girard was doing good deeds somewhere off-panel but there's no specific evidence for it, or that he was ever raised to worship the Twelve.

Yes, but the post you're quoting was only claiming that Girard needed to balance out to Neutral overall, not Good overall, and "giving up his personal freedom to spend the rest of his life guarding a gate to prevent the world from being destroyed" would generally be considered a Good act. And yes, adding up a bunch of Good and Evil acts to see where a character ends up is a little silly, but (1) it is what the rules say to do and (2) there aren't any clearly better alternatives if you're forced to determine the overall alignment of a character (which incidentally also works out poorly in real life).

[KorvinStarmast]

IMO, if you agree to engage in an unprotected one night stand, part of the risk is that you will sire a child and never know it - and you accept that risk when you agree to it.
That goes a ways beyond what the D&D game is built to handle. There are other role playing games that handle stuff like that better.

Which raises the question - in D&D, can a paladin, or an Exalted Good, character, have a one night stand at all without losing powers for "an evil act"? Sure, as long as they respect their partner in the morning.
A smoke afterwards isn't required, but some will appreciate it.

[Rrmcklin]

Girard's problem with the 12 gods might of been that he worshipped (or was raised to follow) the Southern gods.

As for kidnapping his heirs, but being neutral it could be a for the greater good kind of deal. You can do evil acts and still be good so doing evil acts and still being neutral is possible.

I have to point out the 12 gods are the Southern gods. I think you meant the Western gods, though I don't see any specific indications that Girard or his family were particularly devout.

Anyway, regardless of Girard's actual alignment, that he was fool and terrible person doesn't seem to something we're supposed to doubt. Roy's and Haley's reaction to his behavior and mindset speak for themselves, even without all of the family stuff he was probably (though not definitively) involved in anyway.

I also have to say I feel like "Girard got along with Serini so he must share her mindset on monsters" is a weak argument. Serini liked Girard but she's called him out herself during the discussion with the paladins, when she specifically notes she's not as extreme as him.

Similarly, while Girard's heritage might have made him generally sympathetic to "monster" races in general, that's hardly a given.

[woweedd]

Yes, but the post you're quoting was only claiming that Girard needed to balance out to Neutral overall, not Good overall, and "giving up his personal freedom to spend the rest of his life guarding a gate to prevent the world from being destroyed" would generally be considered a Good act. And yes, adding up a bunch of Good and Evil acts to see where a character ends up is a little silly, but (1) it is what the rules say to do and (2) there aren't any clearly better alternatives if you're forced to determine the overall alignment of a character (which incidentally also works out poorly in real life).

Saving the world from destruction isn't really Good, i'd think. After all, even a purely selfish person has good reason not to want the world destroyed: It's where they keep all their stuff! It's not exactly a selfless act. Neutral, at best. And I wouldn't it would counterbalance a bunch of kidnappings, not that that's even how alignment works. Basically, if Girard is the one who did the whole kidnapping scheme, I personally would class that as enough to tip him into Evil, which is why I tend to assume it started after his death.

[mjasghar]

Girard's problem with the 12 gods might of been that he worshipped (or was raised to follow) the Southern gods.

As for kidnapping his heirs, but being neutral it could be a for the greater good kind of deal. You can do evil acts and still be good so doing evil acts and still being neutral is possible.

You mean like Miko? Evil actions done willingly make you Evil regardless of the ends.
As an example genociding every goblinoid including newborns would solve the issue of the Crimson Mantle. So does that qualify as a Greater Good?

[woweedd]

You mean like Miko? Evil actions done willingly make you Evil regardless of the ends.
As an example genociding every goblinoid including newborns would solve the issue of the Crimson Mantle. So does that qualify as a Greater Good?
I get your point, but I will note Miko wasn't Evil, even after she fell. Paladins can't do ANY Evil act without falling, and killing Shojo counted (bisecting an unarmed old man who poses no threat to you and has not actually done anything bad enough to warrant it...Yeah).

[Precure]

I also have to say I feel like "Girard got along with Serini so he must share her mindset on monsters" is a weak argument. Serini liked Girard but she's called him out herself during the discussion with the paladins, when she specifically notes she's not as extreme as him.

Similarly, while Girard's heritage might have made him generally sympathetic to "monster" races in general, that's hardly a given.

But the point is, there is no reason to assume that he was racist or pro-genocide.

[Ionathus]

Do you think they got something similar to rumspringa where they got to leave the clan and explore the world for a while? Do they choose to stay or are they forced?

Interesting question. On one hand, I can see the Draketooths being so anti-authority that they're unwilling to force rebellious children to stay. On the other, their behavior and tactics (plus Haley's assessment of paranoia that says "family is the only thing you can trust") make me wonder if it didn't have a more cult-style vibe, and anyone who voiced second thoughts was pressured into staying. Probably more the latter than the former, even if they technically allowed people to leave.


Which raises the question - in D&D, can a paladin, or an Exalted Good, character, have a one night stand at all without losing powers for "an evil act"?

Tricky. BOED does suggest that any such act of intimacy needs to include mutual respect - but I could see it as being possible.

I'm not sure if you intended this, but your logic seems to imply casual sex between consenting adults is inherently evil.

[hamishspence]

I'm not sure if you intended this, but your logic seems to imply casual sex between consenting adults is inherently evil.

The exact quote from BOED:


There is nothing inherently evil about human (or humanoid) sexuality, and being a good character doesn’t necessarily mean remaining a virgin. Certain religions and cultures in the D&D universe encourage or at least condone some people taking vows of chastity, but these are similar to vows of poverty or abstinence, rooted in the belief that giving up the enjoyment of a good and natural thing can have positive spiritual benefits, not derived from an attitude that sex is evil.

However, a good character is bound to realize that sexuality is laden with traditions of exploitation and abuse, an area of interpersonal relationships where power dynamics are often manifested in unfortunate—really, evil—ways. A good character is not opposed to sex in principle, but will not condone exploitative or coercive relationships such as prostitution, the use of slaves for sex, or sexual contact with children or others without the power to enter freely and willingly into a relationship of mutual respect.

[woweedd]

The exact quote from BOED:

I don't how a one-night stand excludes mutual respect.

[hamishspence]

And I did say that it was possible that it could be done "with mutual respect".


BOED does suggest that any such act of intimacy needs to include mutual respect - but I could see it as being possible.

[Precure]

Um, children or others without the power to enter freely and willingly into a relationship of mutual respect basically says " no rape." It has nothing to do with sexual partners' actual respect of each other.

[hamishspence]

I got the impression that both apply - the relationship must be of mutual respect, and that's why anybody incapable of entering into such a one, is off-limits by definition.

Anything that can be described as an "exploitative" relationship, is also off-limits.

[Ionathus]

And I did say that it was possible that it could be done "with mutual respect".

You do know that phrasing something as "possible" in this way makes it sound like you consider it uncommon or even unlikely, right?

Again, your wording makes it sound like casual sex inherently carries less "mutual respect" and is therefore more Evil than other forms of sexual interaction. Until you present a D&D source for that claim, that's just going to sound like a personal bias.

[hamishspence]

The point isn't that it's in any way "inherently evil" but that slightly more caution might be needed, to avoid the problems mentioned.

In my opinion, anyway. I could be be wrong.

But this is something of a digression, anyway.


So - Girard and the 12 Gods?

[Ionathus]

So - Girard and the 12 Gods?

My read is that he's definitely anti-theistic, which makes sense with what we've seen of his "give a man enough power" speech in the desert.

Not sure if he has specific contempt for the 12 Gods, or if he's just trying to insult Soon Kim as deeply as possible like that edgy kid in middle school who intentionally says nasty, dismissive things. One would hope he's intelligent enough to recognize the Twelve's divine power, even if he doesn't respect them, but his "glorified petting zoo" comment seems, again, a little too "edgelord teenager" for me to respect him enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[hamishspence]

Could be that he's a resident of the Western Continent (since the Western Continent Gate is the gate closest to his home) and that this is a contributing factor - since they are not his pantheon.

[KorvinStarmast]

a little too "edgelord teenager" for me to respect him enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. More Richard Dawkins than teenager is how he sounds to me.

Could be that he's a resident of the Western Continent (since the Western Continent Gate is the gate closest to his home) and that this is a contributing factor - since they are not his pantheon. That makes plenty of sense. :smallsmile: *tips cap*

[hamishspence]

It's also possible that arcane casters in general in the OOTS are a bit prone to lack of respect for the divine (gods, magic, or both).

V is extremely disrespectful toward divine magic when soul-spliced.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0650.html

And Julia (and Eugene) are pretty dismissive of the gods

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1195.html

So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Girard's remarks about logic vs prayer:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0694.html

have at least an element of "arcane caster vs divine caster clash" about them.

[Rrmcklin]

But the point is, there is no reason to assume that he was racist or pro-genocide.

And there's no reason to assume he wasn't racist either. His respect for his own heritage in no way automatically implies he extended that respect to other "monster" races. Or that the Saphhire Guard's genocidal pursuits started with Soon and thus that Girard would know about it.

I have to call into question automatically assuming the best of Girard, while implicitly assuming the worst of Soon. Because I feel like that comes up after enough that it needs to be mentioned.

[brian 333]

Has it been mentioned that perhaps the dwarves' apparent mass devotion to Thor may be explained by the fact that Durkon is a cleric of Thor? It's no surprise that his social circle is composed primarily of Thor worshippers.

Dvalin was seen to have a non-insignificant number of followers, given his apparently recent, (in deity years,) ascention.

I'm also betting that Not-Thad wasn't a Thor worshipper.

[Dion]

I'm also betting that Not-Thad wasn't a Thor worshipper.

Definitely not. All Thor worshipers in comic are super dorky.

Not-Thad is Not-Dorky.

Therefore Not-Thad is Not-Thorky.

[Precure]

And there's no reason to assume he wasn't racist either.

Since when do people need to prove their innocence when there is nothing that suggests their guilt?

[Rrmcklin]

Since when do people need to prove their innocence when there is nothing that suggests their guilt?

I said nothing about guilt or innocence. Girard may have not been prejudiced or he may have been, but prejudice against goblins is the default in the setting (as recent events have spent much time emphasizing) and so should be assumed such until indicated otherwise. You seem to argued that Girard's bloodline gives such a reason, and I responded I find that reasoning weak, at best.

[hamishspence]

You seem to argued that Girard's bloodline gives such a reason, and I responded I find that reasoning weak, at best.We know that residents of the Western Continent have at least some "monster races" that are vastly more integrated into mainstream society than is usual on the other continents. Lizardfolk and kobolds in particular.

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch, for Girard to see goblins as little different from kobolds - to have seen both goblins and kobolds as treated like vermin to be attacked on sight on the Northern and Southern continents, and to remember back to the way kobolds in particular are treated on the Western continent, and for him to be annoyed when he sees Southerner or Northerner prejudice.


If "being dragonblooded" isn't sufficient reason to presume reduced prejudice on Girard's part, how about "being a Westerner"?

prejudice against goblins is the default in the setting (as recent events have spent much time emphasizing) and so should be assumed such until indicated otherwise.
IMO it's reasonable to speculate that while prejudice against goblins is the default on the other two, it's not the default on the Western Continent.


Or at least, not outside of elven lands (Redcloak's story in OOTS about how the goblins first discovered a rift when a goblin was fleeing from adventurers, begins at the rift in the elven lands that would later become Lirian's rift - and it was the elves (and dwarves) who crushed the goblins when they attacked the humans after the Dark One's death).

[pearl jam]

I think assuming that there's some kind of logical underpinning to racism and prejudice is mistaken from the outset. There is, IMO, plenty of evidence from the real world to suggest that it is arbitrary and without anything but a facade of logical underpinning, so to take the apparent acceptance of kobolds and lizardfolk as evidence that that attitude would extend to goblinoids may not be provably incorrect, but seems to be slightly naive based upon our world's history, at least.

[mjasghar]

Ah yes the goblin tolerant Western continent where we had a whole Book set where goblins were walking around happily in every settlement. I mean even the Order commented on it and used it as an opportunity to recruit a goblin colleague which is why they’ve already persuaded WrongEye... Oh wait.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ah yes the goblin tolerant Western continent where we had a whole Book set where goblins were walking around happily in every settlement. I mean even the Order commented on it and used it as an opportunity to recruit a goblin colleague which is why they’ve already persuaded WrongEye... Oh wait.
It is possible that the reason(s) that there aren't any goblins on the western continent include
(1) the lizardfolk purged their continent of 'that goblin scourge' centuries ago
(b) the elves did something similar
(c) a horrific plague attacked and devastated goblin communities (the microbe being 10x virulent due to the genetic marker that went along with the green version of melanin and the plague is only carried by sand fleas which live as parasites on the big worms)
(d) the big worms found goblins tasty and ate most of them, as bulette's try to do with halflings

Other reasons can also be invented as needed.

Like the Irish fleeing the Potato Famine, the surviving goblins fled to the other two continents.

[Peelee]

Maybe the goblins stay out of the desert? We know there was at least one goblin there, to find Lirian's Rift. But that was in the elven lands.

[pearl jam]

If their problem is bad land, moving to the desert seems unlikely to improve their situation. :smalltongue:

[Precure]

You seem to argued that Girard's bloodline gives such a reason, and I responded I find that reasoning weak, at best.

Reasons for him to be not racist against goblins:

* He's never shown to have racist attitudes.
* He had good relations with Serini.
* He called Soon's paladins fascist.
* He himself is descended from a "monster race".

Reasons for him to be racist against goblins:

* He was fighting and killing the goblins who were trying to take control of the rift in the elvenlands.
* Everyone is racist against goblins?

Reasoning for him to be racist and his supposed toleration of genocide is simply weaker.

[KorvinStarmast]

Reasons for him to be not racist against goblins:

* He called Soon's paladins fascist. Let me see if I understand the line of thinking here: calling someone else a fascist exempts you from being a racist. :smallyuk:

Here's another take: he was racist against Azurites, and used Soon's being a paladin as a fig leaf. :smallwink:

[Precure]

I guess this forum too entered into the era of post truth. :smallsigh:

[Dion]

The guy called the deities of a major religion “barnyard animals”.

I have no idea if he’s racist against goblins, but I am fairly certain he’s a 100% certified jackass.

[Fyraltari]

(His desire for a “pure bloodline” to protect his gate leads me to suspect that disparaging other religions wasn’t the limit of his prejudice, either.)
What desire for a pure bloodline?

[Dion]

What desire for a pure bloodline?

Girard did this absolutely crazy bonkers thing where everyone guarding his gate had to be related to him.

It was intended as a nut job horror movie thing, I think.

But you can’t get the bloodline any more pure than that…

[Cazero]

The guy called the deities of a major religion “barnyard animals”.

I have no idea if he’s racist against goblins, but I am fairly certain he’s a 100% certified jackass.
Well, let's be fair there. Half of them are talking banyards animals. The other half are talking animals. With the exception of Dragon, who's more of a mystical beast.

[Mike Havran]

Girard did this absolutely crazy bonkers thing where everyone guarding his gate had to be related to him.

It was intended as a nut job horror movie thing, I think.

But you can’t get the bloodline any more pure than that…You can, by mating only with your family members, which is a recipe for disaster and that is decidedly what Draketooths did not do. They were doing the opposite, they were actively seeking complete strangers and mating with them.


Well, let's be fair there. Half of them are talking banyards animals. The other half are talking animals. With the exception of Dragon, who's more of a mystical beast.Dragons are not mythical beasts in OotSverse (Question 4 (https://www.patreon.com/posts/answer-post-jan-50478064))).

[Cazero]

Dragons are not mythical beasts in OotSverse (Question 4 (https://www.patreon.com/posts/answer-post-jan-50478064))).
And I said mystical. Because of the impossible wingless flight that definitely takes some magic to it.

[Peelee]

Magical Beast is a type. Of course so is Dragon, and dragons are, well, dragons.

If we're going on type, that is. I know Magical Beast is not mystical beast.

[Dion]

I’d say that regardless of whether or not some dragons may or may not live in a barnyard, it seems unlikely that any of the southern gods live in a barn.

In my opinion, calling someone’s gods “glorified barnyard animals” is a jerky thing to do.

I mean, sure, maybe they are. But that’s just hurtful.

[Peelee]

I’d say that regardless of whether or not some dragons may or may not live in a barnyard

Don't judge my lifestyle.

[Jasdoif]

I’d say that regardless of whether or not some dragons may or may not live in a barnyardDon't judge my lifestyle.Oh your dragon-sized trampoline goes in the barn; that makes sense....

[Precure]

I’d say that regardless of whether or not some dragons may or may not live in a barnyard, it seems unlikely that any of the southern gods live in a barn.

In my opinion, calling someone’s gods “glorified barnyard animals” is a jerky thing to do.

I mean, sure, maybe they are. But that’s just hurtful.

Considering said gods were supporting an allegedly fascist organization's genocide missions, I don't see it as that hurtful, at least not hurtful compared to what happened to the victims.

[Rrmcklin]

I think assuming that there's some kind of logical underpinning to racism and prejudice is mistaken from the outset. There is, IMO, plenty of evidence from the real world to suggest that it is arbitrary and without anything but a facade of logical underpinning, so to take the apparent acceptance of kobolds and lizardfolk as evidence that that attitude would extend to goblinoids may not be provably incorrect, but seems to be slightly naive based upon our world's history, at least.

This. Without going to deeply, the idea that because happens to belong to a discriminated group that automatically implies less prejudice to other unrelated groups often falls short in the real world. And without any specific indication either way, I see no reason to make that assumption here as well.


Reasons for him to be not racist against goblins:

* He's never shown to have racist attitudes.
* He had good relations with Serini.
* He called Soon's paladins fascist.
* He himself is descended from a "monster race".

Reasons for him to be racist against goblins:

* He was fighting and killing the goblins who were trying to take control of the rift in the elvenlands.
* Everyone is racist against goblins?

Reasoning for him to be racist and his supposed toleration of genocide is simply weaker.

* We're hardly shown anything of Girard and what we are shown does not paint him in a good light.
* And? Serini's positions do not imply Girard's positions.
* This is a non-sequitur. Girard is shown to have a deeply wrong misunderstand of both Soon and his paladins. And also calling something "fascist" (even if correctly) does not inherently imply someone cannot hold racist beliefs.
* See my post and post I quoted above about why this actually means very little by itself.

I never claimed Girard definitely was racist. I pointed out your conjectures that he wasn't is merely that - conjecture, and not even as solid as you seem to think it is. That is all.


Considering said gods were supporting an allegedly fascist organization's genocide missions, I don't see it as that hurtful, at least not hurtful compared to what happened to the victims.

And again, you just assume Girard is aware of this because... reasons. Again, nothing you have said seems to go my original impression of you, for whatever reason, simply being biased in favor of Girard. If I were to guess why based on what you've already said, I'd assume because he hated paladins and you seem to be inclined to take that as an inherently good and valid sentiment, despite the story going out of its way to show how varied that type of character can actually be.

[Precure]

I never claimed that Girard, definitely, wasn't a racist person either. Point is, there is currently no reason to assume that he was racist against goblins or anyway "complicit" in those genocide missions just because he's shown to kill a goblin combatant.

[Fyraltari]

Girard did this absolutely crazy bonkers thing where everyone guarding his gate had to be related to him.

It was intended as a nut job horror movie thing, I think.

But you can’t get the bloodline any more pure than that…
Huh, I hate to break it to you, but in every bloodline every member is related to the ancestors, that's what bloodline means.

For us to claim that Girard wanted to keep his bloodline "pure" we'd need evidence that his relatives were forbidden to mate outside of a specific group, which we don't have. Seems likely that they were all free to chose whoselofe they were going to ruin.

Don't judge my lifestyle.
On the Internet? Are you mad?

[Peelee]

On the Internet? Are you mad?

Well, yes. That's why they let me be a mod.

[Fyraltari]

Well, yes. That's why they let me be a mod.

So the Madmod, then? hmmmm.
Cheese for everyone?

[KorvinStarmast]

I know Magical Beast is not mystical beast. I have a vague memory of an AD&D monster, or maybe a monster in Dragon Magazine, of a Fog Dragon or a Mist Dragon. That would be a mistical beast, though. (A quick google shows me an M:tG mist dragon also)

[hamishspence]

I have a vague memory of an AD&D monster, or maybe a monster in Dragon Magazine, of a Fog Dragon or a Mist Dragon. That would be a mistical beast, though. (A quick google shows me an M:tG mist dragon also)
Heh. :smallbiggrin:


The Mist Dragon from AD&D made it into 3e first via online material on the WOTC site, and then via the Dragons of Faerun splatbook.


I think the Fog Dragon in AD&D was a similar but not identical creature, which never made it in.


EDIT: After a quick google, it appears that I was thinking of the Cloud dragon.

[elros]

I never claimed that Girard, definitely, wasn't a racist person either. Point is, there is currently no reason to assume that he was racist against goblins or anyway "complicit" in those genocide missions just because he's shown to kill a goblin combatant.
I'm trying to figure out the line that considers "killing goblins in order to save the world" to be racist but "killing goblins so I can get treasure" is not.
Was Roy a racist against goblins when he murdered (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html) helpless goblin defenders (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Helpless_Defenders)?
Keep in mind the deva in the lawful good afterlife thought Roy's murder of these helpless goblins to be "not even a blip on the malev-o-meter (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)," so killing helpless goblins does not seem to put a character's soul in jeopardy.

[mjasghar]

It was an active combat situation
That’s like saying using a disarm move means you can’t then follow up with a killing strike
If he had taken them prisoner and then killed them out of hand it would have been different

[hamishspence]

And even then, at least according to Gygax, LG characters can "judge prisoners to be worthy of death" and kill them.

Early OOTS was far more Gygaxian than late OOTS.

[KorvinStarmast]

And even then, at least according to Gygax, LG characters can "judge prisoners to be worthy of death" and kill them.
If you looked at the way the Cavalier class was put together in UA for AD&D, that seems to be a bit of semi realistic verisimilitude given some of the powers of medieval and feudal lords (depending on the time and location) in the period being grossly emulated. (The whole "have to charge" schtick of that Cavalier made playing them a strange fit for any number of adventuring parties, and Paladins became a sub class of Cavaliers not Fighting Men).
Heck, hanging thieves was a commonplace. (Ken Follet's *Pillars of the Earth* offered a decent historical fiction treatment of same early in the book).

FWIW, Miko fit that mold somewhat, although the differences between AD&D and 3.x are probably sufficient that trying to compare her to a UA Cavalier / Paladin is a lost cause. In 5th edition, the Oath of the Crown would arguably bring with it similar jurisdictional powers - but only within the kingdom where the Crown Oath was sworn to. Elsewhere, it would be like Beauford T Justice trying to act as a law enforcement officer in Canada - no dice.

Which brings me back to Girard: part of his annoyance with Soon might have been his arrogating to himself that kind of authority outside of Azurite Lands.

Aside: somewhere on the 3.5 GiTP forums is a fantastic post about the scenario where a paladin makes a hard choice, and falls with eyes open. I wish I'd have bookmarked that when I read it; it was very well written.

[RatElemental]

Aside: somewhere on the 3.5 GiTP forums is a fantastic post about the scenario where a paladin makes a hard choice, and falls with eyes open. I wish I'd have bookmarked that when I read it; it was very well written.

Pretty sure it's not what you're talking about here, but there is a story floating around referred to as the "Powder Keg of Justice" that has a paladin talking about his views about falling.

Essentially he views his paladinhood as a thing that is meant to be lost at some point, as a sacrifice to be willingly taken when an evil great enough to warrant an action that violates his oath rears its head.

[KorvinStarmast]

Pretty sure it's not what you're talking about here, but there is a story floating around referred to as the "Powder Keg of Justice" that has a paladin talking about his views about falling.

Essentially he views his paladinhood as a thing that is meant to be lost at some point, as a sacrifice to be willingly taken when an evil great enough to warrant an action that violates his oath rears its head. That might be it...I'll use that search term. OK, that's about the same idea, but the one I recall ended with "I'll roll that intimidation check" or something like that.
Aha, this is the one (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDGreentext/comments/6rsciq/the_powderkeg_of_justice/)
Thanks! :smallsmile:
Hmm, original is apparently here (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice)

[mjasghar]

If you take that oath with the intention of breaking it then I’d judge it not to be a real oath. Sounds too much like the modern edgelord antihero where the antagonist uses the same methods as the bad guys to play up to people who like bad guy methods.

[Precure]

I'm trying to figure out the line that considers "killing goblins in order to save the world" to be racist but "killing goblins so I can get treasure" is not.
Neither one of those has to be racist, to be honest.

Was Roy a racist against goblins when he murdered (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html) helpless goblin defenders (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Helpless_Defenders)?
Probably.

Keep in mind the deva in the lawful good afterlife thought Roy's murder of these helpless goblins to be "not even a blip on the malev-o-meter (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)," so killing helpless goblins does not seem to put a character's soul in jeopardy.
Same deva bought Roy's explanation that killing Belkar in his sleep is evil.

[mjasghar]

The sleep in the goblins case was supposed to be a sleep spell so it was part of the combat.
It’s the same as using a blind spell/flash grenade. Or an ambush. Or any other deception or trap.

[pearl jam]

If you take that oath with the intention of breaking it then I’d judge it not to be a real oath. Sounds too much like the modern edgelord antihero where the antagonist uses the same methods as the bad guys to play up to people who like bad guy methods.

Although there were parts of the post I might take issue with, I don't think that's what the character said. I think his character took his oath on good faith, but has become jaded overtime because they perceive their actions as so insignificant in the face of all the evil in the world.

[elros]

The sleep in the goblins case was supposed to be a sleep spell so it was part of the combat.
It’s the same as using a blind spell/flash grenade. Or an ambush. Or any other deception or trap.
It was an active combat situation only because Roy lead the OOTS into the dungeon, and his motivation was to fulfill his father’s oath, and not to save the world (which is why the Sapphire Guard attacked goblins). Roy and the OOTS were the aggressors, not the goblins. Keep in mind that Xykon was not a threat to Roy because he didn’t even know who Roy was (and probably still doesn’t).
The early strips clearly show that the OOTS considered the goblins as collateral damage at best, and more likely only as a source of XPs and treasure. The deva in LG afterlife was okay with Roy killing goblins, which makes me think they were okay with a lot that the Sapphire Guard did, too.
I am sure the judges of the CN afterlife (if there are judges there) would disagree, which would explain why Girard hates Soon and the Sapphire Guard. But since characters are judged according to the afterlife that aligns with their actions, I suspect the majority Sapphire Guard are on the Celestial Mountain. From what Soon said, even Miko should be able to pass the gates.
If Girard hates the 12 southern gods (and likely all of the gods), it is because he wants the gods to judge things they way he wants them to be judged.

[Dion]

If Girard hates the 12 southern gods (and likely all of the gods), it is because he wants the gods to judge things they way he wants them to be judged.

Or, maybe Girard is just a jerk.

[hamishspence]

It was an active combat situation only because Roy lead the OOTS into the dungeon, and his motivation was to fulfill his father’s oath, and not to save the world (which is why the Sapphire Guard attacked goblins). Roy and the OOTS were the aggressors, not the goblins. Keep in mind that Xykon was not a threat to Roy because he didn’t even know who Roy was (and probably still doesn’t).
The early strips clearly show that the OOTS considered the goblins as collateral damage at best, and more likely only as a source of XPs and treasure.

the Oath isn't the sole factor - the goblins had been raiding the local villages, at least according to the narration in the Dungeon Crawling Fools book, which has a few strips set before the 1st online strip.

The prequel book Origin of PCs mentions this as well - though it's also true that Roy was Xykon-hunting - first he's contacted the Oracle, who tells him where Xykon's castle is - then he gets rumours that goblins from the castle have been heavily raiding the local villages for the last 6 months - then he recruits his party and heads out.




The sleep in the goblins case was supposed to be a sleep spell so it was part of the combat.
It’s the same as using a blind spell/flash grenade. Or an ambush. Or any other deception or trap.

Yup.

From the early strips (as of around strip 43)



Important philosophical question: Do we judge people by their actions or by their alignments? :P
Doesn't matter. Killing evil creatures isn't evil, and for all their screw ups, no one (but Belkar) has committed any evil actions. (Theft isn't evil, just selfish.)


Though later The Giant did suggest Roy might have done wrong, or might not.




Does this mean Roy did wrong when he slit all the throats of sleeping goblins (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html)Probably. Strictly speaking, those specific goblins hadn't attacked him, and I guess it is theoretically possible that they wouldn't have. He didn't choose to make that distinction before killing them, since he had been attacked by every goblin thus far, so that's probably a black mark on his record. Or maybe they stood there at the door and heard the goblins talking about having killed a bunch of villagers or something.

However, the more accurate assessment is that was strips #11, before there was even the semblance of a plot, and I was far more interested in describing how D&D is played than prescribing how D&D should be played. So it shouldn't be taken as some sort of statement on my part for what is proper behavior.

and that he might have done things slightly differently now.



Maybe I'm being too bold for suggesting it, but I guess that in Rich Burlew's personal list of "things I regret having done in OOTS", Strip #11 panel #1 ranks rather high.I wouldn't rank it that high, but yeah. All I would really change would be to have the goblins see the OOTS and draw weapons. While you could still make the argument that subsequently killing them in their sleep wasn't lily-white pure, it would be far more in keeping with Roy's character.

[mjasghar]

Killing someone who has killed lots of other people for no reason and is likely to kill more and raise corpses as undead, but is not a threat to you, is by definition Good
Only fighting someone who is only a threat to you is Neutral.
See the Seven Samurai.

[Fyraltari]

Killing someone who has killed lots of other people for no reason and is likely to kill more and raise corpses as undead, but is not a threat to you, is by definition Good
What dictionnary are you using where that's in the definition?

See the Seven Samurai.
I beg your pardon?

[hamishspence]

Killing someone who has killed lots of other people for no reason and is likely to kill more and raise corpses as undead, but is not a threat to you, is by definition Good
Only fighting someone who is only a threat to you is Neutral.

What dictionnary are you using where that's in the definition?


BoED explains when "violence against evil" is acceptable:


...A paladin smiting a blackguard or a blue dragon is not committing an evil act: the cause of good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies.

That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe.

First, violence in the name of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means primarily that it must be directed against evil. It is certainly possible for a good nation to declare war upon another good nation, but fighting in such a conflict is not a good act. In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation—the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm. A full-scale war would provoke the orcs to evil deeds and bring unnecessary suffering to both sides of the conflict. Similarly, revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of stopping further acts of evil (as opposed to paying back evil already committed).

The second consideration is that violence should have good intentions. Launching an incursion into orc territory is not a good act if the primary motivation is profit, whether that means clearing the treasure out of the ruins the orcs inhabit or claiming their land for its natural resources. Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.

Later, it discusses acts that cause no loss to the doer, or benefit the doer, vs acts that come at a cost to the doer:


Even the most generous altruism, when it comes without sacrifice or even serves one’s own self-interest, is neutral at best.

so, "acceptable violence" that at the same time "serves one's own self-interest" - which sounds to me like all acts of self-defence, is Neutral, not Good.

By contrast, "acceptable violence" that comes with sacrifice - of time, of personal risk, and so forth, with a primary motivation being "the benefit of others" rather than "serving one's own self-interest" is much more Good, than plain self-defence is, all other things being equal.


Going after a villain whose actions are not a threat to you personally, but are a threat to others, purely because you want to protect those others from further evil acts by that villain - that fills the "sacrifice" component of Goodness - time and personal safety being what's sacrificed.

[hroþila]

It was an active combat situation only because Roy lead the OOTS into the dungeon, and his motivation was to fulfill his father’s oath, and not to save the world (which is why the Sapphire Guard attacked goblins). Roy and the OOTS were the aggressors, not the goblins. Keep in mind that Xykon was not a threat to Roy because he didn’t even know who Roy was (and probably still doesn’t).
This is moving the goalposts. If this is your real argument, then the coup-de-gracing is irrelevant.

[KorvinStarmast]

Or, maybe Girard is just a jerk.
Brevity is, at times, the soul of wit. :smallsmile:

[Peelee]

Brevity is, at times, the soul of wit. :smallsmile:

Brevity? Wit!

[Dion]

I beg your pardon?

I think because the seven samurai, who were good, lost the battle despite beating the bandits, who were evil?

Or maybe because the pheasant villagers, who were neutral, won?

Or… maybe because Toshiro Mifune was overrated in that role, and better in Rashomon?

Idk.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think because the seven samurai, who were good, lost the battle despite beating the bandits, who were evil? Kurosawa wasn't presenting a story of good and evil.

Or maybe because the pheasant villagers, who were neutral, won? There were no pheasants in that film.

Or… maybe because Toshiro Mifune was overrated in that role, and better in Rashomon? While that's a matter of taste, I think he was better in the latter film.

And in Red Sun.

[mjasghar]

The samurai weren’t being personally threatened by the bandits

[Dion]

There were no pheasants in that film.


Being a person who has lived his entire life exclusively in a post industrial society, I admit I have literally no idea what a peasant is. I think my great great grandfather might have been one, but I’ve never met him.

If the poor farmers weren’t peasants, i humbly beg for you to graciously accept my apology and enlighten me on the correct term.


The samurai weren’t being personally threatened by the bandits

Sadly, the movie did not end in celestia, so our knowledge of how Kurosawa felt this would have affected their D&D alignment is lost to us.

[mjasghar]

It did in the special limited edition director’s cut.

[brian 333]

Being a person who has lived his entire life exclusively in a post industrial society, I admit I have literally no idea what a peasant is. I think my great great grandfather might have been one, but I’ve never met him.

If the poor farmers weren’t peasants, i humbly beg for you to graciously accept my apology and enlighten me on the correct term.



Sadly, the movie did not end in celestia, so our knowledge of how Kurosawa felt this would have affected their D&D alignment is lost to us.

Think of the Japanese peasantry as fashion accessories. They came with the land and didn't own anything. They did the same work their grandparents did and if they didn't like it there were always more children than job openings, so they were 100% disposable and 100% recycleable.

The difference between a slave and a peasant is that slaves were portable while peasants were required, often by law, to remain near their place of birth for life, (unless cannon fodder was needed somewhere.)

One of the central ideas in Seven Samurai is, what is a samurai without a lord? That they all identify so readily with the peasants says a lot.

[pearl jam]

Being a person who has lived his entire life exclusively in a post industrial society, I admit I have literally no idea what a peasant is. I think my great great grandfather might have been one, but I’ve never met him.

If the poor farmers weren’t peasants, i humbly beg for you to graciously accept my apology and enlighten me on the correct term.



Sadly, the movie did not end in celestia, so our knowledge of how Kurosawa felt this would have affected their D&D alignment is lost to us.

It was a joke about the fact that you accidentally had an "h" in peasants, changing it to pheasants, which are a type of bird, one variety of which happens to be Japan's national bird, coincidentally. lol

[Dion]

It was a joke about the fact that you accidentally had an "h" in peasants, changing it to pheasants, which are a type of bird, one variety of which happens to be Japan's national bird, coincidentally. lol

So, uh… are the villagers in the film suppose to be peasants?

Or a peasants a a romanticized European thing I got from reading Ivanhoe and the like? I honestly don’t even know if peasants were a real thing.

[Bookwyrm13]

This thread has mostly wandered off the topic but just to throw in my two cents on the original question: I don't think Girard has any specific issue with the 12 gods

I imagine he's probably not keen on any god, even his own, but I think the point was more about insulting Soon than any actual theological conviction.

If he'd been addressing a Northerner, he'd probably have substituted something to the effect of "one-eyed lunatic" or "drunken oaf" for Odin or Thor. If he'd been addressing a Westerner he might have said "four-eyed freak" or...actually the petting zoo comment still works for Nergal, but you get the point.

[pearl jam]

So, uh… are the villagers in the film suppose to be peasants?

Or a peasants a a romanticized European thing I got from reading Ivanhoe and the like? I honestly don’t even know if peasants were a real thing.

As far as I know, this reply is reasonably accurate definition of what it meant to be a peasant for its brevity that would apply both to feudal Japan and Europe.



Think of the Japanese peasantry as fashion accessories. They came with the land and didn't own anything. They did the same work their grandparents did and if they didn't like it there were always more children than job openings, so they were 100% disposable and 100% recycleable.

The difference between a slave and a peasant is that slaves were portable while peasants were required, often by law, to remain near their place of birth for life, (unless cannon fodder was needed somewhere.)

One of the central ideas in Seven Samurai is, what is a samurai without a lord? That they all identify so readily with the peasants says a lot.

[Cazero]

I think because the seven samurai, who were good, lost the battle despite beating the bandits, who were evil?
Just because half of them died doesn't mean that the samurai as a collective lost the battle. In fact, they won. Bandits died and peasants were protected.

[KorvinStarmast]

Being a person who has lived his entire life exclusively in a post industrial society, I admit I have literally no idea what a peasant is. I was making light of your typo; a pheasant is a kind of bird that is often hunted. Looks like that one flew over your head. :smallsmile:

our knowledge of how Kurosawa felt this would have affected their D&D alignment is lost to us. Fortunately, Korusawa isn't, and wasn't, shackled to that chain.

[brian 333]

I was making light of your typo; a pheasant is a kind of bird that is often hunted. Looks like that one flew over your head. :smallsmile:
Fortunately, Korusawa isn't, and wasn't, shackled to that chain.

A more American version of that story is The Magnificent Seven. Too bad it came out of the Hollywood Western era because today's culture would cancel it.

Perhaps we need a new age version. Former police officers hired to save the Castro district of San Francisco from corporate developers?

[Fyraltari]

A more American version of that story is The Magnificent Seven. Too bad it came out of the Hollywood Western era because today's culture would cancel it.

Perhaps we need a new age version. Former police officers hired to save the Castro district of San Francisco from corporate developers?

And perhaps you could appreciate one of the greatest movies of all time as it is, rather than demanding it was about people in your country?

[Peelee]

A more American version of that story is The Magnificent Seven. Too bad it came out of the Hollywood Western era because today's culture would cancel it.

You know, people say that about a lot of stuff, but I never buy it. Because it's pretty early falsified - if sobering is that objectionable, then it would have that reaction to the existant version. Mindy Kalinga claims they couldn't make some of the jokes on The Office if it was remade today, and yet it continues to be one of the single most popular streaming properties NBC has. None of the episodes have been pulled. One cold open has. Or, for Community, one episode has been pulled from streaming. Those are things that one couldn't do today, as objectively shown. But all the rest absolutely could.

And that's completely ignoring that "canceling" is hardly a new concept. The word has changed, the behavior is the same. Literally yesterday I overheard some patients in our waiting room talking ankh hours the youth today had no work ethic and didn't respect their elders anymore, and how this generation was doomed. They said, in all but the same words, “the children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room."

So you'll forgive me if I discard any claims of theoretical "canceling" out of hand, for a multitude of reasons.

[hroþila]

There's literally Sumerian tablets saying the same about them kids.

[Fyraltari]

It's more than "them kids" every generation has people the good ol' days three generations before their own when people knew how to live ignoring the fact that curmodgeons of that time already said those exact same things.

[Peelee]

There's literally Sumerian tablets saying the same about them kids.

Yeah, theres a reason I googled Socrates' exact quote. :smallwink:
Or as exact as can be reasonably expected.

Jolee Bindo also had a good diatribe on the subject, framed a different way. But yeah. Tale as old as time. Every generation ages themselves into the last bastion of civilization against the youthful barbaric hordes. And yet society goes on. Will wonders never cease?

[pearl jam]

Also, I mean, Magnificent Seven literally got a remake within the last decade 5 years.

[KorvinStarmast]

A more American version of that story is The Magnificent Seven. Recursion at work. James Coburn with knife. :smallcool:

...and yet society... In Sumer, ceased to be. :smallwink:

Also, I mean, Magnificent Seven literally got a remake within the last decade 5 years. It was a bit over the top, but it worked well enough. Once again Denzel Washington made me glad I went to the theater and saw the film.

[pearl jam]

I don't believe I've watched the remake yet.

[Kantaki]

There were no pheasants in that film.

They're in the Disney version. :smallbiggrin:

The topic drifts in the Playground will never cease to amaze me...

Also, I'm pretty sure "The youth these days" was (one of) the first words ever spoken.
No, they're the very reason man developed that ability.

[Dion]

Also, I'm pretty sure "The youth these days" was (one of) the first words ever spoken.
No, they're the very reason man developed that ability.

The second words were probably: “Thog not respect tradition. Thog canceled.”

[urbanwolf]

They're in the Disney version. :smallbiggrin:

The topic drifts in the Playground will never cease to amaze me...

Also, I'm pretty sure "The youth these days" was (one of) the first words ever spoken.
No, they're the very reason man developed that ability.

I think it is a robin in the disney/pixar version not a pheasant.