Serini is a moron

[madrobin]

So here we have an aggregate force of two paladins, two clerics, a high-level wizard, a high-level fighter, a high-level ranger, a strangely useful bard, and a reformed psychotic dagger-throwing ranger, plus a mini-dinosaur, a rather deadly cat, and a cynical bird, which would be enough to overwhelm Xykon and Redcloak, especially if they returned from a dungeon delve damaged and depleted, and what does Serini do? She separates and incapacitates them.

I mean, Serini DOES want to take out Xykon, right? He is her enemy, right? So why is she attacking her potential allies? Does she seriously have a plan to take him out all by her widdle self and believes in that plan so much that she has taken out NINE of the good guys so that they don't interfere with it?

This seems like an Intelligence -12 move to me. Not to mention Wisdom -700. Too bad she's powerful enough to have actually succeeded (so far; the Order may recover).

I find this implausible enough that I regard this as a rather contrived plot twist, as if O-Chul and Lien joined the Order--possibly with Serini's participation--then the Final Battle would be over in four panels. Perhaps the Giant is simply cooking up a way for that to not happen, in order to drag out the story. Only Elan knows for sure.

[hroþila]

which would be enough to overwhelm Xykon and Redcloak
And the MitD and Oona and Greyview?

Seems to me you disagree with Serini's assessment of the relative power levels so you're calling her a moron, even though she's in a much better position than you to make that judgment call. I seriously doubt the Order, Serini & co. and the paladins would win against Team Evil as easily as you think.

[Squire Doodad]

I don't know what Serini's endgame here is, but she doesn't trust the Order or the paladins at all. 3 gates in a row got blown up on purpose by them, she's worried that whether or not they will actively blow up the gate to stop Xykon, they're still untrustworthy and liable to do something stupid.
She may also be resigned to her fate and willing to give Xykon hell by way of her monsters, but if worst comes to worst let him take over and wait for someone to boot him.

Remember - from what we can tell, she is the last remaining living person who knows how to repair the Gates. The Gods might be able to help, but Serini has beyond pertinent information in either scenario.

[Dion]

They don’t have the juice.

[madrobin]

They don’t have the juice.

She was talking to only the two paladins when she said that, and how did she know their levels and abilities, anyway?

Besides, Elan memorized Create Delicious Fruit Juices this morning and is ready to materialize a keg of guava nectar at a moment's notice.

[madrobin]

And the MitD and Oona and Greyview?

Seems to me you disagree with Serini's assessment of the relative power levels so you're calling her a moron, even though she's in a much better position than you to make that judgment call. I seriously doubt the Order, Serini & co. and the paladins would win against Team Evil as easily as you think.

You're missing the point. Attacking a large party (and another small party) of potential allies is a moronic move. Even if the Order, etc. would only be cannon fodder, wouldn't that give Serini a better chance to kill Xykon and/or Redcloak while they were being slaughtered?

[JNAProductions]

Except she’s okay with Xykon winning. She said as much. Protecting the gate is more important than beating the lich.

[Dion]

Except she’s okay with Xykon winning. She said as much. Protecting the gate is more important than beating the lich.

Pretty much this.

Serini job is saving the world here. She’s not wasting her time in some stupid side quest.

[Squire Doodad]

Serini's goal here may well be "wait for someone to try to stop Xykon after he's "won", be that last-dungeon-lore dump person, and then teach them how to make new gates after they win".
In such a case, her fallacy is in not believing the group of high level adventurers would also be able to do the same with her guidance instead of her admonishment. Though, in a more cynical lens, she may well be right. The Order is not drastically stronger statwise since Azure City. Haley and Elan are both much stronger, and Belkar and V have both picked up new tricks. But I don't think plopping their higher-level-selves into the Azure City fight would have been enough to win. Heck, Roy himself is best case scenario a level above Azure City. Maybe to make the party stay together, but not to beat Xykon himself.

[Dion]

Serini's goal here may well be "wait for someone to try to stop Xykon after he's "won"...

Serini’s goal is to keep the gate intact. Full stop.

She doesn’t care if Xykon rules the world for a billion years as long as the gate is intact.

[hroþila]

You're missing the point. Attacking a large party (and another small party) of potential allies is a moronic move. Even if the Order, etc. would only be cannon fodder, wouldn't that give Serini a better chance to kill Xykon and/or Redcloak while they were being slaughtered?
A better chance, yes. A good enough chance, not necessarily. Serini estimates that, whatever the Order is capable of, it wouldn't be enough to tip the scales (or that the risk of it not being enough is too great). So Serini is trying to prevent them from unwittingly tipping Team Evil off on the nature of the corridor trap, from finding the gate themselves and deciding it needs to go like all the others, and simply from being unceremoniously and unnecessarily offed by Xykon.

[Squire Doodad]

A better chance, yes. A good enough chance, not necessarily. Serini estimates that, whatever the Order is capable of, it wouldn't be enough to tip the scales (or that the risk of it not being enough is too great). So Serini is trying to prevent them from unwittingly tipping Team Evil off on the nature of the corridor trap, from finding the gate themselves and deciding it needs to go like all the others, and simply from being unceremoniously and unnecessarily offed by Xykon.

Also a good point there - so far, Team Evil has been thoroughly foiled by the dungeon's main mechanism. While there's apparently more layers to this, the Order is about to attempt and ambush that would directly lead to Team Evil finding out the dungeon's gimmick. As long as Serini gets them to not do this, the Gate will be safe for the time being. And if she's right about their chances of beating Team Evil, they're about to kill themselves futilely and effectively forfeit the gate.

[Jasdoif]

You're missing the point. Attacking a large party (and another small party) of potential allies is a moronic move. Even if the Order, etc. would only be cannon fodder, wouldn't that give Serini a better chance to kill Xykon and/or Redcloak while they were being slaughtered?A better chance, yes. A good enough chance, not necessarily. Serini estimates that, whatever the Order is capable of, it wouldn't be enough to tip the scales (or that the risk of it not being enough is too great). So Serini is trying to prevent them from unwittingly tipping Team Evil off on the nature of the corridor trap, from finding the gate themselves and deciding it needs to go like all the others, and simply from being unceremoniously and unnecessarily offed by Xykon.She also has the option to enact an amnesia pepper contingency (https://www.nuklearpower.com/2007/01/02/episode-790-its-where-the-powder-comes-from/), if she wants to ally with them after beating (and interrogating) them.

[Squire Doodad]

She also has the option to enact an amnesia pepper contingency (https://www.nuklearpower.com/2007/01/02/episode-790-its-where-the-powder-comes-from/), if she wants to ally with them after beating (and interrogating) them.

S: "What?! The Goblins are trying to use the Snarl to nuke the homes of the gods, and the gods are about to blow up the world the minute Redcloak gets his hands on the gate!? Well, time for plan D."

[20 hours and several buckets of amnesia potion later]

S: "...I found you lot passed out on a cliffside by my Hollow. Seems a landslide took you out, but let's talk about me. I'm Serini Toormuck, and I need your help fighting Xykon."
R: "Finally! Someone willing to help without putting us through hoops!"

[Yendor]

Any attempt to confront Xykon directly vastly increases his chances of finding the Gate, even without taking into account Serini's dim view of the heroes' capabilities. Right now Team Evil are indefinitely stalled; attacking them risks exposing the gimmick. Or giving them someone to capture and interrogate. The Order's chances of winning would have to be near-certain for Serini to even consider risking it.

[Emanick]

Any attempt to confront Xykon directly vastly increases his chances of finding the Gate, even without taking into account Serini's dim view of the heroes' capabilities. Right now Team Evil are indefinitely stalled; attacking them risks exposing the gimmick. Or giving them someone to capture and interrogate. The Order's chances of winning would have to be near-certain for Serini to even consider risking it.

Unless you directly expose the Gate's defenses when you spring your ambush (as, admittedly, Roy was planning to do just now), I'm not clear on how attacking Xykon "vastly increases his chances of finding the Gate." All it reveals is that there are some Good Guys out to stop them, potentially including Serini - which, yeah, Team Evil basically already knew, even if Xykon thought Serini was dead.

The risk of capture and interrogation is significant, I suppose, but Serini probably has a way to prevent being taken alive, and she could always erase the Order's memory of how to bypass her security.

I think Serini just plain doesn't trust the party not to wilfully endanger her Gate. There are absolutely ways in which she could work with them, if she so desired.

[Mike Havran]

I agree that she acts like a total moron in at least two ways:

1. Team Evil keeps doing the same shtick day after day with no variation: they delve into the tunnels until they are tapped out, then rest, rinse and repeat. Serini knows this, fully. If she was sincere in trying to take out the bad guys, she would made contact with the Order and give them this intel. The order would ambush Xykon and perhaps take him out, perhaps take out some of his allies, the cleric in particular. Not a single line of the Gate defence would be compromised by it, even if Xykon kicked their ass. Most likely there would be some losses at both ends. Serini could even try to mop up the survivors.

2. In this particular ambush, she keeps shooting at the one opponent who keeps dodging projectiles like Neo. If she had any brainpower above feeble, she would move on with her target after two rounds, taking out everybody else and then overwhelm the remaining rogue with brute force.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except she’s okay with Xykon winning. She said as much. Protecting the gate is more important than beating the lich. While her information is incomplete based on how reader-limited-omniscience works, from what she knows it's a rational plan.
The ambush OoTS was setting up risked enlightening Xykon as regards the gate's protective mechanism. Serini wants to keep him in the dark. (Though In World wise, Redcloak has been shown to have a pretty good INT score. He will eventually begin to think through why they keep not finding the gate and begin an alternate problem solving scheme. His braininess has been pretty consistent).

[Ionathus]

What is a wave without the ocean?

The Order's blind optimism is meaningless in a vacuum. In order for their philosophy to be explored, somebody else has to oppose it, and fiction is full of jaded mentor types -- Dr. Cox from Scrubs, Luke from TLJ, Phil from Hercules, Haymitch from The Hunger Games, Jeong Jeong from TLA... the list goes on.

Serini's narrative job is to be an old, beleaguered, defeatist cynic. She is supposed to think that there's no point in fighting Xykon, she's supposed to be acting defeatist, she's supposed to be dismissing optimistic & risky behavior, because she is written as a foil for the plucky band of young, underqualified, overconfident misfits who are actually trying to face Xykon, and it makes sense at some point for someone to say "no you idiots, what are you doing?" so the Order can explain their worldview (like Roy did at Azure City in the zombie dragon speech).

It makes sense for her to be subconsciously afraid of Round II with Xykon, disdainful of the next generation of adventurers, and mistrustful of Lawful Good types and people who associate with them. Given the life she's lived and the costly victories she's won, it makes sense that she'd believe well-intentioned trespassers don't get to just decide how she guards her own pillar of reality, and it also makes sense that she'd still be traumatized by Kraagor's death (and thus invested emotionally in making sure this gate in particular stays intact, or else what was it all for?).

None of these things make her a moron in my book. They make her an interesting non-evil character who is nevertheless in conflict with the heroes. Narrative foils are the crucible that tests the hero's resolve and personal philosophy. In one way of looking at it, she was written to be "wrong" about her worldview so the heroes can argue the actual point of OOTS ("everyone should care (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html)" IMO). But being wrong, and acting on that wrong worldview, doesn't automatically make her stupid.


I agree that she acts like a total moron in at least two ways:

1. Team Evil keeps doing the same shtick day after day with no variation: they delve into the tunnels until they are tapped out, then rest, rinse and repeat. Serini knows this, fully. If she was sincere in trying to take out the bad guys, she would made contact with the Order and give them this intel. The order would ambush Xykon and perhaps take him out, perhaps take out some of his allies, the cleric in particular. Not a single line of the Gate defence would be compromised by it, even if Xykon kicked their ass. Most likely there would be some losses at both ends. Serini could even try to mop up the survivors.

2. In this particular ambush, she keeps shooting at the one opponent who keeps dodging projectiles like Neo. If she had any brainpower above feeble, she would move on with her target after two rounds, taking out everybody else and then overwhelm the remaining rogue with brute force.

1. I don't think the ambush changes Serini's mental calculus at all. I'm pretty sure that in her assessment, an Epic lich sorcerer and a 17th-level cleric are just too powerful even with some minor advantages on the Order's side. And while I don't agree, I also don't think it's an unreasonable tactical assessment. Remember, a 50/50 shot at victory is probably enough for the Order. But Serini doesn't want to risk the fate of the world on coin-flip odds. She's probably unwilling to take the risk unless it's more like 80/20 or higher.

2. In every D&D game I've played, as both DM and player, the conventional wisdom is to attack whatever isn't incapacitated yet. We already Turned those ghouls? Great, focus on the necromancer before it wears off. The Fighter got charmed? Perfect, unload everything you've got on the Cleric before they break that enchantment, and we can mop up the Fighter later.

Action Economy is super important in D&D, and taking out Haley (at that moment, the only person still in control) is far, far more important than piling some more damage on an already-unconscious Roy. Taking the enemy party from 2 actions/round to 1 action/round (even if for only a few rounds) is far more powerful than finishing off somebody who's not even contributing to those actions right now. And this goes double, maybe triple or even quadruple, for somebody who's outnumbered 8:2.

[Cazero]

The only dumb thing about Serini's plan is the part about Xykon being defeated "eventualy". No matter how much later that eventuality will come up, it will need to address the Gate in the same way the Order is trying to right now.

[Dion]

The only dumb thing about Serini's plan is the part about Xykon being defeated "eventualy". No matter how much later that eventuality will come up, it will need to address the Gate in the same way the Order is trying to right now.

Why? What does Serini care what Xykon does, as long as the gate is intact?

Xykon is important to OotS.

Xykon isn’t important to Serini.

Serini does not care about Xykon. At all. She only cares about the gate.

[Mike Havran]

1. I don't think the ambush changes Serini's mental calculus at all. I'm pretty sure that in her assessment, an Epic lich sorcerer and a 17th-level cleric are just too powerful even with some minor advantages on the Order's side. And while I don't agree, I also don't think it's an unreasonable tactical assessment. Remember, a 50/50 shot at victory is probably enough for the Order. But Serini doesn't want to risk the fate of the world on coin-flip odds. She's probably unwilling to take the risk unless it's more like 80/20 or higher.
Serini risks nothing by an ambush outside of the dungeon. When both spellcasters are running on low, their power is significantly hampered. And even if Xykon pulls something Epic out of his tailbone and whips out the Order, he won't be an inch closer to defeating the dungeon than he was in case the ambush did not take place at all.



2. In every D&D game I've played, as both DM and player, the conventional wisdom is to attack whatever isn't incapacitated yet. We already Turned those ghouls? Great, focus on the necromancer before it wears off. The Fighter got charmed? Perfect, unload everything you've got on the Cleric before they break that enchantment, and we can mop up the Fighter later.

Action Economy is super important in D&D, and taking out Haley (at that moment, the only person still in control) is far, far more important than piling some more damage on an already-unconscious Roy. Taking the enemy party from 2 actions/round to 1 action/round (even if for only a few rounds) is far more powerful than finishing off somebody who's not even contributing to those actions right now. And this goes double, maybe triple or even quadruple, for somebody who's outnumbered 8:2.I'm not suggesting Serini should keep peppering Roy. I suggest she sshould have started tagging everybody else immediately after realising Haley is exceptionally mobile. V - Elan - Durkon - Minrah. They could have been down sleeping already and the battle would have been basically over.

[Ionathus]

Serini risks nothing by an ambush outside of the dungeon. When both spellcasters are running on low, their power is significantly hampered. And even if Xykon pulls something Epic out of his tailbone and whips out the Order, he won't be an inch closer to defeating the dungeon than he was in case the ambush did not take place at all.


I'm not suggesting Serini should keep peppering Roy. I suggest she sshould have started tagging everybody else immediately after realising Haley is exceptionally mobile. V - Elan - Durkon - Minrah. They could have been down sleeping already and the battle would have been basically over.

1. I think to Serini, a no-holds-barred battle with someone as destructive as Xykon isn't much better even if it's out on the doorstep of the cosmic keystone instead of the inner sanctum. He's unpredictable and dangerous...especially if he starts to lose. The Order is used to collateral damage, but Serini isn't willing to risk that.

2. Ok, I see what you mean. But V, Elan, Durkon, and Minrah were all hit by eye rays and incapacitated anyway, so if Serini had spent those first rounds shooting at them then those attacks would've been wasted too. Plus Haley can't do much without her bow -- she's really just buying time until something else happens, and Serini was in "finish them off" mode until Minrah got back up. Hard to criticize Serini's tactics all that much here.

[Cazero]

Why? What does Serini care what Xykon does, as long as the gate is intact?

Xykon is important to OotS.

Xykon isn’t important to Serini.

Serini does not care about Xykon. At all. She only cares about the gate.
Serini may not care about Xykon, but if Xykon starts ruling the world, it will attract extra attempts at toppling him.
Wich will need to deal with that Gate business since it's his intended tool for ruling the world. And Serini cares about the Gate. Specificaly, she cares about adventurers who might try to destroy it to dethrone Xykon.

Better team up with the guys who know enough to see destroying the Gate as a terrifying dilemna than risking the next band of merry troublemakers who don't know that much and see destroying the Gate as a clear-cut win.

[Jason]

Serini is not a moron, she's simply operating on incomplete information.

Her goal is to avoid the destruction of the world. If the last gate is destroyed then the Snarl gets loose and does this. The gate is only important to her in that it's continued existence keeps the world from ending.

If Xykon and Redcloak control the gate the Snarl doesn't get loose and destroy the world, so she doesn't care if Team Evil controls the gate. In fact, she can count on Xykon and Redcloak to keep it intact. She wouldn't be happy if Xykon ruled the world for the next several centuries, but at least there will still be a world.

The Order and the Paladins have already proven that they are willing to destroy gates to prevent Xykon from controlling them. If they defeat Xykon then great, but if they start to lose and decide to destroy the gate to keep Xykon from getting it then the Snarl gets loose and destroys the world. In Serini's mind this is if not the most likely possibility then still a probable one. Therefore the Order and Paladins are not potential allies, but threats to the world's continued existence in a way that Xykon and Redcloak are not.

The one piece of information that would change Serini's mind is the knowledge that the gods are fully ready to destroy the world if Xykon gains control of the gate. She has to stop attacking them and talk to the Order before they can reveal this, and then they have to convince her it's true. Once that is done, then Xykon becomes the greater threat to the world's existence and Serini will see the Order as potential allies (and, most likely, join forces). That can happen if they defeat her here, or it can happen if she defeats them but chats with them a bit before using her amnesia potion.

[Mike Havran]

1. I think to Serini, a no-holds-barred battle with someone as destructive as Xykon isn't much better even if it's out on the doorstep of the cosmic keystone instead of the inner sanctum. He's unpredictable and dangerous...especially if he starts to lose. The Order is used to collateral damage, but Serini isn't willing to risk that.

2. Ok, I see what you mean. But V, Elan, Durkon, and Minrah were all hit by eye rays and incapacitated anyway, so if Serini had spent those first rounds shooting at them then those attacks would've been wasted too. Plus Haley can't do much without her bow -- she's really just buying time until something else happens, and Serini was in "finish them off" mode until Minrah got back up. Hard to criticize Serini's tactics all that much here.
1. Xykon does those no-holds-barred battles literally every time he enters the dungeon. Okay, there might be some specific reason why Serini wants to avoid the confrontation outdoors, but I'm not seeing any right now.

2. There was other thread where the conclusion was that the Order had been quite unlucky with their saves against the rays. Serini and Sunny were in big danger there (V's rainbow could do far worse than electric blast) that they could have avoided.

All in all I do concede that calling her a moron is too harsh, but for an epic veteran rogue, Serini's strategic and tactical decisions leave much to be desired.

[Metastachydium]

Serini is not a moron, she's simply operating on incomplete information.

Her goal is to avoid the destruction of the world. If the last gate is destroyed then the Snarl gets loose and does this. The gate is only important to her in that it's continued existence keeps the world from ending.

If Xykon and Redcloak control the gate the Snarl doesn't get loose and destroy the world, so she doesn't care if Team Evil controls the gate. In fact, she can count on Xykon and Redcloak to keep it intact. She wouldn't be happy if Xykon ruled the world for the next several centuries, but at least there will still be a world.


But that's the issue here. Based on no. 1229, it would seem that Serini believes that the official (rather than the actual) version of what the Plan's for is true. Therefore she believes Xykon (a perpetually bored, trigger-happy raving lunatic with a very short attention span) can literally weaponize the Gate and the Snarl and use the latter to erase stuff from existence forever, on a whim.
That she stopped the Order's planned ambush was a good call. I think I was among those who argued the Order would have risked compromising the Tomb's defenses if allowed to proceed as they saw fit. She's not stupid for reasoning that if Xykon could beat her alone and now he has allies, then people she can beat have no chance against Xykon either. That makes sense. But stating that Xykon's enemies must be stopped because they might destroy the world by accident, but Xykon might as well just have the Gate and use the Snarl as a weapon with which he can destroy the world on purpose if he gets that bored someday? That's all caps STUPID. DUMB and MORONIC.

[Yuki Akuma]

Serini is a person lacking critical information who justifiably* believes she has all of the information.

She's not stupid. She's ignorant. :smalltongue:

* Did I emphasise this enough? Maybe I should use a larger type face and capital letters, too.

[Dion]

The only dumb thing about Serini's plan is the part about Xykon being defeated "eventualy". No matter how much later that eventuality will come up, it will need to address the Gate in the same way the Order is trying to right now.

Why? I’ve seen no evidence of this in the comic.

I mean, chance and circumstances might make that come to pass, but I can’t see anything that says it’s certain.

[MartianInvader]

I'd say we don't know that OotS could beat Team Evil, even after a run through a dungeon. And even if they could we have no idea how much intelligence Serini has on the Order, beyond that she's aware of one sentence (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0663.html) spoken by O-Chul.

[Cazero]

Why? I’ve seen no evidence of this in the comic.

I mean, chance and circumstances might make that come to pass, but I can’t see anything that says it’s certain.
Because Xykon is going to be sitting right next to the Gate during the inevitable combat encounter that dethroning him will imply. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0105.html)

[Riftwolf]

Let's remind ourselves that Roy outright stated 'we're not in a position to defend this gate so let's just destroy it' at Girard's Gate. That's a big black mark for them in Serini's book.
But let's ignore that for a second.
Let's instead remind ourselves that Elan tripped the self-destruct button on Dorukans gate for no real reason other than to leap from a fireball of doooooooom. Early comic gag strip aside, that's a big black mark in Serini's book.
But let's ignore that for a second.
Let's instead remind ourselves that the Orders plan to fight Xykon et al was to surprise attack him by bypassing the Teleport trap. If this plan had failed, it would've revealed a hole in a layer of Serini's defences that currently Team Evil are clueless over.
But let's ignore that for a second.
Let's instead entertain the idea that maybe Serini is acting on information we don't have yet. She might not have the same perspective as we, the omniscient uninvolved Watchers who root for the Order of the Stick because we know the title of the comic, have.

[hroþila]

Because Xykon is going to be sitting right next to the Gate during the inevitable combat encounter that dethroning him will imply. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0105.html)
Says who? Back then he was actively trying to get the Gate unsealed. I doubt Xykon intends to spend the rest of his unlife at the North Pole. That sounds super boring.

[TinyMushroom]

Can't it just be that Serini, an epic-level rogue with Ian Starshine-level paranoia thinks she probably can deceive/stall Xykon for long enough that he will never find the gate or at least get bored finding it or something? I wouldn't be surprised if there's some devious mindgames around the exact location of this gate, similar to Girard's.

If she thinks she can pull off that trick, for her, the order would really just get in the way. They're already messing with her dungeon by managing to get behind the teleportation line at the entrance. She's afraid as hell that they give away her dungeon's tricks.

She just needs to wait for a good moment to catch them by surprise. Redcloak is burning through a lot of spells keeping his teammates standing (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1041.html).

If she applies enough amnesia potion to redcloak and steals his cloak the entire dark one plot is basically deleted. I don't know if amnesia potion really works on liches but without redcloak to motivate him Xykon will eventually just get bored and move on.

[KorvinStarmast]

I doubt Xykon intends to spend the rest of his unlife at the North Pole. That sounds super boring. Oona and Greyview are looking at you with big eyes full of hurt. :smallconfused:

[Dion]

Because Xykon is going to be sitting right next to the Gate during the inevitable combat encounter that dethroning him will imply. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0105.html)

Yeah, maybe that will happen. Or maybe that wont happen. Perhaps Xykon doesn’t ever find the gate. maybe Xykon finds the gate and rules the universe for a billion years before packing up his winnings and retiring. There are lots of ways to never have a fight next to the gate.

Who knows what might happen in the future. It’s a big place!

But what Serini does know 100% for certain is that OotS has a track record of destroying gates.

For Serini, OotS are the big bad guys in her story, right up there with the holey brotherhood and all the other bad guys she’s had to defeat through the years to save the gates.

She’s correct not to get involved in some stupid side quest involving a stupid oath by Eugene. She might as well go save dirt farmers if she’s going to get tied up in that.

Where Serini is wrong is that she doesn’t know that she’s not the hero anymore. She’s not the main character in the book, and she has to stop acting like she is.

[Ionathus]

1. Xykon does those no-holds-barred battles literally every time he enters the dungeon. Okay, there might be some specific reason why Serini wants to avoid the confrontation outdoors, but I'm not seeing any right now.

2. There was other thread where the conclusion was that the Order had been quite unlucky with their saves against the rays. Serini and Sunny were in big danger there (V's rainbow could do far worse than electric blast) that they could have avoided.

All in all I do concede that calling her a moron is too harsh, but for an epic veteran rogue, Serini's strategic and tactical decisions leave much to be desired.

1. No, Xykon does really seem to be barring his holds for the standard doors, given how casually he talks about them. There's a difference between Xykon clearing out vague monsters in a dungeon and fighting against the main heroes who have a personal grudge: to him, one is a chore and the other one is a dramatic setpiece (and a challenge to his rep). He's already stated in the Darth Vaarsuvius fight that he'll break out the big guns if he feels like his reputation is on the line, and we watched him destroy the entire upper floor of the tower when his phylactery got stolen and he got truly ticked off. Xykon is absolutely more dangerous (and causes more collateral damage) the more competent his opponents get and the more threatened he feels. And we're hoping that the Order would be more threatening than the monsters Team Evil has been fighting.

2. Sure, I guess they could've been luckier. But they weren't. Serini is holding her own with a highly competent ambush. The scene is working.

Much as I enjoy the expected damage calculations that Keith Amman runs in his analyses for The Monsters Know, I don't come to OotS for tactically-optimal theorycrafting. I would only really care about "bad tactics" in this comic if they're so glaringly bad that they break suspension of disbelief...but I think a big (or at least vocal) portion of the OotS fanbase has a skewed definition of "glaringly bad" when it comes to target selection or spell use.

The problem with a narrative webcomic based on a highly-defined rules system like 3.5e is that, no matter what happens in the comic, somebody will always have strong opinions about what should've happened instead. That's the case for any work of fiction of course, but the problem for OotS is that those complaints can now come with citations. And sometimes people think that simply having a citation about a fact (AC or saves or SLAs or whatever) makes their opinion about the broader situation (basic storytelling structure) valid. It doesn't.

P.S. I'm not claiming you do that: this post stopped being a specific response to your point awhile ago. Rant over.

[MartianInvader]

You know, this thread made me realize something. We're supposed to be frustrated by Serini's actions right now.

Just like in countless scenes from countless stories where multiple "good guys" fight each other, we're supposed to be pulling our hair out screaming "No, don't fight each other! If only you would understand!" This thread is proof that it's having exactly that effect on a number of readers.

So really, this thread is just another testament to the Giant's writing ability.

[Ionathus]

You know, this thread made me realize something. We're supposed to be frustrated by Serini's actions right now.

Just like in countless scenes from countless stories where multiple "good guys" fight each other, we're supposed to be pulling our hair out screaming "No, don't fight each other! If only you would understand!" This thread is proof that it's having exactly that effect on a number of readers.

So really, this thread is just another testament to the Giant's writing ability.

Yes, but some people are frustrated for the wrong reasons (according to me) and therefore we must argue about it anyway.

[danielxcutter]

Okay, question, so if something like Serini’s ambush happened in a game you’d be on fair grounds to call BS right? I’m not saying it’s a bad story, I’m saying that it seems what works for a comic wouldn’t work for a game and vice versa.

Also… I agree with Meta that I have no friggin’ idea why she thinks letting Xykon getting his phalanges on the Snarl is a preferable outcome. If it was like a regional or even plane-level threat then okay maybe, but the Snarl is capable of butchering all three pantheons at once and she should probably know that.

Maybe she was like Belkar and didn’t care about the “plot”. And we know from the Mechane’s crew that some people view heroes fighting against evil plans “Tuesday”. If she just thinks the Snarl is another generic doomsday plot coupon instead of something that could actually destroy the multiverse… that’d certainly explain a few things I guess.

[woweedd]

Remember: Serini ain't Tarquin, she doesn't realize "hey, the Order are the protagonists": So far as she knows, they're a bunh of incompetent yahoos who mostly run away or have mixed victories and have failed to beat Xykon on 3 separate occasions.

[elros]

Let's remind ourselves that Roy outright stated 'we're not in a position to defend this gate so let's just destroy it' at Girard's Gate. That's a big black mark for them in Serini's book.
But let's ignore that for a second.
Let's instead remind ourselves that Elan tripped the self-destruct button on Dorukans gate for no real reason other than to leap from a fireball of doooooooom. Early comic gag strip aside, that's a big black mark in Serini's book.
But let's ignore that for a second.
Let's instead remind ourselves that the Orders plan to fight Xykon et al was to surprise attack him by bypassing the Teleport trap. If this plan had failed, it would've revealed a hole in a layer of Serini's defences that currently Team Evil are clueless over.
But let's ignore that for a second.
Let's instead entertain the idea that maybe Serini is acting on information we don't have yet. She might not have the same perspective as we, the omniscient uninvolved Watchers who root for the Order of the Stick because we know the title of the comic, have.
Also remember V killed everyone in the Drakentooth family, leaving the pyramid and gate without defenses, which is why Roy was not in a position to defeat Xykon.

Since then, Xykon and Redcloak have more allies (Oona, wolf, and the bugbear village) and have gained experience and magic items. It makes sense to think that the OOTS is still not in a position to stop Xykon.

Serini already has allies to help defend the gate (Sunny, Mimi, all the other monsters, and who knows what else). Why should she ally with a party that deliberately destroyed two gates, and is allied to paladins who destroyed the third?

Not sure how much Serini knows, but it makes sense for her to not trust a OOTS.

[RatElemental]

2. Ok, I see what you mean. But V, Elan, Durkon, and Minrah were all hit by eye rays and incapacitated anyway, so if Serini had spent those first rounds shooting at them then those attacks would've been wasted too. Plus Haley can't do much without her bow -- she's really just buying time until something else happens, and Serini was in "finish them off" mode until Minrah got back up. Hard to criticize Serini's tactics all that much here.

Haley was also hit by an eye ray and incapacitated, she was disarmed and unable to shoot back anymore. Serini was already in clean up mode, she just started with the one enemy that would be hardest to clean up which gave time for the others to become un-incapacitated.

[Hurkyl]

Okay, question, so if something like Serini’s ambush happened in a game you’d be on fair grounds to call BS right? I’m not saying it’s a bad story, I’m saying that it seems what works for a comic wouldn’t work for a game and vice versa.

Also… I agree with Meta that I have no friggin’ idea why she thinks letting Xykon getting his phalanges on the Snarl is a preferable outcome. If it was like a regional or even plane-level threat then okay maybe, but the Snarl is capable of butchering all three pantheons at once and she should probably know that.
That sounds like a pretty good reason to be heavily antagonistic towards a faction that has a 100% track record for destroying gates.

She even voices this sentiment in #1229; that her intention is to remove the OotS and the Paladins from the playing field, precisely to prevent them from destroying the last gate.

[brian 333]

She does not know that:
1) destroying the gate or allowing it to be destroyed will trigger the gods to unravel the world, and
2) that the OotS knows this and therefore is determined to preserve the gate at all costs.

She may believe that Xykon's plan is to use the gate as a threat, and that he's never going to act on the threat because that would effectively disarm him.

She may believe that there is nothing he can do to or with the gate, and if he comes into possession of it he effectively becomes another monster guardian.

She may believe her defenses adequately protect the gate against intelligent Evil opponents, but she may be concerned about vulnerabilities to moronic good opponents.

[Metastachydium]

She may believe that Xykon's plan is to use the gate as a threat, and that he's never going to act on the threat because that would effectively disarm him.


No. Xykon thinks the Ritual will give him full control of the Snarl. Unless Serini knows the actual Plan (which she quite evidently doesn't, since otherwise she wouldn't think Team Evil capturing the Gate would result in Xykon getting to rule the world), Serini likely believes that Xykon, a Chaotic Evil trigger-happy murder machine will use the Snarl as a weapon to conquer the world.
(Further, at any rate, since very few know about the Gates, let alone the Snarl, unlike threatening the gods with the Gate, threatening the world with it would not be a very effective approach of asserting dominance – unless of course Xykon demonstrates what the Snarl can do.)


She may believe that there is nothing he can do to or with the gate, and if he comes into possession of it he effectively becomes another monster guardian.

Wrong. She thinks Xykon would end up ruling the world if he captured the Gate, and she tells the paladins that much.


She may believe her defenses adequately protect the gate against intelligent Evil opponents, but she may be concerned about vulnerabilities to moronic good opponents.

This isn't Dorukan's Gate. Serini very obviously doesn't care whether intruders are Good or Evil.

[KorvinStarmast]

Where Serini is wrong is that she doesn’t know that she’s not the hero anymore. She’s not the main character in the book, and she has to stop acting like she is. You never stop being a hero, once you become one. Her story isn't over, because she still draws breath and she still has a powerful motive to defend the gate.

We're supposed to be frustrated by Serini's actions right now...this thread is just another testament to the Giant's writing ability. Concur. Building tension in a plausible manner is a thing.

... they're a bunch of incompetent yahoos who mostly run away or have mixed victories and have failed to beat Xykon on 3 separate occasions. They beat him in Book I, but didn't realize that he'd regenerate.

Why should she ally with a party that deliberately destroyed two gates, and is allied to paladins who destroyed the third? Not sure how much Serini knows, but it makes sense for her to not trust a OOTS. Yeah, from her PoV.

She does not know that:
2) that the OotS knows this and therefore is determined to preserve the gate at all costs. Which some strips from now she'll discover via dialogue, I suspect.

[danielxcutter]

If Serini was confident that her defenses could keep Xykon out, she'd probably have led with that earlier with the paladins I'd imagine, and considering this ain't Faerun I don't see how she expects anyone like Xykon with control over anything like the Snarl to be actually defeated. Considering that, y'know, the Scribblers probably knew that the Snarl killed a pantheon and a four-color world in less than half an hour.

[Dion]

You never stop being a hero, once you become one. Her story isn't over, because she still draws breath and she still has a powerful motive to defend the gate.


Heroes aren’t a real thing. They’re a hackneyed literary device.

You only get to be a hero by being the protagonist in a book about you. That’s what’s hero is. This book isn’t about her.

[Ionathus]

Heroes aren’t a real thing. They’re a hackneyed literary device.

You only get to be a hero by being the protagonist in a book about you. That’s what’s hero is. This book isn’t about her.

Heroes are absolutely a real thing. I had one for dinner last night. The cucumber-mint sauce was delicious.

[Metastachydium]

Heroes are absolutely a real thing. I had one for dinner last night. The cucumber-mint sauce was delicious.

Wait, you eat people too?

[Mike Havran]

1. No, Xykon does really seem to be barring his holds for the standard doors, given how casually he talks about them. There's a difference between Xykon clearing out vague monsters in a dungeon and fighting against the main heroes who have a personal grudge: to him, one is a chore and the other one is a dramatic setpiece (and a challenge to his rep). He's already stated in the Darth Vaarsuvius fight that he'll break out the big guns if he feels like his reputation is on the line, and we watched him destroy the entire upper floor of the tower when his phylactery got stolen and he got truly ticked off. Xykon is absolutely more dangerous (and causes more collateral damage) the more competent his opponents get and the more threatened he feels. And we're hoping that the Order would be more threatening than the monsters Team Evil has been fighting.
I see two problems with this reasoning:
1. It assumes Serini knows all about this and has been basically scrying on Xykon all the time, through the Epic Cloister spell, despite the fact he was nowhere near any gate at that juncture (since Soon's was aready destroyed). That seems highly unlikely.
2. It does not address the fact that if Xykon is to be defeated at all, the same situation would apply at some point after his eventual triumph, most likely much closer to the final gate.


2. Sure, I guess they could've been luckier. But they weren't. Serini is holding her own with a highly competent ambush. The scene is working.

Much as I enjoy the expected damage calculations that Keith Amman runs in his analyses for The Monsters Know, I don't come to OotS for tactically-optimal theorycrafting. I would only really care about "bad tactics" in this comic if they're so glaringly bad that they break suspension of disbelief...but I think a big (or at least vocal) portion of the OotS fanbase has a skewed definition of "glaringly bad" when it comes to target selection or spell use.
Well I do think that for somebody of such background as Serini has, her tactics do not live up to it.

[Peelee]

Heroes are absolutely a real thing. I had one for dinner last night. The cucumber-mint sauce was delicious.

That's a sub, ya Yankee!

[Wintermoot]

That's a sub, ya Yankee!

Based on cucumber-mint sauce (Tzatziki) I'm guessing it was a "gyro" style "hero" actually.

[danielxcutter]

So, mint sauce is okay but mint chocolate chip somehow isn't?!

[Dion]

So, mint sauce is okay but mint chocolate chip somehow isn't?!

Mint chocolate chip on a gyro?

How is that going to keep the gate safe?

[danielxcutter]

Mint chocolate chip on a gyro?

How is that going to keep the gate safe?

No and no.

[Ionathus]

Mint chocolate chip on a gyro?

How is that going to keep the gate safe?

That's actually the green stuff Serini is brewing in the cauldron: one bite of that monstrosity is enough to give someone amnesia for 12-24 hours.

Source: my semester in Athens

[danielxcutter]

Why is putting ice cream on a gyroscope that bad?

[Dion]

Why is putting ice cream on a gyroscope that bad?

Ice cream attracts kids, and kids and gyroscopes don’t mix.

Source: Mad Max 2

[Wintermoot]

I’ve cream attracts kids

uh.... whut?

[Dion]

uh.... whut?

Sorry. Ice cream.

You don’t want ice cream OR kids on your gyroscope. Look at all the problems the gyroscope captain had in Mad Max 2.

Complete mess. Much better to keep kids off the thing.

Note: I haven’t seen Mad Max 2 in 20 years, so I might be confusing it with that awful movie with Tina Turner, which did not have a gyro, but did have kids.

[Cazero]

Note: I haven’t seen Mad Max 2 in 20 years, so I might be confusing it with that awful movie with Tina Turner, which did not have a gyro, but did have kids.
The one with kids was the third one. And I think it had Tina Turner.

...On the subject of Mad Max, I don't understand how the second movie was declared a sequel to the first. The only thing they have in common is the lead actor.
It would be like making a movie about a modern farmboy defending his village against a supernatural threat, and because he's played by Henry Cavill you call the movie Superman 2 : Manlier and Steelier.

[drazen]

But stating that Xykon's enemies must be stopped because they might destroy the world by accident, but Xykon might as well just have the Gate and use the Snarl as a weapon with which he can destroy the world on purpose if he gets that bored someday? That's all caps STUPID. DUMB and MORONIC.

I'm not sure that Serini is acting like a moron, exactly. Serini is a trauma survivor: she was melted within an inch of her life at random by a chaotic evil murder-hobo, then grafted into a half-troll and shunned from her own society. I would say that those experiences may lead her into irrationality at times, because she's spent some portion of her life as a mutilated outcast (probably 30+ years) with no real way of dealing with that, other than playing mommy to her monsters. Annoying? Sure, she's annoying as hell and has too high an opinion of herself -- but it makes sense how she got that way.

ETA: She's obsessed with the Gates and the Gates alone because they're pretty much the root reason she has became what she did. No Gates, no lich, no half-troll Serini.

[Dion]

The one with kids was the third one. And I think it had Tina Turner....

I think the feral kid was in the second one. I remember the feral kid riding around in the gyro, and I remember the gyro was smashed up.

Whether the feral kid and the gyro smashing were related to each other in any way is beyond my memory.

There was no ice cream, which is probably why the big weightlifter dude was so angry.

[dmc91356]

...On the subject of Mad Max, I don't understand how the second movie was declared a sequel to the first. The only thing they have in common is the lead actor. It would be like making a movie about a modern farmboy defending his village against a supernatural threat, and because he's played by Henry Cavill you call the movie Superman 2 : Manlier and Steelier.

Um, it's certainly been a while since I saw either of the first two in that series, but I am almost 100% sure that the lead character was the same guy in both. It's just that the first one was supposedly taking place while society was breaking down and the second one was post-apocalyptic. Same Max though.

[KorvinStarmast]

Heroes aren’t a real thing. They’re a hackneyed literary device. Having met a few in real life, nope.

You don’t want ice cream OR kids on your gyroscope. Look at all the problems the gyroscope captain had in Mad Max 2.
Gyrocopter.

There was no ice cream, which is probably why the big weightlifter dude was so angry. Plausible.

[Rrmcklin]

Heroes aren’t a real thing. They’re a hackneyed literary device.

You only get to be a hero by being the protagonist in a book about you. That’s what’s hero is. This book isn’t about her.

I find myself questioning how one enjoys a story like this (and so many others) with a view point like this. That's a genuine question, by the way.

[RatElemental]

I find myself questioning how one enjoys a story like this (and so many others) with a view point like this. That's a genuine question, by the way.

Well, not seeing "hero" as some kind of thing a person can be doesn't preclude you from enjoying media, I'm not sure how it could. Personally for me, "hero", "villain", protagonist" and "antagonist" are thoroughly disjoined from one another; The protagonist of a story is just the one whose perspective the story is focusing on, they can be a horrible monster or the most morally upstanding person ever. Same with the antagonists, who are defined as those who oppose the protagonist and not by their moral character.

[Dion]

I find myself questioning how one enjoys a story like this (and so many others) with a view point like this. That's a genuine question, by the way.

OotS is a story, and I enjoy stories. I even enjoy stories where the protagonists are heroes.

However, I also believe heroes exist only in stories, and I strongly believe that when someone talks about a hero they are telling a story.

And I believe that calling a real person a hero is a derogatory insult, because you’ve reduced that real person and their experiences to a fable.

[JNAProductions]

OotS is a story, and I enjoy stories. I even enjoy stories about heroes.

However, I also believe heroes exist only in stories, and I strongly believe that when someone talks about a hero they are telling a story.

And I believe that calling a real person a hero is a derogatory insult, because you’ve reduced that real person and their experiences to a fable.

That sounds like a bad way to use words. You're taking a word and using it to mean something that the vast majority of others do not.

I can say "Sandwich" and mean a toaster-baked pastry with filling and frosting, such as a PopTart, and by some definitions it's technically accurate... But it's not a very good way to actually communicate.

[Dion]

That sounds like a bad way to use words. You're taking a word and using it to mean something that the vast majority of others do not

Does everyone agree that calling someone a hero is a reductionist action that strips real people of their humanity?

I admit I don’t usually feel bad for the athletes in the big sports entertainment fields who sell their personality for a big paycheck and let some soulless corporate PR firm turn their public lives into a mockery (recent olympics coverage has made me rethink that, though).

But I do feel terrible for soldiers and police officers and other public service workers who are saddled with a demeaning label like “hero”.

But none of that means I don’t like stories that have heroes.

[Rrmcklin]

Well, not seeing "hero" as some kind of thing a person can be doesn't preclude you from enjoying media, I'm not sure how it could. Personally for me, "hero", "villain", protagonist" and "antagonist" are thoroughly disjoined from one another; The protagonist of a story is just the one whose perspective the story is focusing on, they can be a horrible monster or the most morally upstanding person ever. Same with the antagonists, who are defined as those who oppose the protagonist and not by their moral character.

Dion specifically referred the concept of heroes as a hackneyed literary device. Even ignoring the cynicism, I feel it's a fair question to ask how one enjoys stories if they feel that way about one of the core backbones of it.


OotS is a story, and I enjoy stories. I even enjoy stories where the protagonists are heroes.

However, I also believe heroes exist only in stories, and I strongly believe that when someone talks about a hero they are telling a story.

And I believe that calling a real person a hero is a derogatory insult, because you’ve reduced that real person and their experiences to a fable.

I won't even deny that's possible, because it certainly is, but I also have to say that saying it's only that is also seems very silly and pointless. That people sometimes abuse and misuse concepts does not mean the concepts stop having actual or valid meanings.

[JNAProductions]

Does everyone agree that calling someone a hero is a reductionist action that strips real people of their humanity?

I admit I don’t usually feel bad for the athletes in the big sports entertainment fields who sell their personality for a big paycheck and let some soulless corporate PR firm turn their public lives into a mockery (recent olympics coverage has made me rethink that, though).

But I do feel terrible for soldiers and police officers and other public service workers who are saddled with a demeaning label like “hero”.

But none of that means I don’t like stories that have heroes.

If you say "You're a hero and literally nothing else!" then sure.

But should I be offended if someone calls me a redhead? Sure, I have red hair, but there's more to me than that! Or if a friend of mine says "Thanks, you're a good friend," should I be offended because they've reduced me to a friend and nothing more?

Besides which, you're working with a definition of hero that most people DO NOT SHARE. If you want to be understood properly, you'd have to explain how you're using it every time you use it with new people, and other people will use it how they understand it, which is not the same as your definition.

[brian 333]

I object to the idea that to label someone reduces them to that and nothing else. I'm not a hero, but I know a few.

Heros aren't made on the sports fields of the world: those are idols. But real heroes exist. They are people who positively impact the lives of others yet are seldom noticed. They do the right thing when it costs them personally and ask for no personal reward for their efforts.

You probably know one or two.

Fantasy 'heros' are more akin to sports idols in that they reap rewards for their efforts and receive accolades and recognition.

Serini is a hero. She does what she thinks is the right thing at great personal cost, and her sole reward is the continuating existence of everyone.

[Precure]

OotS is a story, and I enjoy stories. I even enjoy stories where the protagonists are heroes.

However, I also believe heroes exist only in stories, and I strongly believe that when someone talks about a hero they are telling a story.

And I believe that calling a real person a hero is a derogatory insult, because you’ve reduced that real person and their experiences to a fable.

Sounds like what a villain would say.

[DavidSh]

Sounds like what a villain would say.

"Villain" originated as a classist slur. We shouldn't be using it of real people.

[Ionathus]

OotS is a story, and I enjoy stories. I even enjoy stories where the protagonists are heroes.

However, I also believe heroes exist only in stories, and I strongly believe that when someone talks about a hero they are telling a story.

And I believe that calling a real person a hero is a derogatory insult, because you’ve reduced that real person and their experiences to a fable.

Your initial response was to somebody who was saying that Serini, a character in a story, thinks she's the hero. By dismissing the term and calling it a "hackneyed literary device" in that context, you were (unintentionally, it seems) criticizing the concept of heroes not only in their real-world use, but also in fiction.

NPCs in the campaign I currently run never use the word "hero" to describe the PCs, unless it's used by the villains or critical bystanders to mock them. Might that change when they save the world? Perhaps. Although I agree it can easily paint someone with too broad of a brush, I also don't think it's a bad or even cliché thing.

[Dion]

Your initial response was to somebody who was saying that Serini, a character in a story, thinks she's the hero.

Actually that was me. I said that. It was my original point. I wasn’t responding to it.

I probably should have said she believes she’s the protagonist of the story, and she’s clearly not the protagonist.

[hroþila]

"Villain" originated as a classist slur. We shouldn't be using it of real people.
"People" originated as a militarist word so we shouldn't use it either (?)

[Precure]

"Villain" originated as a classist slur. We shouldn't be using it of real people.

Sounds like what a villain would say.

[DavidSh]

Sounds like what a villain would say.
Smile when you say that, pardner.:smallsmile:

[Jason]

Does everyone agree that calling someone a hero is a reductionist action that strips real people of their humanity?
Absolutely not.


But I do feel terrible for soldiers and police officers and other public service workers who are saddled with a demeaning label like “hero”.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what is supposed to be demeaning about calling someone a hero. And what is dehumanizing or reductionist about it?

[Dion]

Absolutely not

Just me, then?

Anyhow, I’m totally fine using “hero” for a certain type of protagonist in a story.

Odysseus is a hero, because he’s a protagonist who exemplifies the ideals of his culture.

Captain America is a hero, because he is a protagonist who exemplifies the ideals of his culture.

Serini is not a hero, because she is not a protagonist.

[Jason]

Serini is not a hero, because she is not a protagonist.
"Protagonist" is not a requirement for being a hero. There are plenty of examples of heroes who are not a protagonist of the story they are featured in.

[Ionathus]

I'm having a hard time figuring out what is supposed to be demeaning about calling someone a hero. And what is dehumanizing or reductionist about it?

A lot of people chafe at the label of "hero" just because their job is hard. Particularly if their job has recently been made hard by external factors.

For example, many restaurant workers and grocery store employees didn't want to be vaguely called "heroes" by people on TV last spring...they just wanted to safely do their job and make money so they could keep paying for rent/food/entertainment. The fact that a global pandemic made it dangerous to do this specific job doesn't automatically make them heroic -- it just papers over their hardships and the risks they're taking by necessity, and casts them as noble martyrs willing to die so we can keep buying 99c Mac & Cheese.

But calling a grocery store worker or a public educator a "hero" is a lot easier (and cheaper) than actually taking steps to make their job not as dangerous. So a lot of my teacher friends have been bothered by that term and want people to stop using it. Personally, I do feel comfortable classifying something like Firefighting or Search & Rescue heroic, because it involves great personal risk that can't really be mitigated, all to provide a public good and protect others.

(I'm intentionally trying to avoid any mention of policies and specific groups here: I don't want to turn this thread into a covid protocols debate. Just trying to explain why "hero" feels like a weird, saccharine, or dishonest term to some, as Dion mentioned earlier.)

[Jason]

A lot of people chafe at the label of "hero" just because their job is hard. Particularly if their job has recently been made hard by external factors.
I can see people arguing that they don't qualify as heroes and what they really want is some help or other consideration, but surely that doesn't mean that calling someone a "hero" is demeaning in any way. If it's sincere it means that you admire and approve of some qualities of the person, doesn't it?

[Dion]

"Protagonist" is not a requirement for being a hero. There are plenty of examples of heroes who are not a protagonist of the story they are featured in.

So we know that hero means everything from “Greek demigod” to “Greek sandwich”, and about 10 other definitions in between.

Amd we know that the internet is unforgiving of conversations about words that have even two definitions, much less 10 or 20.

I’ll just drop it and say Serini is not the protagonist and she’s acting like she is.

EDIT: and by protagonist, naturally I mean that she was not the first person to address the chorus :-)

[RatElemental]

EDIT: and by protagonist, naturally I mean that she was not the first person to address the chorus :-)

I believe that would make the IFCC (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html) the protagonists.

[KorvinStarmast]

Resolved: Serini is not a sandwich.
(But Serini might be a very flavorful sauce if you say it with an Italian accent)

[Ionathus]

I can see people arguing that they don't qualify as heroes and what they really want is some help or other consideration, but surely that doesn't mean that calling someone a "hero" is demeaning in any way. If it's sincere it means that you admire and approve of some qualities of the person, doesn't it?

Certainly not if you're personally talking about a person or a profession that you yourself admire.

Taken in a broader context, though, it can make you feel patronized to ask for help and only get empty platitudes in response. It can feel infantilizing to have your problems put up on a pedestal instead of, well, fixed. I'm not sure "demeaning" is the word I'd use though.

[MartianInvader]

Resolved: Serini is not a sandwich.
I'll accept this only provisionally. If we see her dual-wielding daggers or crossbows I reserve the right to change my opinion.

[RatElemental]

I'll accept this only provisionally. If we see her dual-wielding daggers or crossbows I reserve the right to change my opinion.

There was that one time (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1229.html) she dual-wielded a crossbow with a wand.

[Ionathus]

I'll accept this only provisionally. If we see her dual-wielding daggers or crossbows I reserve the right to change my opinion.

R...Reuben?

I don't get it:smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll accept this only provisionally. If we see her dual-wielding daggers or crossbows I reserve the right to change my opinion.
Your post got me to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXTrrlykdz0), which I find very interesting. Also a nice lindybeige commentary on dual wielding (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw) This comments sums it up:
The off-hand is for my sword. My primary one holds my beer.
(Counter to lindy is here (https://youtu.be/jZNZyhNFSaE))

[Ruck]

Serini prioritizes saving the current world over defeating Xykon, and with the Order's track record, believes they are more likely to blow the gate than defeat him.

Serini does not know what Redcloak's real plan is, or that the gods have pulled the plug on the world many times before, that such a decision is already in heated consideration, and that they almost certainly will do so if Xykon and Redcloak seize the gate.

[Liquor Box]

Moron is probably to put it too strongly. But I think she has made some serious errors of judgment.

[brian 333]

A primary theme of the comic is the compounding cumulative effect of errors of judgement.

None of the characters act with complete information, (except maybe The Oracle,) from the gods right past Roy to Belkar. Serini is just a character trapped between what she believes and what she does not know that she doesn't know.

This is a good thing. Read the John Carter of Mars books for an example of a character always making the right choice even when he cannot know what that might be.

[danielxcutter]

I don't really blame her for not knowing about how the Plan actually goes and the likely result.

What I do find particularly grating is that her entire assumption that eventually some heroes will end up toppling Xykon after he takes over with the Snarl makes no sense at all.

Unless you don't know the true extents of the Snarl's threat, you'd have to be dumber than Elan to think that sooner or later someone'll be powerful enough to do that - the Snarl is already stronger than all of reality, and even a small fraction in the hands of an already epic spellcaster would make him the most dangerous being in the multiverse.

Either she doesn't know, it's just an excuse for something else, or she's insane. Personally I'm betting on 1), maybe option B.

[Emanick]

I don't really blame her for not knowing about how the Plan actually goes and the likely result.

What I do find particularly grating is that her entire assumption that eventually some heroes will end up toppling Xykon after he takes over with the Snarl makes no sense at all.

Unless you don't know the true extents of the Snarl's threat, you'd have to be dumber than Elan to think that sooner or later someone'll be powerful enough to do that - the Snarl is already stronger than all of reality, and even a small fraction in the hands of an already epic spellcaster would make him the most dangerous being in the multiverse.

Either she doesn't know, it's just an excuse for something else, or she's insane. Personally I'm betting on 1), maybe option B.

It doesn’t matter how powerful The Snarl is if you have the ability to ambush Xykon and kill him in a round or two. Controlling it doesn’t make him invulnerable to attack.

[danielxcutter]

It doesn’t matter how powerful The Snarl is if you have the ability to ambush Xykon and kill him in a round or two. Controlling it doesn’t make him invulnerable to attack.

And like that'd be easy in a Xykon-ruled world. It's not exactly easy now after all.

[hungrycrow]

I don't really blame her for not knowing about how the Plan actually goes and the likely result.

What I do find particularly grating is that her entire assumption that eventually some heroes will end up toppling Xykon after he takes over with the Snarl makes no sense at all.

Unless you don't know the true extents of the Snarl's threat, you'd have to be dumber than Elan to think that sooner or later someone'll be powerful enough to do that - the Snarl is already stronger than all of reality, and even a small fraction in the hands of an already epic spellcaster would make him the most dangerous being in the multiverse.

Either she doesn't know, it's just an excuse for something else, or she's insane. Personally I'm betting on 1), maybe option B.

The worst part of her plan isn't that future heroes trying to topple Xykon might fail. It's that if she thinks that fight is inevitable, then there'd be the same danger of those heroes destroying the gate to stop Xykon as there is of the paladins or the Order doing so. Except in that situation, Xykon would be managing the defense of the gate instead of Serini. And I wouldn't trust Xykon's commitment to the safety of the world at all if I were Serini.

Since the Order would probably still eventually suicide charge into Xykon if he won, it would be much better for Serini to convince them to do so outside the caves when Xykon is relatively weak, than to just delay that confrontation with amnesia potions. Worst case scenario they lose and Serini gets the situation she wants anyways.

[Dion]

What I do find particularly grating is that her entire assumption that eventually some heroes will end up toppling Xykon after he takes over with the Snarl makes no sense at all.


Is this a thing that Serini actually says? She says she’s certain Xykon will take the gate, and she’s certain that someone will eventually topple him?

If she is actually saying those two things in the comic, then I agree. She is a moron.

If she does not say those things are certain, but rather gave a detailed monologue about why she believes that is an acceptable risk, then you’re just assuming she’s a moron, and then imagining things a moron might say

[Emanick]

And like that'd be easy in a Xykon-ruled world. It's not exactly easy now after all.

Nobody's saying it would be easy. My point is that, in a scenario where somebody is in a position to take down Xykon, his control over The Snarl isn't necessarily going to be that relevant. That's like saying that somebody who rules a country with nuclear weapons is immune to assassination - their nuclear arsenal definitely makes them much more dangerous, but it doesn't necessarily protect them from being murdered. If anything, it makes them more of a target.

[danielxcutter]

I'd say it's a bit more difficult when he can literally threaten the gods and probably get away with it.

[hungrycrow]

Is this a thing that Serini actually says? She says she’s certain Xykon will take the gate, and she’s certain that someone will eventually topple him?

If she is actually saying those two things in the comic, then I agree. She is a moron.

If she does not say those things are certain, but rather gave a detailed monologue about why she believes that is an acceptable risk, then you’re just assuming she’s a moron, and then imagining things a moron might say

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1229.html Third panel. She's comparing the options of the heroes winning vs Xykon winning, so she might just not be mentioning her own plan.

[Emanick]

I'd say it's a bit more difficult when he can literally threaten the gods and probably get away with it.

Okay - how, specifically, is control over The Snarl going to protect Xykon from a hypothetical epic-level adventurer or adventuring party?

[danielxcutter]

Okay - how, specifically, is control over The Snarl going to protect Xykon from a hypothetical epic-level adventurer or adventuring party?

I honestly have no idea why you assume that's likely or even possible in such a world - and that's assuming Xykon's stupid enough to sit on his pelvis when he knows he's got a target painted on it the size of the multiverse. He's not that stupid.

[Emanick]

I honestly have no idea why you assume that's likely or even possible in such a world - and that's assuming Xykon's stupid enough to sit on his pelvis when he knows he's got a target painted on it the size of the multiverse. He's not that stupid.

Well, I assume it is possible for an epic-level adventuring party to exist because we know at least one has existed in the past century alone. Assuming that another one could exist in the future doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

How likely is another one to form? I don't know, but eternity is a long time. The longer Xykon rules the world, the more likely it is that an adventuring party capable of taking him on will eventually materialize.

In any case, you don't need to sit on your pelvis in order to be susceptible to attack. Divination magic exists, as does word-of-mouth and The Oracle. Xykon is also probably the kind of person who likes to have fun too much to hide in a cave forever while he rules the world. He even enjoys a challenge, so it wouldn't surprise me if he took relatively few precautions against attacks from adventurers, although I'm not making any assumptions either way.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not actually defending Serini's perspective 100%. "A few years" seems like a seriously optimistic prediction about how long Xykon would be in control of the world if his plan went off without a hitch. Granted, there are a lot of unknowns.

[danielxcutter]

I'm honestly expecting she's seriously underestimating the Snarl's destructive potential by quite a large margin.

[Emanick]

I'm honestly expecting she's seriously underestimating the Snarl's destructive potential by quite a large margin.

She presumably had access to the same lore about The Snarl that the Sapphire Guard did, and according to Shojo, The Snarl "undid creation" in twenty minutes. That's powerful enough that any increase in power is basically irrelevant.

Like, how would the story or the threat posed by The Snarl be different if it was capable of destroying a planet in ten minutes? Two minutes? A round? I dunno, at a certain point it just seems like a meaningless distinction. It's an unbeatable world-devouring entity; that's all we need to know.

[brian 333]

What if Serini believes that even if Xykon wins he could never control The Snarl, and that the worst case scenario involves The Snarl destroying Xykon?

With Xykon gone she can safely close the gate. Assuming some adventurers don't destroy it first. And with ger gate out of danger she might get new and better hardware on the other four.

[Emanick]

What if Serini believes that even if Xykon wins he could never control The Snarl, and that the worst case scenario involves The Snarl destroying Xykon?

With Xykon gone she can safely close the gate. Assuming some adventurers don't destroy it first. And with ger gate out of danger she might get new and better hardware on the other four.

If she believed that, she’d probably just say as much, rather than simply claiming that Xykon ruling the world is less bad than the world being destroyed.

[hungrycrow]

If she believed that, she’d probably just say as much, rather than simply claiming that Xykon ruling the world is less bad than the world being destroyed.

That goes for pretty much any plan she has for stopping Xykon. Even just saying "I have my own plan to stop Xykon" would be better than leaving them thinking she'll let Xykon win. I guess it might be in character for her though.

Also, I can't think of a scenario where the Snarl can kill Xykon but isn't able to escape and destroy the world.

[hroþila]

I think people focus too much on the literal "few years" thing Serini said and too little on her underlying point that some hope of Xykon being defeated down the line is preferable to global oblivion. Sure, she's being flippant about it, but I think even if you got her to concede that the chances of Xykon being defeated later on are slim and that his rule may well go on for centuries if not millennia, that wouldn't make her change her mind because her reasoning doesn't actually hinge on his actually being toppled eventually.

[Peelee]

I don't really blame her for not knowing about how the Plan actually goes and the likely result.

What I do find particularly grating is that her entire assumption that eventually some heroes will end up toppling Xykon after he takes over with the Snarl makes no sense at all.

It does. He's a villain. A hero will eventually topple the villain. That's storycrafting 101. She may not be as genre savvy as Tarquin or Elan, but she's completely right about that. We know for a fact that this universe operates under laws of drama.she is unequivocally correct that a hero will beat the villain. She's just mistaken about which hero(s).

Sounds a lot like a much less extreme version of someone we've already met. Who happens to be a fan favorite for a lot of people.

[Forum Explorer]

I don't really blame her for not knowing about how the Plan actually goes and the likely result.

What I do find particularly grating is that her entire assumption that eventually some heroes will end up toppling Xykon after he takes over with the Snarl makes no sense at all.

Unless you don't know the true extents of the Snarl's threat, you'd have to be dumber than Elan to think that sooner or later someone'll be powerful enough to do that - the Snarl is already stronger than all of reality, and even a small fraction in the hands of an already epic spellcaster would make him the most dangerous being in the multiverse.

Either she doesn't know, it's just an excuse for something else, or she's insane. Personally I'm betting on 1), maybe option B.

My bigger problem is that she assumes some heroes will come to fight Xykon and these future heroes will somehow be more suited to this than the OotS.

[Peelee]

My bigger problem is that she assumes some heroes will come to fight Xykon and these future heroes will somehow be more suited to this than the OotS.

We don't known how much knowledge she has of how suited the OotS is (other than that she believe she can take them down herself), so this is not an unreasonable assumption. If it's incorrect, she may well re-assess.

[TRH]

It does. He's a villain. A hero will eventually topple the villain. That's storycrafting 101. She may not be as genre savvy as Tarquin or Elan, but she's completely right about that. We know for a fact that this universe operates under laws of drama.she is unequivocally correct that a hero will beat the villain. She's just mistaken about which hero(s).

Sounds a lot like a much less extreme version of someone we've already met. Who happens to be a fan favorite for a lot of people.

But it's not absolutely narrative driven, or that other guy's blithe assumption that Elan could pull a replacement party out of his pants were he to lose his current one would be spot on, and there's no indication it works like that.

Besides, a drama-driven world would never suffer a full apocalypse by that same logic, since that pretty much never happens in stories either. The world getting saved from jeopardy rather than succumbing to it is also storycrafting 101.

[madrobin]

OK, to recap:

1) Serini believes that she (and Sunny, I guess) can hold the last gate against Xykon indefinitely and that their failure to find it so far indicates that they will never, never, never find it (DUBIOUS)

2) Serini believes that all the adventurers combined can't defeat Team Evil (maybe so, but they're not chopped liver, especially given how paladin- and cleric-heavy they are now)

3) Serini believes that the Order isn't really out to protect the gate, given that several others have gone boom due to their efforts (dubious, given that destruction of the last gate would result in the world's end, and she has to know that the Order knows this)

4) Serini would rather attack than talk--which is the primary reason why she doesn't seem to understand the Order's goals or capabilities

5) Serini won't listen to O-Chul or Lien, even though they could be of great assistance to her

6) Serini might listen to the Order (especially with a massive dose of Elan), but she appears to be so cynical that she probably wouldn't believe them

7) Serini doesn't understand that her infinite monster-tunnel challenges could leave Team Evil in a very vulnerable position if the Order ambushed them after a hard fight (she has to have thought of this possibility upon observing the Order in wait-for-Xykon mode, since she deliberately screwed that up for them)

8) So at least, Serini's judgment is terrible.

I suspect Roy will try to talk some sense into her once the gang is back on its feet. I also suspect it won't work. Too bad. Serini on the team could make this a curb-stomp, epic lich or no epic lich (with the two paladins, of course)

[TRH]

Honestly, I'm feeling a bit of displacement from Serini here. A big part, possibly the main part of her reasoning is that the Order and the Guard simply don't deserve another chance at saving the world because they've failed so many times. That would explain why she wouldn't consider trying to persuade the Order to just fight Xykon in the canyon away from the Gate, where they would probably just die without having the chance to destroy the final Gate or even to see it. She wants them out of the picture because they are failures and do not belong here. A reflection of her own guilt for how she and the Scribblers weren't up for the task either, maybe.

Actually, typing this out, I think this is the crux of the argument. There may or may not be another party of adventurers to challenge Xykon later, who may or may not do a better job, but that new party would not be tainted by the mistakes of the past, so Serini is willing to take a chance on them that she simply won't give to the Order or the paladins.

[Liquor Box]

I think people focus too much on the literal "few years" thing Serini said and too little on her underlying point that some hope of Xykon being defeated down the line is preferable to global oblivion. Sure, she's being flippant about it, but I think even if you got her to concede that the chances of Xykon being defeated later on are slim and that his rule may well go on for centuries if not millennia, that wouldn't make her change her mind because her reasoning doesn't actually hinge on his actually being toppled eventually.

Sure, but that point doesn't really follow. If it takes centuries for a group of adventurers to come along and successfully defeat Xykon, you'd have to expect that lots and lots of groups would try unsuccessfully in the meantime. Each one of those unsuccessful attempts would be just as likely as the Order/Paladins to destroy the gate after falling short of defeating Xykon. Actually they'd be more likely because as Xykon grows more powerful with the passing years the prospects of defeating him will diminish.

Serini's actions here are increasing, not decreasing, the chances of the destruction of the gate - based on the information she knows, or the information we know. 'Moronic' might be to take it too far, but it certainly seems like flawed logic.


It does. He's a villain. A hero will eventually topple the villain. That's storycrafting 101. She may not be as genre savvy as Tarquin or Elan, but she's completely right about that. We know for a fact that this universe operates under laws of drama.she is unequivocally correct that a hero will beat the villain. She's just mistaken about which hero(s).

If we are assigning genre-savvyness to Serini, then she should be aware that this group of heroes will prevail. After all, we all know it (even the least genre savvy among us). Such is the rules of drama - the party who have been protagonists for 20 odd years will prevail.

[TRH]

Sure, but that point doesn't really follow. If it takes centuries for a group of adventurers to come along and successfully defeat Xykon, you'd have to expect that lots and lots of groups would try unsuccessfully in the meantime. Each one of those unsuccessful attempts would be just as likely as the Order/Paladins to destroy the gate after falling short of defeating Xykon. Actually they'd be more likely because as Xykon grows more powerful with the passing years the prospects of defeating him will diminish.

Serini's actions here are increasing, not decreasing, the chances of the destruction of the gate - based on the information she knows, or the information we know. 'Moronic' might be to take it too far, but it certainly seems like flawed logic.



I think the key here is that this is personal. Hypothetical future groups of heroes aren't guaranteed to succeed, or to not destroy the Gate themselves, but at least they aren't this specific merry band of idiots, who in her mind are absolutely guaranteed to fail and doom the world. Because that is all they have ever done, as far as she's concerned.

[Peelee]

If we are assigning gene-savvyness to Serini, then she should be aware that this group of heroes will prevail.

I'm not saying that we assign full and absolute knowledge of the entire story to Serini. I merely suggest that it's easily possible for Serini to know enough about how her own world works, as an elderly epic level character, to know that generic, overall themes such as "a hero will always eventually defeat a world-threatening villain" hold true.

Serini need not be equated to ultra-Tarquin.

[TRH]

I'm not saying that we assign full and absolute knowledge of the entire story to Serini. I merely suggest that it's easily possible for Serini to know enough about how her own world works, as an elderly epic level character, to know that generic, overall themes such as "a hero will always eventually defeat a world-threatening villain" hold true.

Serini need not be equated to ultra-Tarquin.

But why is that any more likely to be true than "the world will always be saved from apocalypse in the end?"

The more I think about her logic, the more I'm convinced personal contempt is the main thing holding the assumptions together. It would be so much easier to convince or coerce the Order into combat with Xykon away from the Gate than it would be to do the thing she's doing now. But if the Order's involvement guarantees the end of the Gate no matter what, then getting rid of them is the only way forward.

[Peelee]

But why is that any more likely to be true than "the world will always be saved from apocalypse in the end?"

She's the agent saving the world from the apocalypse of the OotS.

Just because she's wrong doesn't mean she's not consistent.

[TRH]

She's the agent saving the world from the apocalypse of the OotS.

Just because she's wrong doesn't mean she's not consistent.

To be consistent, someone else would have to be able to step up and save everyone even if she didn't, though.

[RatElemental]

To be consistent, someone else would have to be able to step up and save everyone even if she didn't, though.

I dunno, deus ex machina like that need to be at least foreshadowed. Unless the gods are just terrible at setting up narrativium run worlds.

[TRH]

I dunno, deus ex machina like that need to be at least foreshadowed. Unless the gods are just terrible at setting up narrativium run worlds.

Well, that's the thing: "the world will be saved" is a lot easier to just happen than "a hero will defeat the villain" because pretty much anything can lead to that outcome, including dumb luck or the apocalpyse in question not being as bad as advertised. You don't necessarily need a new character to make it work.

[Peelee]

To be consistent, someone else would have to be able to step up and save everyone even if she didn't, though.

At some point, yes. It is not necessarily before she dies. Again, she herself said probably a couple of centuries before it would happen. As she sees it, she's saving the world from destruction now, and someone else will save the world from Xykon later. I fail to see how this is inconsistent. It's just not happening on the time line that you would apparently expect.

[TRH]

At some point, yes. It is not necessarily before she dies. Again, she herself said probably a couple of centuries before it would happen. As she sees it, she's saving the world from destruction now, and someone else will save the world from Xykon later. I fail to see how this is inconsistent. It's just not happening on the time line that you would apparently expect.

You may have misunderstood. I meant that it would not be necessary for her to stop the Order, because the world cannot be destroyed by them in a universe where story tropes like "the world will aways survive" holds sway. Something else would intervene, or, wonder of wonders, she might have actually misjudged them.

[georgie_leech]

You may have misunderstood. I meant that it would not be necessary for her to stop the Order, because the world cannot be destroyed by them in a universe where story tropes like "the world will aways survive" holds sway. Something else would intervene, or, wonder of wonders, she might have actually misjudged them.

Much like Julio's airship, narrativium-based solutions generally require, you know, a good faith effort at heroism.

And whether some other bumbling group of adventurers will come along to unseat Xykon in the future, I suspect they will have been directly involved with fewer than 3 Gates being destroyed and personally responsible for less than 2 of them going kablooey. :smallamused:

[TRH]

And whether some other bumbling group of adventurers will come along to unseat Xykon in the future, I suspect they will have been directly involved with fewer than 3 Gates being destroyed and personally responsible for less than 2 of them going ablooey. :smallamused:

That's the point I'm driving at. This is personal for Serini. Despite her protestations, she is just as paranoid as Girard, just in a different direction. He thought the Paladins would try to conquer the world and could not be convinced otherwise. She thinks the Order will destroy the world to spite Xykon and cannot be convinced otherwise. Trying her luck with anyone else or even nobody in particular is preferable, because the Order are just as villainous as Xykon in their way.

[georgie_leech]

That's the point I'm driving at. This is personal for Serini. Despite her protestations, she is just as paranoid as Girard, just in a different direction. He thought the Paladins would try to conquer the world and could not be convinced otherwise. She thinks the Order will destroy the world to spite Xykon and cannot be convinced otherwise. Trying her luck with anyone else or even nobody in particular is preferable, because the Order are just as villainous as Xykon in their way.

What I'll say is that "this group of infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins will break their word" has significantly less supporting evidence than "the OotS will destroy a Gate," thus requiring her good-faith effort at stopping them. :smallamused:

[TRH]

What I'll say is that "this group of infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins will break their word" has significantly less supporting evidence than "the OotS will destroy a Gate," thus requiring her good-faith effort at stopping them. :smallamused:

She effectively believes both of those things, given there was nothing the paladins could say to convince her they would not destroy her Gate either.

[georgie_leech]

She effectively believes both of those things, given there was nothing the paladins could say to convince her they would not destroy her Gate either.

Being directly responsible for the other Gate going kablooie does kind of put a damper on her ability to trust them. But she doesn't think they're going to break their word; rather, she thinks that their honourable-ness will convince them they'll have to take drastic action to stop Xykon. You know, like the last time when they were willing to take drastic action to stop Xykon. Hell, O-chul is even the Paladin that initially tried to make the Gate go kablooie. :smallamused:

[TRH]

Being directly responsible for the other Gate going kablooie does kind of put a damper on her ability to trust them. But she doesn't think they're going to break their word; rather, she thinks that their honourable-ness will convince them they'll have to take drastic action to stop Xykon. You know, like the last time when they were willing to take drastic action to stop Xykon. Hell, O-chul is even the Paladin that initially tried to make the Gate go kablooie. :smallamused:

And there is no promise they can make now that she would believe. Ergo, she has concluded that they would break any promise they made to her in the present.

[georgie_leech]

And there is no promise they can make now that she would believe. Ergo, she has concluded that they would break any promise they made to her in the present.

Right, because the evidence presented to her wasn't "this group of infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins will break their word," but specifically "this group of infamously dedicated-to-a-higher-calling Paladins has already acted to bring the world closer to destruction in pursuit of said higher calling." Paranoia is unfounded; "they will do this thing again" is generally not paranoid, as they've explicitly shown the capacity to do the thing. Where she differs from Girard is that she believes they'd try to keep their word, rather than treat it as worthless. What worth it has though is less than she's willing to gamble the world on. Because again, they did the thing she accuses them of doing. Despite their oath to guard the Gate (which they literally sacrificed their lives for), in the end they broke it, because their Higher Calling to Good-ness led them to believe that a destroyed gate and broken Oath was preferable to the gate being in Xykon's hands.

[TRH]

Right, because the evidence presented to her wasn't "this group of infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins will break their word," but specifically "this group of infamously dedicated-to-a-higher-calling Paladins has already acted to bring the world closer to destruction in pursuit of said higher calling." Paranoia is unfounded; "they will do this thing again" is generally not paranoid, as they've explicitly shown the capacity to do the thing. Where she differs from Girard is that she believes they'd try to keep their word, rather than treat it as worthless. What worth it has though is less than she's willing to gamble the world on. Because again, they did the thing she accuses them of doing. Despite their oath to guard the Gate (which they literally sacrificed their lives for), in the end they broke it, because their Higher Calling to Good-ness led them to believe that a destroyed gate and broken Oath was preferable to the gate being in Xykon's hands.

You know, it's only people on this forum who are making a big deal out of the Sapphire Guard's oath supposedly forbidding them from destroying the Gate. Serini didn't say or imply anything that indicates she thinks they finessed their oaths in that specific way. And honestly, if such a specific provision was even implied in their oath, I can't help but feel like they'd have angsted about it a bit more than they did.

[georgie_leech]

You know, it's only people on this forum who are making a big deal out of the Sapphire Guard's oath supposedly forbidding them from destroying the Gate. Serini didn't say or imply anything that indicates she thinks they finessed their oaths in that specific way. And honestly, if such a specific provision was even implied in their oath, I can't help but feel like they'd have angsted about it a bit more than they did.

I dunno, I feel like a group called "The Sapphire Guard" probably has rules based around, you know, guarding said sapphire and not breaking it instead. :smalltongue:

[TRH]

I dunno, I feel like a group called "The Sapphire Guard" probably has rules based around, you know, guarding said sapphire and not breaking it instead. :smalltongue:

You probably assumed an organization of paladins would be led by one as well, though, right?

[georgie_leech]

You probably assumed an organization of paladins would be led by one as well, though, right?

You're right, I can't imagine where I got the idea that The Sapphire Guard's primary duty was guarding a sapphire.

Hang on. Are you now arguing that Soon didn't intend for his order of Paladins that he named the Sapphire Guard to guard the sapphire? Because at this point, I'm confused as to who was thinking the Paladins were being duplicitous. :smallconfused:

[TRH]

You're right, I can't imagine where I got the idea that The Sapphire Guard's primary duty was guarding a sapphire.

Hang on. Are you now arguing that Soon didn't intend for his order of Paladins that he named the Sapphire Guard to guard the sapphire? Because at this point, I'm confused as to who was thinking the Paladins were being duplicitous. :smallconfused:

You define guarding the sapphire in a very specific way, is the issue. The paladins in practice decided that keeping it out of the wrong hands was more important than keeping it intact. Their founder himself called the act an adequate fulfillment of their duties. And here you are telling all of them them they were doing it wrong and obviously violating a section of their oath that was never discussed or even mentioned. And I'm the one making things up?!

Pull the other one, seriously.

[Peelee]

That's the point I'm driving at. This is personal for Serini.

And this is the point I'm driving at:
Much like Julio's airship, narrativium-based solutions generally require, you know, a good faith effort at heroism.
Sure, it's personal for Serini. She was part of the group that built the Gates holding reality together, and she personally took charge of one of them. That doesn't make her paranoid any more than Roy's personal stake in destroying Xykon makes him paranoid. Roy has a personal stake but also recognizes that the world must be saved for the betterment of all regardless. Serini has a personal state but also recognizes that reality must be held together for the betterment of all regardless.

And it's hardly paranoia to believe that a group which destroyed two of the five Gates - intentionally, I might add - might want to destroy one more.

[TRH]

And it's hardly paranoia to believe that a group which destroyed two of the five Gates - intentionally, I might add - might want to destroy one more.

But to believe that so firmly that literally nothing they say or do can ever convince you otherwise is, at the least, Ian-level mistrustful.

And that's the thing: you guys keep saying she only thinks this might happen if the Order is allowed to continue. No, she is certain. Absolutely, fanatically certain that they are guaranteed to destroy the world if left within 5 miles of the Gate for more than a day. 500 foot tall flaming letters proclaiming the contrary wouldn't even faze her.

[TRH]

Also, predicting this now: it will take much, much longer for Serini to give up the ghost here than the folks defending her assume. I wouldn't be surprised to see her die before admitting error, if I'm honest. Scribblers don't seem to have been sticklers for thinking they're wrong.

[Peelee]

But to believe that so firmly that literally nothing they say or do can ever convince you otherwise is, at the least, Ian-level mistrustful.

You keep saying that, yet I have yet to see any evidence of it. Two paladins, one of whom literally tried to destroy one of the Gates and only did not succeed due to being paralyzed by Xykon at the last second, could not convince her otherwise in like 20 seconds of debate that largely consisted of leading questions by Serini. I fail to see how that somehow equates to "literally nothing that anyone can say or do, ever".

[TRH]

You keep saying that, yet I have yet to see any evidence of it. Two paladins, one of whom literally tried to destroy one of the Gates and only did not succeed due to being paralyzed by Xykon at the last second, could not convince her otherwise in like 20 seconds of debate that largely consisted of leading questions by Serini. I fail to see how that somehow equates to "literally nothing that anyone can say or do, ever".

Well, she's very clearly shown negative interest in any of their justifications for past actions or assurances they'll do anything different, the important information the Order has about the situation she's not aware of has been shown to be nearly useless in persuading a skeptical party in the recent exchange with Redcloak because they have no evidence to support any of its veracity. And I don't see a ton they can do at the moment that would convince her she's wrong, so at the least, nothing they say and nothing they can feasibly do will convince her.

And the Scribblers before her have all died from their convictions, more or less, so I don't see this going much differently.

[Peelee]

Well, she's very clearly shown negative interest in any of their justifications for past actions or assurances they'll do anything different, the important information the Order has about the situation she's not aware of has been shown to be nearly useless in persuading a skeptical party in the recent exchange with Redcloak because they have no evidence to support any of its veracity. And I don't see a ton they can do at the moment that would convince her she's wrong, so at the least, nothing they say and nothing they can feasibly do will convince her.

And the Scribblers before her have all died from their convictions, more or less, so I don't see this going much differently.

If I saw video footage of Bob, with a rifle, aiming at the head of a polka-dotted rabbit (a species which has only five members in existence) and only didn't shoot because the gun jammed, and Bob later showed up to my house where I keep a polka-dotted rabbit - and, I should point out, all four other polka-dotted rabbits have been killed - then yes, I would be clearly distrustful of Bob. This would not be paranoia. This would be common sense. Further, I have to note yet again that they had a very brief conversation that consisted almost entirely of Serini asking leading questions, which O-Chul was incredibly reticent to answer. It should not be surprising that Serini was not swayed by O-Chul's silver-tongued milquetoast stammerings.

Also, how exactly did Soon die from his convictions? Or Girard? Three fifths have not died from their convictions, so claiming "all of them" did is quite the leap.

[TRH]

Yes, leading questions are a favorite from reasonable people who can be swayed by a logical argument. Incidentally, have you stopped beating your wife?

[georgie_leech]

Yes, leading questions are a favorite from reasonable people who can be swayed by a logical argument. Incidentally, have you stopped beating your wife?

Have you? :smallamused:

But seriously, you're acting like it's unreasonable of Serini to not be persuaded by their heartfelt "But we won't this time, honest."

[Liquor Box]

It seems pretty clear that Serini believes that the Order/paladins would destroy the gate if it would otherwise fall into Xykon's hands. This was correct with respect to the previous gates, but probably not with respect to this last gate (although your mileage may vary on whether Serini should know that or not). Whether someone with higher ranks in diplomacy/bluff/intimidate than O-Chul could persuade her otherwise remains to be seen, but is probably not relevant to assessing the moronicness of Serini's actions now.

Where I do think Serini falters in thinking the Order/paladins will destroy the gates is that it only really comes up in a pretty narrow set of circumstances:
- First, it requires the Order/paladins to encounter Xykon after he has found the gate. If the encounter happens before he's found the gate then they attack Xykon and either succeed or die or (less likely) fail but live to fight another day. It seems far more probable that the adventurers would encounter Xykon before he finds the gate given Xykon is traipsing around the area.
- Second, even if the Order encounters Xykon at the moment he finds the gate, by far the most likely two outcomes is that they defeat him or he kills them. The circumstances where they lose to Xykon, but still have the opportunity to destroy the gate seems pretty narrow.


I think that efforts to justify Serini's actions on the basis her having meta knowledge of the probable narrative of the story is misguided - I don't think that's a crutch the Giant would rely on here. That sort of meta knowledge has come up as a recurring joke in the past with specific characters, but I don't think it can be used to justify a significant plot decision by a character who has not referred to any sort of meta knowledge in the past.

[Peelee]

Yes, leading questions are a favorite from reasonable people who can be swayed by a logical argument. Incidentally, have you stopped beating your wife?

So you do not refute anything I said, and only target one specific facet which is not only a valid tactic but is regarded as fair enough that it is used in justice systems worldwide.

Good to know.

[RatElemental]

If anything, Serini is demonstrating she's not genre savvy by thinking the villain could be stopped in the middle of the story. Everyone knows stories always come down to the wire, and it's the last line of defense where things turn on the villain!

And her response to it being pointed out that destroying the gate is no longer an option? "No fifth chances on Aunt Serini's watch" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1229.html)

[Hurkyl]

What I'll say is that "this group of infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins will break their word" has significantly less supporting evidence than "the OotS will destroy a Gate," thus requiring her good-faith effort at stopping them. :smallamused:
I'm surprised how many people don't seem to get that Serini had quite the opposite opinion: she's concerned that in their obsession to keep to their oaths, the "infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins" will do something incredibly stupid.

[Emanick]

If anything, Serini is demonstrating she's not genre savvy by thinking the villain could be stopped in the middle of the story. Everyone knows stories always come down to the wire, and it's the last line of defense where things turn on the villain!

And her response to it being pointed out that destroying the gate is no longer an option? "No fifth chances on Aunt Serini's watch" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1229.html)

To be fair, it's no longer really the middle of the story. We're in the last book, and Xykon is nowhere close to being defeated.

If Serini is a genre-savvy hero who expects some sort of eucatastrophe to take Xykon out at the last moment, then that moment isn't too far off.

[Peelee]

If anything, Serini is demonstrating she's not genre savvy by thinking the villain could be stopped in the middle of the story.

Oh definitely. If we invent conditions that would make no sense, then it would make no sense. I absolutely agree with that.

[brian 333]

What I think may be overlooked here is that Aunt Serini may know things we do not, (yet.)

We assume that our PoV is omniscient and we have facts that Serini does not.

Serini may know all about Redcloak and The Plan, and may not be worried about it because she knows it will not work.

What if the gate is made of multidimensional stone which cannot be teleported? Redcloak and Xykon could play with it until they get bored, but would never be able to weaponize it. The best they could do is destroy it and end existence, thereby negating the benefits of having it, or else threaten to destroy it as a bluff.

Even so, with four gates gone, reality is in trouble. She may even now have minions rebuilding the untended gates with multidimensional stone and preparing the materials to repair the ones that are occupied.

But for her plan to succeed she needs Xykon and Redcloak out of the way before they decide to build their own gate: one that could be teleported. And she needs Kraggor's gate intact to keep them harmlessly occupied.

And along comes this pack of three-time losers who threaten to ruin everything.

[pearl jam]

I've never given this much thought before, but why would teleporting the gate be expected to teleport the rift along with it? The gates are located where they are because that's where they discovered rifts. If you build a bridge across a ravine and then teleport the bridge, the ravine, presumably, doesn't go with it. :smallconfused:

[danielxcutter]

I’m not entirely sure multidimensional stone can’t be teleported. Pretty sure the reason most of the dungeon is made of it is preventing someone who can go incorporeal or ethereal from cheesing the entire thing - a bit like force effects - but teleportation and interplanar travel usually involves the Astral Plane instead.

But I’m fairly sure if the Gates could be made portable, the Scribblers would have done that already. I doubt Serini’s got better magic than Dorukan or Lirian either.

[KorvinStarmast]

She's the agent saving the world from the apocalypse of the OotS. Just because she's wrong doesn't mean she's not consistent. She is aware of how dangerous High Level PC parties are from personal experience with the Order of the Scribble. I get the idea that she views the Order as a six-year-old kid pulling a little red wagon that has three or four bottles of nitroglycerin in it. The kid is being very careful, sure, but there's bound to be a bump in the road and then it will end in tears. So from her perspective, accident prevention is needed.

I dunno, deus ex machina like that need to be at least foreshadowed. Unless the gods are just terrible at setting up narrativium run worlds. + Many for this fine post. :smallsmile:

because the Order are just as villainous as Xykon in their way. Please don't conflate malice(Xykon) with stupidity and/or incompetence(OoTS). It's a common mistake to make.

What I'll say is that "this group of infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins will break their word" has significantly less supporting evidence than "the OotS will destroy a Gate," thus requiring her good-faith effort at stopping them. :smallamused: Particularly given Soon's Ghost Guard as a part of a defense-in-depth for protecting the sapphire.

You're right, I can't imagine where I got the idea that The Sapphire Guard's primary duty was guarding a sapphire. yep, Miko really threw a spanner into the works there. :smallfurious: And O-Chul was headed that way, which suggests to me that the Sapphire Guard didn't actually know how the above mentioned defense in depth worked. Odd, but there you have it.

So you do not refute anything I said, and only target one specific facet which is not only a valid tactic but is regarded as fair enough that it is used in justice systems worldwide.
Just because a lawyer does it, or tries it, doesn't make it right. I seem to recall "Objection, {opposing counsel} is leading the witness" is an objection often raised and sometimes sustained in actual court proceedings.

I'm surprised how many people don't seem to get that Serini had quite the opposite opinion: she's concerned that in their obsession to keep to their oaths, the "infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins" will do something incredibly stupid. I think that both Miko and O-Chul were acting out of ignorance, see above, but I'll add a bit of "thick headed" to Miko's move given her consistent cases of tunnel vision as demonstrated time and again on screen.

[Peelee]

Just because a lawyer does it, or tries it, doesn't make it right. I seem to recall "Objection, {opposing counsel} is leading the witness" is an objection often raised and sometimes sustained in actual court proceedings.

In American criminal court proceedings, leading questions are not allowed on direct but are perfectly fine on cross. It will always be objected to on direct (and sustained if correct). It will never be objected to on cross (or, if it is, will be overruled and probably garner a side-eye from the judge).

This is seen by virtually all parties involved as fair and just.

[hroþila]

yep, Miko really threw a spanner into the works there. :smallfurious: And O-Chul was headed that way, which suggests to me that the Sapphire Guard didn't actually know how the above mentioned defense in depth worked. Odd, but there you have it.
My headcanon is that, when Miko saw the situation in the throne room, she thought the gods had led her to fall specifically so that she would be standing there at that precise moment, as a non-member of the Sapphire Guard, to shatter the gate without having to break any oaths (that may or may not have directly or indirectly prevented O-Chul from doing the job himself).

[Ionathus]

That goes for pretty much any plan she has for stopping Xykon. Even just saying "I have my own plan to stop Xykon" would be better than leaving them thinking she'll let Xykon win. I guess it might be in character for her though.

Also, I can't think of a scenario where the Snarl can kill Xykon but isn't able to escape and destroy the world.

If Serini has her own plan, she's not going to tell the Order and the Paladins about it. Telling them she has a plan (even if she doesn't explain it) won't get them to stop -- they'll just inevitably try to help, and bungle it anyway (in her mind).

It's the same reason that parents tell children "don't touch the baby bird or the mother will abandon it." Birds don't actually do that, but saying "no, you won't be careful enough and might hurt it" is an invitation to a thirty-minute argument with a toddler who is convinced that they'll be careful this time, I promise, I'm a big kid and I can be really super duper careful, please come on let me do it!!"

Serini has made it very clear that she sees the OotS as well-meaning toddlers. She is not required to give them a fourth goshdarned chance with the final pillar of freaking reality. As others have said, whatever comes next with Xykon's dominion is irrelevant if the gate goes kablooey today. The people who are currently 0/3 on the gates are breathing down her neck, and that's the immediate crisis she's trying to resolve.

She is wrong, of course. I just don't see how being (understandably) wrong on her read makes her an idiot.


Also, predicting this now: it will take much, much longer for Serini to give up the ghost here than the folks defending her assume. I wouldn't be surprised to see her die before admitting error, if I'm honest. Scribblers don't seem to have been sticklers for thinking they're wrong.

I'll take that bet. Serini's not dying in this fight, or any fight...at least, not until much later. We've got too much unresolved stuff with the Scribblers to go through, and the potential for her as an unwilling mentor/authority figure who gives exposition for whatever weird cosmic thing happens next is too good ("oh no, the Snarl has ejected its plasma core and reversed the polarity, it's just like last time!", etc).

[Precure]

Miko and O-Chul didn't decide on anything, it was Sapphire Guard's last resort plan to protect the gate from falling into evil hands, just like Dorukan's self-destruct button.

[hroþila]

Miko and O-Chul didn't decide on anything, it was Sapphire Guard's last resort plan to protect the gate from falling into evil hands, just like Dorukan's self-destruct button.
From the dialogue in the trial, it would seem it was not a pre-existing plan, but rather something O-Chul and that other paladin came up with when they saw they were about to lose the gate (quite possibly prompted by all the talk about the self-destruct button on Dorukan's gate during the trial).

[Ionathus]

From the dialogue in the trial, it would seem it was not a pre-existing plan, but rather something O-Chul and that other paladin came up with when they saw they were about to lose the gate (quite possibly prompted by all the talk about the self-destruct button on Dorukan's gate during the trial).

Keeping in mind that the trial was a sham. Given Shojo's philosophy on authority and doing what he believes is best, damn the rules, he would KRACKAAKKKOOOOOM that sapphire without a second thought if he were in O-Chul's position.

[hroþila]

Keeping in mind that the trial was a sham. Given Shojo's philosophy on authority and doing what he believes is best, damn the rules, he would KRACKAAKKKOOOOOM that sapphire without a second thought if he were in O-Chul's position.
Oh, Shojo would, absolutely. Doesn't mean there was a standing protocol about that though. I don't see the relevance of the trial being a sham.

[Ionathus]

Oh, Shojo would, absolutely. Doesn't mean there was a standing protocol about that though. I don't see the relevance of the trial being a sham.

Were there many paladins actually in the room? I know the sham trial was for their benefit, but I don't think an SG paladin in Shojo's place as leader would've done anything about the Order in the first place.

Basically I'd buy that, in order to contact & hire the Order, Shojo made "destroy it to prevent its misuse" into a bigger deal than it ever was in the paladins' minds. I wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely hadn't really considered or established a protocol on whether to destroy it as a last resort, and the trial -- like you suggested earlier -- planted that seed of thought into their minds.

Funny enough, if that's the case then the Order would be even more responsible for destroying the Azure City gate, because that would mean leaning hard into the "destroy it to prevent its misuse" defense during the trial influenced O-Chul to attempt it...which then influenced Miko to actually do it.

Not ascribing blame to any characters in particular or actually arguing against your position, just musing aloud. Er, atext.

[Hurkyl]

Funny enough, if that's the case then the Order would be even more responsible for destroying the Azure City gate, because that would mean leaning hard into the "destroy it to prevent its misuse" defense during the trial influenced O-Chul to attempt it...which then influenced Miko to actually do it.
To nitpick a bit... it's reasonable to use this line of argument to infer the Order had more of a role a cause for the destruction of the sapphire gate, but it's rather unreasonable to use it to assign them much, if any, responsibility for it. I really dislike how cavalier people are with assigning blame.

[Dion]

So you do not refute anything I said, and only target one specific facet which is not only a valid tactic but is regarded as fair enough that it is used in justice systems worldwide.

Good to know.

I *think* what TRH means is that Serini’s use of leading questions when interrogating the paladins was an indication that Serini is not really interested in a constructive dialogue.

Instead, she appears to be primarily interested in demonstrating her conviction ion that the paladins are wrong.

There’s nothing wrong with her interrogating the paladins this way. She believes that the chuckleheads standing in front of her are putting “her” gate in danger, and she’s telling them clearly why she believes that.

But it does show that she’s not particularly interested in a conversation that would change her mind.

[danielxcutter]

To nitpick a bit... it's reasonable to use this line of argument to infer the Order had more of a role a cause for the destruction of the sapphire gate, but it's rather unreasonable to use it to assign them much, if any, responsibility for it. I really dislike how cavalier people are with assigning blame.

That's basically what Serini's doing, frankly.

[Mike Havran]

Yep, Miko really threw a spanner into the works there. :smallfurious: And O-Chul was headed that way, which suggests to me that the Sapphire Guard didn't actually know how the above mentioned defense in depth worked. Odd, but there you have it. Indeed. Hinjo explains (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0449.html)that knowledge about Soon and sacred watchers was restricted to the ruling family of Azure City.

[Peelee]

I *think* what TRH means is that Serini’s use of leading questions when interrogating the paladins was an indication that Serini is not really interested in a constructive dialogue.

Instead, she appears to be primarily interested in demonstrating her conviction ion that the paladins are wrong.

There’s nothing wrong with her interrogating the paladins this way. She believes that the chuckleheads standing in front of her are putting “her” gate in danger, and she’s telling them clearly why she believes that.

But it does show that she’s not particularly interested in a conversation that would change her mind.
That's a fair cop. Though, of course, I hardly fault her for that - in my aforementioned polka dotted cat analogy, I certainly wouldn't be willing to engage someone who actively and deliberately tried to kill one of the five in existence who suddenly showed up at my doorstep saying "yeah but I promise that won't happen with this one!"

That's basically what Serini's doing, frankly.
Serini is saying that the people who destroyed or tried to destroy (and only failed though no fault of their own) three of the five seams holding reality together have not earned her trust to not destroy the last one.

Shes cavalierly assigning blame in the sense that she is accusing those who destroyed Gates of destroying Gates.

How dare she.

[RatElemental]

I've never given this much thought before, but why would teleporting the gate be expected to teleport the rift along with it? The gates are located where they are because that's where they discovered rifts. If you build a bridge across a ravine and then teleport the bridge, the ravine, presumably, doesn't go with it. :smallconfused:

Well, given the giant's explanation of why Soon handed the sapphire to Shojo's father, the gate isn't the physical structure of the construct, it's some kind of magical thing that the physical structure reinforces:


The gem reinforces the Gate; the gem is NOT the Gate, and the Gate is not the seal, and the seal is not the rift. The gem is the deadbolt, not the lock, or the door, or the doorway. The "door" is a complex spell that is not actually visible but is what Dorukan and Lirian are casting in the first panel of the second page of #276. The "lock" is the Gate, a tiny magical object that later had a throne crafted around it; it's about the size of a raisin in the case of Azure City. The "doorway" is the rift itself, and it is not really inside the gemstone, it's just that the gem (and Gate) are translucent and we can see through it (because it's a visual medium and it made it easier to understand). The gemstone is an enchanted object that further seals and reinforces the Gate; thus, the "deadbolt."

When Soon hands over the Sapphire to Shojo's father, he is essentially giving the last piece of the Gate's security system over so that it might be put into place. Think of the Sapphire as an additional seal that Soon and his followers came up with. The Sapphire does not NEED to be in the same place as the Gate in order to seal it, because it's magic, but moving it around is risky. There's a chance that it will just fail and the Gate will swing open. Before the panel shown, Soon likely kept it somewhere else safe, but chose as he was dying to consolidate the protections (because that's where he was going to be hanging out as a ghost-martyr). I guess the magic might have been stronger being in the same spot as the Gate, too.

So, no, the Gate or the rift could not have been physically moved. The Sapphire could be moved, and Xykon would have been obligated to track it down and undo its magic before he could perform his ritual, but there would be a risk in doing so, and it wouldn't really have stopped Xykon from sieging the city at that point (because he still would have needed the immovable Gate).

The use of Redcloak's magic ritual to shift the Gate into another plane is entirely unrelated, and in fact can only shift a Gate to another plane—not to another place in THIS plane. Think of it like moving a Bag of Holding from the Prime to an Outer Plane: you've moved the entranceway to an extradimensional space, but opening it still leads to the same interior.

Hopefully, that clears the issue up.

[Squire Doodad]

Serini is saying that the people who destroyed or tried to destroy (and only failed though no fault of their own) three of the five seams holding reality together have not earned her trust to not destroy the last one.

Shes cavalierly assigning blame in the sense that she is accusing those who destroyed Gates of destroying Gates.

How dare she.

The biggest source of irrationality here is assuming that the Order will act the same way here despite it being the last gate. The Order explicitly broke the gate to stop Xykon from reaching it in hopes of defeating him elsewhere, though Serini may not have known that (depends on whether V went into detail on it in his Sendings, which is unlikely). This in particular suggests she thinks the Order views Xykon winning as inherently worse than the destruction of the world. Which isn't the worst assumption to make about the Order, all things considered.
Unfortunately, this still doesn't justify attacking them, and she could have easily talked them into coming to a secondary secret lair and gotten a better idea of how they'll act and/or knock them all out. She's an epic Rogue with potion making skills, surely she knows how to spike a drink.

[georgie_leech]

The biggest source of irrationality here is assuming that the Order will act the same way here despite it being the last gate. The Order explicitly broke the gate to stop Xykon from reaching it in hopes of defeating him elsewhere, though Serini may not have known that (depends on whether V went into detail on it in his Sendings, which is unlikely). This in particular suggests she thinks the Order views Xykon winning as inherently worse than the destruction of the world. Which isn't the worst assumption to make about the Order, all things considered.
Unfortunately, this still doesn't justify attacking them, and she could have easily talked them into coming to a secondary secret lair and gotten a better idea of how they'll act and/or knock them all out. She's an epic Rogue with potion making skills, surely she knows how to spike a drink.

She could also politely ask people to leave the area instead of erecting a massive dungeon complex to deter would-be Gate enthusiasts, but she would (rightly) view that as an unnecessary risk. What exactly would her motivation be for approaching them in the open like that? As you point out, she's an Epic Rogue: Sneak Attacks are kind of their thing.

[Squire Doodad]

She could also politely ask people to leave the area instead of erecting a massive dungeon complex to deter would-be Gate enthusiasts, but she would (rightly) view that as an unnecessary risk. What exactly would her motivation be for approaching them in the open like that? As you point out, she's an Epic Rogue: Sneak Attacks are kind of their thing.

Well if they're about to ambush Xykon, revealing everything, getting them away from the trap that stops people from finding the gate is probably pretty important. Firing an arrow at the ceiling and then popping up and saying "I am Serini Toormuck, I have critical information to help you destroy Xykon" might have worked just as well.
Though that assumes she can convince them to walk into the endless dungeon halls, which may be more of a gamble. Charm Eye was a good move, but she could have just started talking to Elan once he made it into the cavern.

[georgie_leech]

Well if they're about to ambush Xykon, revealing everything, getting them away from the trap that stops people from finding the gate is probably pretty important. Firing an arrow at the ceiling and then popping up and saying "I am Serini Toormuck, I have critical information to help you destroy Xykon" might have worked just as well.
Though that assumes she can convince them to walk into the endless dungeon halls, which may be more of a gamble. Charm Eye was a good move, but she could have just started talking to Elan once he made it into the cavern.

And again, the reason she should have revealed her presence to the potential Gate destroyers before attempting to stop them is...?

[Squire Doodad]

And again, the reason she should have revealed her presence to the potential Gate destroyers before attempting to stop them is...?

I mean
They're in the cave that presumably is the main trap of the dungeon. And she's assuming they're "I'm self-justified Hero Good" types who know about the lore of the gates, so if the gate's guardian were to arrive to help them, they might be initially surprised but then be willing to go with her.

She looks to have a high enough CHA score to be able to talk the party into a "have some refreshing amnesia pepper soup" style trap without having to get into combat.

[georgie_leech]

I mean
They're in the cave that presumably is the main trap of the dungeon. And she's assuming they're "I'm self-justified Hero Good" types who know about the lore of the gates, so if the gate's guardian were to arrive to help them, they might be initially surprised but then be willing to go with her.

She looks to have a high enough CHA score to be able to talk the party into a "have some refreshing amnesia pepper soup" style trap without having to get into combat.

So she could have taken that risk, but you still haven't answered why she would take that risk. Her defence of the Gate has huge elements of secrecy to it, and revealing herself as part of said defence would compromise that. So what reason would she have to compromise her defence for the sake of potential threats?

[RatElemental]

So she could have taken that risk, but you still haven't answered why she would take that risk. Her defence of the Gate has huge elements of secrecy to it, and revealing herself as part of said defence would compromise that. So what reason would she have to compromise her defence for the sake of potential threats?

It comes down to which thing you think is more of a risk: Failing to trick the order into drinking the amnesia potion, or failing to force the order to drink the amnesia potion. Given that Serini left all the amnesia potion in a room with the two chained up paladins who could warn the order, I think the first one is a bit more of a risk.

[georgie_leech]

It comes down to which thing you think is more of a risk: Failing to trick the order into drinking the amnesia potion, or failing to force the order to drink the amnesia potion. Given that Serini left all the amnesia potion in a room with the two chained up paladins who could warn the order, I think the first one is a bit more of a risk.

Also her sneak attack (lower case) just about wiped the Order in the first couple of rounds of her ambush, which is significant evidence for her being quite effective at the second one.

[Peelee]

Well if they're about to ambush Xykon, revealing everything, getting them away from the trap that stops people from finding the gate is probably pretty important.

Seems like she's accomplished that pretty well already.

[Ionathus]

I'm beginning to suspect this whole debate is just a stealthy continuation of the "Is Serini Actually Evil/Bad" debate from back when she was interrogating the paladins. This sentiment keeps cropping up that Serini is somehow morally obligated to listen to everyone's opinions, let them fully explain their rationale, and engage in productive dialogue towards a mutually beneficial resolution. But that's just Paladin Thinking. And much as I enjoy paladins and Lawful Good characters done right, simply acting on different priorities and worldviews doesn't make somebody evil or stupid.

Serini's idea of the greatest Good at the moment is stopping the world from being utterly eradicated. She is acting on that motivation in the way she sees best. She is being rude and dismissive of the Order, and that's understandably getting plenty of hackles raised among a fanbase that's been cheering for that same Order for almost two decades, but being a spiteful old arrogant curmudgeon doesn't make somebody evil or stupid. Are there flaws in her logic that could be unraveled after 12 pages of forum discussion? Sure. But everything unravels under the microscope of a fan forum.

A big problem with a lot of fiction is that anybody who disagrees with the heroes is quickly shown to have moral or intellectual failings -- people aren't allowed to speak their piece and actually have a legitimate point very often, because fiction likes to streamline and who wants two different narratives competing for the audience's attention? So we write those people off as manipulators or jerks or idiots. And that makes it hard to accept alternate perspectives when they do actually have a purpose beyond cheap drama.

I appreciate Serini's purpose as a foil, as an antagonist, and as a differing viewpoint. But she's not about to fall out of an airship and scream as it flies into the sunset. There's a difference between being wrong because you lack information or a skillset, and being Wrong because it's covering up some deep moral flaw or philosophical aberration: not every character who disagrees with the heroes has to be dramatically proved an idiot or a hypocrite. I think the people waiting for a Serini breakdown are going to be holding their breath for awhile.


To nitpick a bit... it's reasonable to use this line of argument to infer the Order had more of a role a cause for the destruction of the sapphire gate, but it's rather unreasonable to use it to assign them much, if any, responsibility for it. I really dislike how cavalier people are with assigning blame.


Not ascribing blame to any characters in particular

[Squire Doodad]

It comes down to which thing you think is more of a risk: Failing to trick the order into drinking the amnesia potion, or failing to force the order to drink the amnesia potion. Given that Serini left all the amnesia potion in a room with the two chained up paladins who could warn the order, I think the first one is a bit more of a risk.


Seems like she's accomplished that pretty well already.

Okay, yeah, she probably is more confident in her ability to draw them away by going on the attack and then knocking them out than to talk them into knocking themselves out.

[Dion]

re there flaws in her logic that could be unraveled after 12 pages of forum discussion? Sure. But everything unravels under the microscope of a fan forum.

Are you referring to my Star Wars / Dune crossover fan fiction again?

Look, it seems pretty obvious that George Lucas intended Sarlaccs to be Sandworms.

Why do people keep nitpicking my fan fiction, always saying things like “it doesn’t hold up under the microscope of a fan forum” or “I’m not sure those are actually the same universe” or “why? Why would anyone write a ship between a sand worm and an exogorth? I need to bleach my eyes!”

It’s very hurtful.

[Liquor Box]

I'm beginning to suspect this whole debate is just a stealthy continuation of the "Is Serini Actually Evil/Bad" debate from back when she was interrogating the paladins. This sentiment keeps cropping up that Serini is somehow morally obligated to listen to everyone's opinions, let them fully explain their rationale, and engage in productive dialogue towards a mutually beneficial resolution. But that's just Paladin Thinking. And much as I enjoy paladins and Lawful Good characters done right, simply acting on different priorities and worldviews doesn't make somebody evil or stupid.

Serini's idea of the greatest Good at the moment is stopping the world from being utterly eradicated. She is acting on that motivation in the way she sees best. She is being rude and dismissive of the Order, and that's understandably getting plenty of hackles raised among a fanbase that's been cheering for that same Order for almost two decades, but being a spiteful old arrogant curmudgeon doesn't make somebody evil or stupid. Are there flaws in her logic that could be unraveled after 12 pages of forum discussion? Sure. But everything unravels under the microscope of a fan forum.

A big problem with a lot of fiction is that anybody who disagrees with the heroes is quickly shown to have moral or intellectual failings -- people aren't allowed to speak their piece and actually have a legitimate point very often, because fiction likes to streamline and who wants two different narratives competing for the audience's attention? So we write those people off as manipulators or jerks or idiots. And that makes it hard to accept alternate perspectives when they do actually have a purpose beyond cheap drama.

I appreciate Serini's purpose as a foil, as an antagonist, and as a differing viewpoint. But she's not about to fall out of an airship and scream as it flies into the sunset. There's a difference between being wrong because you lack information or a skillset, and being Wrong because it's covering up some deep moral flaw or philosophical aberration: not every character who disagrees with the heroes has to be dramatically proved an idiot or a hypocrite. I think the people waiting for a Serini breakdown are going to be holding their breath for awhile.

The questions of whether Serini is a moron and whether she is evil are distinct from one another. This thread has been discussing whether she is a moron and has largely avoided (until your post) conflating that with her alignment.

Since you bring up to alignment argument, I do agree with your first point - Serini is not obliged to try and reach mutually beneficial understandings with everyone she comes across. What she is obliged to do (in my opinion) is refrain from drugging, kidnapping, imprisoning and hitting people when she has not explored other viable alternatives (such as engaging in dialogue).

I also don't think your theory that people are just objecting to a character foiling/disrespecting the Order is valid. Most of the discussion about Serini's alignment arose before she even met the Order, she had kidnapped the paladins. At the time it was just a run in between two sets of side characters.

Also worth noting the point is that Serini is a moron because she made the wrong choice without full information. The point is that, she has made seriously flawed decisions for achieving her own goals (preventing the destruction of the gate) based on the knowledge she appears to have.

[Ionathus]

Are you referring to my Star Wars / Dune crossover fan fiction again?

Look, itÂ’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that Sarlaccs are just Sandworms. I donÂ’t know why you have to keep nitpicking it like this.

Extremely lazy sandworms. Why bother hunting down vibrations when the meals come directly to you?


The questions of whether Serini is a moron and whether she is evil are distinct from one another. This thread has been discussing whether she is a moron and has largely avoided (until your post) conflating that with her alignment.

Since you bring up to alignment argument, I do agree with your first point - Serini is not obliged to try and reach mutually beneficial understandings with everyone she comes across. What she is obliged to do (in my opinion) is refrain from drugging, kidnapping, imprisoning and hitting people when she has not explored other viable alternatives (such as engaging in dialogue).

I also don't think your theory that people are just objecting to a character foiling/disrespecting the Order is valid. Most of the discussion about Serini's alignment arose before she even met the Order, she had kidnapped the paladins. At the time it was just a run in between two sets of side characters.

Also worth noting the point is that Serini is a moron because she made the wrong choice without full information. The point is that, she has made seriously flawed decisions for achieving her own goals (preventing the destruction of the gate) based on the knowledge she appears to have.

I'd argue that Evil and Stupid aren't quite so separated -- they both fall under the wider heading of Wrong when we're talking about characters, as in "this character is Wrong and needs to be taught a lesson." Back then, we were debating her morality. Now we're debating her competency. I wasn't trying to put words in anyone's mouths: more just observing what felt like echoes of the prior argument.

I'd also argue that plenty of fans see O-Chul and Lien as extensions of the Order, so I don't think it's as clear-cut as "she hadn't met them yet". Based on the forum reaction during those strips, I'd say there's at least a subset of people who saw her disrespect for the paladins as disrespect for the "real heroes" of the story.

Ultimately I just don't see the huge logical flaw in her argument. The Order (plus SG) have been present at 3 of the other 4 gates' destructions, and she doesn't trust them to not bungle this one too. She's not going to work with somebody she doesn't trust -- she's going to remove them as an existential threat. Regardless of whatever other hypotheticals are out there, that's the first, immediate danger, because according to the information she has, nothing else matters if the gate goes kablooey. Even a 90% chance of Xykon ruling the world for centuries or millennia is preferable in her mind than a 20-ish % chance of (this) reality being consumed, souls and all, permanently. The threat of damage to the last pillar of existence is an acceptable risk to the Order, but a non-starter to Serini.

She can worry about misdirecting Xykon or ambushing Xykon or surviving six decades and putting together the Kill Xykon League later.

[Hurkyl]

The questions of whether Serini is a moron and whether she is evil are distinct from one another. This thread has been discussing whether she is a moron and has largely avoided (until your post) conflating that with her alignment.
The questions are distinct, but the claim is that the arguments were not distinct. The claim is that people are asserting that the correct course of action for Serini is to forsake her active defense of secrecy and talk things out with the protagonists instead. Labeling Serini's failure to do so as "evil" or "moronic" is just window dressing, and is maybe reflective of the labeler's own prejudices regarding talking things out.

Maybe it's better to put it this way: the idea isn't that this thread isn't "Serini is evil" in disguise: it's that both the "Serini is a moron" and "Serini is evil" threads are "Serini should have engaged in open dialog" in disguise.

[Riftwolf]

Serini: you destroyed two of the gates! And you outright stated that you'd rather destroy the gate than let Xykon capture it!
Roy: Yeh, but that was a few weeks ago! We now know that stuff he were told would happen back in Shojos info dump is actually happening now!
Durkon: Right! And we very nearly witnessed the destruction of the world at the Godsmoot, so now we have to take it seriously!
Serini: Well colour me reassured...

[KorvinStarmast]

Serini's idea of the greatest Good at the moment is stopping the world from being utterly eradicated. She is acting on that motivation in the way she sees best...but being a spiteful old arrogant curmudgeon doesn't make somebody evil or stupid. Thank you. :smallwink:

There's a difference between being wrong because you lack information or a skillset, and being Wrong because it's covering up some deep moral flaw or philosophical aberration: not every character who disagrees with the heroes has to be dramatically proved an idiot or a hypocrite. Miko disagreed with the Order, and was neither an idiot nor a hypocrite. (She suffered from tunnel vision).

[Ionathus]

Maybe it's better to put it this way: the idea isn't that this thread isn't "Serini is evil" in disguise: it's that both the "Serini is a moron" and "Serini is evil" threads are "Serini should have engaged in open dialog" in disguise.

Yeah, I like the way you phrased it! This sums up a lot of my feelings on the underlying sentiments I'm perceiving.


Thank you. :smallwink:
Miko disagreed with the Order, and was neither an idiot nor a hypocrite. (She suffered from tunnel vision).

Happy to help :smallbiggrin:

I do think that Miko was portrayed as Wrong, capital W, by the narrative. She had a personal moral failing that resulted in her spiraling out of control and making the wrong choice at a critical moment, costing Azure City the victory and allowing Xykon & Redcloak to survive.

I'd put Miko in the same camp as Tarquin, Nale, even Ian Starshine: she came into conflict with the heroes due to her conflicting worldview, and then that worldview was proven to be flawed by the narrative (usually with personal consequences such as death or embarrassment).

I'd put Serini in the same camp as Celia or Hilgya: she has fundamentally different worldviews than the heroes, but she's not going to get a comeuppance. Her personality is going to butt heads with the heroes for awhile (more literally in the current fight :smalltongue:) and the heroes are going to need her help, but at the end of the day she's not going to "get what's coming to her" from the narrative. People were annoyed by Celia during DStP, but she remained important to the plot and was never shown to be Wrong -- in fact, her pacifism resulted in the team getting a base of operations at the Thieves' Guild from which they could regroup.

Would killing the entire Thieves' Guild have also solved that problem? Maybe. But the narrative doesn't disagree with how Celia's conflicting worldview handled it. She is allowed to disagree strenuously with Haley's worldview without being Wrong. I think Serini will have a similar treatment.

[hungrycrow]

Personally I don't think Serini is a moron or evil. I just think that her current plan isn't coming from her having limited information, but from her being a "spiteful old arrogant curmudgeon." Which is a character flaw. Of course every character has flaws; Serini having a flaw and trying to oppose the protagonists doesn't necessarily merit some sort of comeuppance.

[Ionathus]

Personally I don't think Serini is a moron or evil. I just think that her current plan isn't coming from her having limited information, but from her being a "spiteful old arrogant curmudgeon." Which is a character flaw. Of course every character has flaws; Serini having a flaw and trying to oppose the protagonists doesn't necessarily merit some sort of comeuppance.

Yeah, I can get behind that. Her decision to sabotage the Order certainly isn't a 100% logical evaluation: there's bound to be some guilt over Kraagor, fear of a rematch with Xykon, bitterness over Soon & his paladins, etc. wrapped up in the decision.

[danielxcutter]

Yeah, as-is it really doesn't add up for her to make that kind of decision just based on what she knows. It's probably some of those in the mix as well.

[RatElemental]

People were annoyed by Celia during DStP, but she remained important to the plot and was never shown to be Wrong -- in fact, her pacifism resulted in the team getting a base of operations at the Thieves' Guild from which they could regroup.

Well, Bozzok did use the money from that deal to turn Crystal into a sentient flesh golem that killed a bunch of innocent gnomes, and not to resurrect all the members of the guild that had died in that altercation. So she was kinda wrong, she just didn't get any personal comeuppance for it.

[hungrycrow]

Well, Bozzok did use the money from that deal to turn Crystal into a sentient flesh golem that killed a bunch of innocent gnomes, and not to resurrect all the members of the guild that had died in that altercation. So she was kinda wrong, she just didn't get any personal comeuppance for it.

I think Haley calling her an annoying twit is as much comeuppance as Celia will ever get.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think Haley calling her an annoying twit is as much comeuppance as Celia will ever get. But richly deserved and well timed (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html) as a joke.

[Ionathus]

Well, Bozzok did use the money from that deal to turn Crystal into a sentient flesh golem that killed a bunch of innocent gnomes, and not to resurrect all the members of the guild that had died in that altercation. So she was kinda wrong, she just didn't get any personal comeuppance for it.

That's fair: without Celia, Bozzok would be dead and the gnomes never would've suffered. I'm not sure that's an actual refutation of her philosophy, though...they were stuck between a rock and a hard place, and didn't know if the cleric of Loki had contacted Durkon (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0620.html). They still needed resources to raid Grubwiggler's manor to get Roy's body back, and Hank suggested there might be a power struggle that would be hurtful for the people of Greysky City if Bozzok died. Sparing Bozzok and ending the conflict semi-peacefully really does seem like the best way out of that scenario to me.

Just because Bozzok turned around and sought revenge in the most collateral-damage-heavy way possible later on doesn't mean Celia was responsible. I'd argue her choice was upheld by the narrative, even if it was later shown to not be a totally perfect solution.


But richly deserved and well timed (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html) as a joke.

One of my absolute favorites in the series. Such a fun sendoff for the Haley & Celia arc.

[Hurkyl]

Personally I don't think Serini is a moron or evil. I just think that her current plan isn't coming from her having limited information, but from her being a "spiteful old arrogant curmudgeon." Which is a character flaw. Of course every character has flaws; Serini having a flaw and trying to oppose the protagonists doesn't necessarily merit some sort of comeuppance.
This actually makes me think of another factor that could be at work here: inertia.

Serini probably investigated the destruction of the Dungeon of Dorukan, and mentally put the OotS on the "reckless adventurers I should probably keep away from my gate" list, and events since then reinforce the reasons why they would get that classification.

So, even if it were the case that Serini would act differently if she was considering all available information anew... has anything really prompted her to consider making such a drastic strategic reassessment?

[Hurkyl]

Incidentally, I get the impression that Serini expects failure: that the unmaking of all creation is the likely outcome of events. All options available to her are acts of desparation: a last ditch attempt to salvage a "don't be unmade" outcome from this mess. Removing the OotS from the playing field is not a good option, it's merely the least bad in her evaluation.

[Liquor Box]

I'd argue that Evil and Stupid aren't quite so separated -- they both fall under the wider heading of Wrong when we're talking about characters, as in "this character is Wrong and needs to be taught a lesson." Back then, we were debating her morality. Now we're debating her competency. I wasn't trying to put words in anyone's mouths: more just observing what felt like echoes of the prior argument.
Sure I don't think the two are the same thing, I think they are different types of 'wrong' (wrong in terms of evil, and wrong in terms of not being smart). But if you do, happy to engage.


I'd also argue that plenty of fans see O-Chul and Lien as extensions of the Order, so I don't think it's as clear-cut as "she hadn't met them yet". Based on the forum reaction during those strips, I'd say there's at least a subset of people who saw her disrespect for the paladins as disrespect for the "real heroes" of the story.

Well, I can only speak definitively for myself, as someone who was heavily involved in the earlier round of this discussion. I don't see the two paladins as an extension of the Order, their screen time with the Order has been fleeting, and they are not even characters that I particularly like. I see Serini kidnapping the paladins as similar to Serini kidnapping some randoms.

I also think you are reaching to suggest anyone else was seeing the paladins an extension of the Order. I invite you to link to any comments from that previous discussion which suggests as such.


Ultimately I just don't see the huge logical flaw in her argument. The Order (plus SG) have been present at 3 of the other 4 gates' destructions, and she doesn't trust them to not bungle this one too. She's not going to work with somebody she doesn't trust -- she's going to remove them as an existential threat. Regardless of whatever other hypotheticals are out there, that's the first, immediate danger, because according to the information she has, nothing else matters if the gate goes kablooey. Even a 90% chance of Xykon ruling the world for centuries or millennia is preferable in her mind than a 20-ish % chance of (this) reality being consumed, souls and all, permanently. The threat of damage to the last pillar of existence is an acceptable risk to the Order, but a non-starter to Serini.

Since you are founding your argument on "based on what Serini knows", can I ask why you are conflating the Ordder and the Saphire Guard. What in the comic makes you think that Serini thought the Order and O-Chul/Lien are working together?

There are lots of logical flaws in Serini's course of action:

Assuming there;s a 20% chance that the Order or the paladin's intervention would cause the world to end. What information does Serini have to suggest that Xykon capturing the gate would lead to a lower than 20% chance of the world ending - last time he was in charge of a gate he experimented on it, the time before that he destroyed it outright.
Even if Xykon does not himself destroy the gate, Serini is counting on other groups of adventurers arising to stop him in the future. But why would each of those groups not also have a 20% or so chance of themselves destroying the gate. Unless future adventurers are somehow different from the Order, they'd be just as likely to destroy the gate as the Order. Realistically, future adventurers are likely to know even less about the gate than the Order, all they'd know is that the Evil Lich is getting great power from controlling a gate, so would be even more likely to deliberately destroy the gate.
Serini seems to be overestimating her own ability to effectively intervene. It is not yet clear whether Serini will succeed in her attack on the Order, but on the basis of their abilities just as likely the order will defeat her. If so, she has weakened the Order (by kidnapping their allies), increasing the chance they'll fail to defeat Xykon and instead destroy the gate.
This gate is different, because it is the last. There's a good case it was logical to destroy the earlier gates to prevent Xykon controlling them (destroying the gates did not destroy the world). But it is probably not logical to destroy this gate. Accordingly, it is logical to assume that the Order and Paladins will act differently with respect to the last gate.. For that reason, I suggest a reasonable estimation of the gate being destroyed by the Order is well south of 20%.



Putting all that aside, there are other courses of action that would minimise the possibility of the gate being destroyed earlier. What she has done increases the chances the gate will be destroyed (by the order, by Xykon, or by future adventurers), when she could have reduced the chances of that happening by adding he resources to the Order, increasing the chance of them prevailing in which case there would be no destruction of the gate.


She can worry about misdirecting Xykon or ambushing Xykon or surviving six decades and putting together the Kill Xykon League later.

Except she has helpfully provided Xykon and his allies with a stream of experience (something he rarely gets otherwise) so he will just get more powerful as time passes. Becuase of Serini, he is just going to get more powerful, be tougher to defeat and therefore increase the chances that adventurers (Order or future adventurers) are unable to defeat him outright and resort to destroying the gate.


The questions are distinct, but the claim is that the arguments were not distinct. The claim is that people are asserting that the correct course of action for Serini is to forsake her active defense of secrecy and talk things out with the protagonists instead. Labeling Serini's failure to do so as "evil" or "moronic" is just window dressing, and is maybe reflective of the labeler's own prejudices regarding talking things out.

Maybe it's better to put it this way: the idea isn't that this thread isn't "Serini is evil" in disguise: it's that both the "Serini is a moron" and "Serini is evil" threads are "Serini should have engaged in open dialog" in disguise.

You could frame it that way. You would still have two broad reasons why Serini should have engaged in open dialogue - because it is less evil or because it would lead to better outcomes for her goals (or both). That is the way I read the discussion as proceeding (dealing with both seperately). But if you want to deal with them together, no complaints from me.

[Peelee]

I also think you are reaching to suggest anyone else was seeing the paladins an extension of the Order.

I, for one, absolutely see them that way; they are on the exact same mission and are openly in league with the Order. The only difference between them and Minrah is physical proximity to the Order, as I see it.


ETA:
There's a good case it was logical to destroy the earlier gates to prevent Xykon controlling them (destroying the gates did not destroy the world)
First, that was due entirely to luck (in how all but Dvalin's work at the various Godsmoot worked out).

Second, they have opened holes in the prison, and rather noticeably. The Snarl has already potentially gotten out. Of, I must note here, the Gate was was destroyed solely to deny it to Xykon.

Third, we know that the fifth gate need not be destroyed for the world to end. It's already hanging by a thread, and only completely solving literally the entire thing will save the world, which is one hell of an order. Especially since the Order has openly admitted they have no idea how to do it.

If you say that destroying the fourth Gate (or, really, any Gate) was logical, then your logic is severely flawed.

[georgie_leech]

If you say that destroying the fourth Gate (or, really, any Gate) was logical, then your logic is severely flawed.

Eh, that's going a bit far. That's certainly Serini's position, but it can be perfectly logical with different starting premises, like "lacking most of the magical support I was expecting, we may not be able to defeat Xykon," "Xykon taking control of the gate would be disastrous for the entire world," and "There remains another Gate that is holding the world together" with "the existence of a self-destruct mechanism implies destroying a gate will not be immediately disastrous for the world." It might be a set of premises you disagree with, but much as Serini can disagree with a lot of the posters in this thread without being "wrong" or "a moron," I can acknowledge that there was a logic to the destruction of the Gates so far.

Well, maybe not when Elan did it. :smalltongue:

[Liquor Box]

I, for one, absolutely see them that way; they are on the exact same mission and are openly in league with the Order. The only difference between them and Minrah is physical proximity to the Order, as I see it.

Fair enough, maybe some do (although you were one of the ones saying Serini did not act evilly if I recall correctly).

The distinction I see between the paladins and Minrah is that Minrah is effectively part of the party. She participates in all their battles, and generally follows their orders. The paladins are however operating independently, albeit toward the same goals. To put it in DnD terms, Minrah is effectively a cohort or henchman, the paladins are allies.


ETA:
First, that was due entirely to luck (in how all but Dvalin's work at the various Godsmoot worked out).

Second, they have opened holes in the prison, and rather noticeably. The Snarl has already potentially gotten out. Of, I must note here, the Gate was was destroyed solely to deny it to Xykon.

Third, we know that the fifth gate need not be destroyed for the world to end. It's already hanging by a thread, and only completely solving literally the entire thing will save the world, which is one hell of an order. Especially since the Order has openly admitted they have no idea how to do it.

If you say that destroying the fourth Gate (or, really, any Gate) was logical, then your logic is severely flawed.

If I understand your first point correctly, I agree that the destruction of the earlier gates could possibly have led indirectly to the destruction of the world through the godsmoot. However, I don't think was reasonably foreseeable to the Order at the time on the basis of the information they had.

I'm not sure I really understand your second and third points? Are you saying that each time a gate is destroyed there's a chance the snarl will escape, albeit that not happening yet? Do you mind explaining a little more about when you mean about hanging by a thread?

As for whether it was logical for Roy to destroy the gate or let it fall into Xykon's hands, your mileage may vary based on a whole lot of factors. However, he was basing the decision on what he knew (like Serini is) which was explicitly destroying the fourth gate would not end the world, unless the fifth gate were also destroyed. Based on what you say above, it's possible that the information he had was wrong (V actually says so"), but that doesn't mean his logic was necessarily faulty. Indeed V explicitly says "Sir Greenhilt's logic is sound based on what he knows".

[RatElemental]

Eh, that's going a bit far. That's certainly Serini's position, but it can be perfectly logical with different starting premises, like "lacking most of the magical support I was expecting, we may not be able to defeat Xykon," "Xykon taking control of the gate would be disastrous for the entire world," and "There remains another Gate that is holding the world together" with "the existence of a self-destruct mechanism implies destroying a gate will not be immediately disastrous for the world." It might be a set of premises you disagree with, but much as Serini can disagree with a lot of the posters in this thread without being "wrong" or "a moron," I can acknowledge that there was a logic to the destruction of the Gates so far.

Well, maybe not when Elan did it. :smalltongue:

And while the Order didn't know it at the time, they were kinda retroactively vindicated by the revelation of a new premise to work from: "The gods would rather dismantle the world than let The Plan come to fruition."

[Peelee]

Eh, that's going a bit far. That's certainly Serini's position, but it can be perfectly logical with different starting premises, like "lacking most of the magical support I was expecting, we may not be able to defeat Xykon," "Xykon taking control of the gate would be disastrous for the entire world," and "There remains another Gate that is holding the world together" with "the existence of a self-destruct mechanism implies destroying a gate will not be immediately disastrous for the world." It might be a set of premises you disagree with, but much as Serini can disagree with a lot of the posters in this thread without being "wrong" or "a moron," I can acknowledge that there was a logic to the destruction of the Gates so far.

Well, maybe not when Elan did it. :smalltongue:
Once they knew what the Gates were, then deliberately choosing to open a portal to the Snarl's prison through which it could escape and destroy the world in order to have a chance of stopping someone who wants to rule the world, while having no idea how to stop said person, is not a logical move for anyone who does not want the world destroyed. Elan had no idea what he was doing at Dorukan's Gate(which does not absolve him, but is a slightly mitigating factor). Roy knew exactly what he was doing at Girard's Gate.

Fair enough, maybe some do (although you were one of the ones saying Serini did not act evilly if I recall correctly).
Oh, most definitely. I completely disagree with her position, but I do not see it as coming from malice, incompetence, or idiocy. I understand how she got to her position even if I disagree with it, is all.

The distinction I see between the paladins and Minrah is that Minrah is effectively part of the party. She participates in all their battles, and generally follows their orders. The paladins are however operating independently, albeit toward the same goals. To put it in DnD terms, Minrah is effectively a cohort or henchman, the paladins are allies.
I can understand that, but again, the biggest difference is proximity to the Order. The Paladins are where they are because the Order decided for them to scout ahead. They are still cohorts/henchmen, they were just given different orders than Minrah.

If I understand your first point correctly, I agree that the destruction of the earlier gates could possibly have led indirectly to the destruction of the world through the godsmoot. However, I don't think was reasonably foreseeable to the Order at the time on the basis of the information they had.
Fair. Still, it shows that they were playing with forces they did not fully comprehend, which would not inspire trust.

I'm not sure I really understand your second and third points? Are you saying that each time a gate is destroyed there's a chance the snarl will escape, albeit that not happening yet?
I wouldn't be so sure (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0945.html). We don't have the whole picture, but the Snarl has inarguably made its presence in the world as we know it.

That being said, if there is a prison with a gaping hole in the wall, would you feel perfectly secure in knowing that nobody has escaped out of the hole yet? It's almost certainly just a matter of time, is all.

Do you mind explaining a little more about when you mean about hanging by a thread?
The gods are ready to nuke the world should the Order fail, since there is no chance for anyone else to re-seal the rifts. Whether it is immediately after the Order fails or months or years is irrelevant. The only chance for the Order to succeed is to not only stop Xykon and Redcloak but also solve the entire rift problem. They do not know how to re-seal the rifts, and almost certainly do not have time to learn how to without divine intervention, which requires getting on their side a genocidal zealot who has been working at the exact cross purpose for the entire comic. They have no idea how to do the first, let alone the second.

As for whether it was logical for Roy to destroy the gate or let it fall into Xykon's hands, your mileage may vary based on a whole lot of factors. However, he was basing the decision on what he knew (like Serini is) which was explicitly destroying the fourth gate would not end the world, unless the fifth gate were also destroyed. Based on what you say above, it's possible that the information he had was wrong (V actually says so"), but that doesn't mean his logic was necessarily faulty. Indeed V explicitly says "Sir Greenhilt's logic is sound based on what he knows".
As said above, they were risking the destruction of the world in order to momentarily forestall the taking over of the world. That is a bad bet.

And while the Order didn't know it at the time, they were kinda retroactively vindicated by the revelation of a new premise to work from: "The gods would rather dismantle the world than let The Plan come to fruition."
Let's say that, without any regard for anything or anyone, you fire a gun towards a city street. If your bullet kills a person, then you're up a creek - it doesn't matter than you didn't know that it would, you are still culpable for wanton disregard. If the person that you killed turns out to have been attempting to stab to death an innocent third party, then you're still up a creek, because you don't get to be lucky. You're not retroactively vindicated because you still had wanton disregard. You don't get to play the "defense of another" card. It just sucks to be you because shooting the gun was, in all respects, a bad idea.

[danielxcutter]

So you’re completely in agreement with Serini save for the fact that she doesn’t know about the Plan?

If so, I don’t think this argument is going to go anywhere.

[Peelee]

So you’re completely in agreement with Serini save for the fact that she doesn’t know about the Plan?

I completely disagree with her position, but I do not see it as coming from malice, incompetence, or idiocy. I understand how she got to her position even if I disagree with it, is all.
I am more than a bit confused as to how I can explicitly say that I disagree with her (twice, no less), and be asked if I agree with her. Though I would agree that this discussion is very likely not going to go anywhere.

[Liquor Box]

Oh, most definitely. I completely disagree with her position, but I do not see it as coming from malice, incompetence, or idiocy. I understand how she got to her position even if I disagree with it, is all.
What do you think it does come from then?


I can understand that, but again, the biggest difference is proximity to the Order. The Paladins are where they are because the Order decided for them to scout ahead. They are still cohorts/henchmen, they were just given different orders than Minrah.
It was Hinjo who ordered the paladins to scout ahead.


Fair. Still, it shows that they were playing with forces they did not fully comprehend, which would not inspire trust.

This is true, but to do nothing would also have been a choice with implications he may not have fully comprehended. He had to make a decision on the spot. I note that Serini appears to also be playing with forces she doesn't fully comprehend.


I wouldn't be so sure (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0945.html). We don't have the whole picture, but the Snarl has inarguably made its presence in the world as we know it.

That being said, if there is a prison with a gaping hole in the wall, would you feel perfectly secure in knowing that nobody has escaped out of the hole yet? It's almost certainly just a matter of time, is all.

I don't think it's a good analogy to think of it as a prison with a hole in the wall. I think a better analogy would be to think of it as a prison where you have to pass through each of five layers of security to escape. I don't think it is a matter of time, I think it's a matter of what happens to that last layer.


The gods are ready to nuke the world should the Order fail, since there is no chance for anyone else to re-seal the rifts. Whether it is immediately after the Order fails or months or years is irrelevant. The only chance for the Order to succeed is to not only stop Xykon and Redcloak but also solve the entire rift problem. They do not know how to re-seal the rifts, and almost certainly do not have time to learn how to without divine intervention, which requires getting on their side a genocidal zealot who has been working at the exact cross purpose for the entire comic. They have no idea how to do the first, let alone the second.

Right, so points two and three were also based on the gods intervention, like point one.

I don't agree this is something that made Roy's decision irrational based on what he knew because.
One, as noted above, the godsmoot etc was not reasonably foreseeable based on what Roy knew at the time
Two, even if Roy had foreseen the fact that the gods would intervene, all he is really doing is kicking a situation which he doesn't fully comprehend (your point above) up to a more informed and higher authority. That the readers don't agree with the gods' intended course of action does not mean this was a bad course of action.
Three, it was equally possible that the gods would have acted similarly if the gates had fallen into the wrong hands, given that the power of the snarl can apparently be used to blackmail the gods.


As said above, they were risking the destruction of the world in order to momentarily forestall the taking over of the world. That is a bad bet.
On the basis of what Roy knew, there was not reason to think destroying the gate was a greater risk to the world than not destroying it. He basically said this when explaining why he destroyed it, and V confirmed that his logic was sound.


Let's say that, without any regard for anything or anyone, you fire a gun towards a city street. If your bullet kills a person, then you're up a creek - it doesn't matter than you didn't know that it would, you are still culpable for wanton disregard. If the person that you killed turns out to have been attempting to stab to death an innocent third party, then you're still up a creek, because you don't get to be lucky. You're not retroactively vindicated because you still had wanton disregard. You don't get to play the "defense of another" card. It just sucks to be you because shooting the gun was, in all respects, a bad idea.

I love a good analogy. This isn't one, because you said that I didn't know the third party was liable to stab someone. Roy did know that the evil ones intended something dastardly with the gates, so to the extent he metaphorically shot them it was in attempt to stop the metaphorical stabbing.

A better analogy is that there's a nuclear bomb buried that can destroy the world. There are two remaining transmitters each of which can trigger the bomb and if both are destroyed the bomb is auto-triggered. One of those two transmitters was about to fall into the hands of some who might use it for something terrible, such as blackmailing the gods or enslaving the world. The choice is to either allow the transmitter to fall into those hands (probably risking the bomb being set off by that person), or destroy it and hope the baddies don't get to the other transmitter first.

[Peelee]

What do you think it does come from then?
Simply being wrong. I have no problem with people being wrong. Sometimes I'm wrong.

It was Hinjo who ordered the paladins to scout ahead.
Hinjo did no such thing. Technically, O-Chul self-assigned it (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html), but he did so very much in league with Roy and as an obvious corollary to Roy's plan, and in the next panel shows clear subservience to the Order. Further, he reported his findings on Xykon directly to Roy (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html). The difference between "ally" and "henchman" here is largely academic, as they are directly acting at the behest of the Order.

This is true, but to do nothing would also have been a choice with implications he may not have fully comprehended. He had to make a decision on the spot. I note that Serini appears to also be playing with forces she doesn't fully comprehend.
Oh, I totally agree. He made the best decision based on the knowledge he had available at the time, and I give Serini no bonus points for not knowing whatever she doesn't know (which is clearly going to be something). However, she is also almost certainly making the best decision based on the knowledge she has available at the time. Again, I disagree with her, but I can understand her motivations no problem.

I don't think it's a good analogy to think of it as a prison with a hole in the wall. I think a better analogy would be to think of it as a prison where you have to pass through each of five layers of security to escape.
Do you have any in-comic evidence or word of the author supporting such a belief? The rifts are not layers of security, they are simply holes in the prison (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html). The Gates are also not different layers of security, they are simply patches on the rifts. Theorizing that each Gate comprises an entirely separate layer of security is not something I had ever even considered before, as I do not recall seeing any evidence whatsoever that may indicate it is the case, but I could be wrong.

Right, so points two and three were also based on the gods intervention, like point one.
No. Point two was already about as clear as I could make it -
they have opened holes in the prison, and rather noticeably. The Snarl has already potentially gotten out. Of, I must note here, the Gate was was destroyed solely to deny it to Xykon. This requireszero knowledge of divine intervention and can be deduced solely based on what Shojo told them when they first learned of the rifts (other than the Snarl already appearing in this world, but the obvious implication that it is possible, and more likely with more open rifts, is the logical conclusion).

Point three is that the Order knew there was at least one other world, which did not have Gates but did have rifts, which was destroyed by the Snarl. Where, again, the obvious implication of more rifts leading to Snarl escaping is the logical conclusion. Again, no knowledge of divine intervention needed.


On the basis of what Roy knew, there was not reason to think destroying the gate was a greater risk to the world than not destroying it. He basically said this when explaining why he destroyed it, and V confirmed that his logic was sound.
Yeah, they both said those things, but immediately after both admitted that they didn't really know what would happen (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0896.html), which kind of entirely undercuts their whole argument. Though I will say that I now see what you were getting at earlier, Roy seems to be under the impression that so long as a fifth Gate still stands then the Snarl cannot escape. This, however, seems not only entirely unfounded, but also, as previously noted, likely incorrect (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0945.html). And let's not forget that Roy assuming he is correct on things he woefully lacks knowledge on to his great detriment is hardly a new thing (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html).

I love a good analogy. This isn't one, because you said that I didn't know the third party was liable to stab someone. Roy did know that the evil ones intended something dastardly with the gates, so to the extent he metaphorically shot them it was in attempt to stop the metaphorical stabbing.
Roy does know one thing for a fact - that said dastardly deed will almost certainly not involve the destruction of the world for some time, if he ever does it at all (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html). He risks destroying the world immediately, as he himself acknowledges he doesn't really know what will happen when he blows the Gate.

A better analogy is that there's a nuclear bomb buried that can destroy the world. There are two remaining transmitters each of which can trigger the bomb and if both are destroyed the bomb is auto-triggered. One of those two transmitters was about to fall into the hands of some who might use it for something terrible, such as blackmailing the gods or enslaving the world. The choice is to either allow the transmitter to fall into those hands (probably risking the bomb being set off by that person), or destroy it and hope the baddies don't get to the other transmitter first.
I would disagree that's a better analogy. This seems to go back to our different understandings of what exactly the rifts represent; everything told to us by authoritive sources(as previously linked) is that they are holes in the prison, while you suspect they may be separate layers of security that must all be breached.

[RatElemental]

Regarding Roy destroying Girard's gate, the IFCC stopped V from stopping Roy doing that. I wonder if this means the IFCC knows what would have happen if the gate was destroyed or if they were just okay with the material plane going kablooey and probably foiling their plans since everything would reset. Though I guess they probably don't know the outsiders all get mind wiped each cycle.

[danielxcutter]

I am more than a bit confused as to how I can explicitly say that I disagree with her (twice, no less), and be asked if I agree with her. Though I would agree that this discussion is very likely not going to go anywhere.

Sorry, discussion's been a bit hard to track so I think I missed that.

[Liquor Box]

Simply being wrong. I have no problem with people being wrong. Sometimes I'm wrong.

She has laid out her logic for attacking the Order - what part of her logic is it that you think is wrong?


Hinjo did no such thing. Technically, O-Chul self-assigned it (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html), but he did so very much in league with Roy and as an obvious corollary to Roy's plan, and in the next panel shows clear subservience to the Order. Further, he reported his findings on Xykon directly to Roy (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html). The difference between "ally" and "henchman" here is largely academic, as they are directly acting at the behest of the Order.

I think you linked the same strip twice by accident.

I agree he's in league with the Order, in the sense of being an ally, which is consistent with sharing information. But I don't think he is acting at the behest of the Order, in terms of acting on their orders the same way Minrah is.

I feel like this discussion is becoming slightly semantic - where does ally become underling. It is not really central to anything else you and I are discussing, so can I suggest we agree to disagree.


Oh, I totally agree. He made the best decision based on the knowledge he had available at the time, and I give Serini no bonus points for not knowing whatever she doesn't know (which is clearly going to be something). However, she is also almost certainly making the best decision based on the knowledge she has available at the time. Again, I disagree with her, but I can understand her motivations no problem.

See, I think this is where you and I disagree. I do think Roy made reasonable decisions to achieve his goals, on the basis of the information he had available (for all the reasons I have given). I don't think that Serini has made reasonable decisions to achieve her goals, on the basis of the information she appears to know.

I can understand her motives as well. She's said what they are, so I don't see how there can be any confusion about them. I just don't think her actions advance those motivations.


Do you have any in-comic evidence or word of the author supporting such a belief? The rifts are not layers of security, they are simply holes in the prison (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html). The Gates are also not different layers of security, they are simply patches on the rifts. Theorizing that each Gate comprises an entirely separate layer of security is not something I had ever even considered before, as I do not recall seeing any evidence whatsoever that may indicate it is the case, but I could be wrong.

They may be holes, but it doesn't appear the Snarl can escape through a single hole (or anything less than five holes). Lyrian's gate has been destroyed for thirty years, and the snarl hasn't escaped. Neither the gods nor the Scribble in the know were concerned enough about the destruction of Lyrian's gate to do anything about it, which suggests neither the gods nor the Scribble (the two groups who know the most) thought there was a risk of the Snarl escaping through a single hole. The same remained true as more gates fell. Yet, the parties are acting like the destruction of the fifth gate would mean the imminent destruction of the world. That suggests that there is no risk (or very little risk) from a single gate falling, but certain doom if five do. Hence my analogy with layers of security.


No. Point two was already about as clear as I could make it - This requireszero knowledge of divine intervention and can be deduced solely based on what Shojo told them when they first learned of the rifts (other than the Snarl already appearing in this world, but the obvious implication that it is possible, and more likely with more open rifts, is the logical conclusion).

This might be as clear as you can make it, but I'm afraid I am not following it. Is it linked to your theory that the snarl can escape through a single destroyed gate, and the world has just been lucky since the destruction of Lyrian's?


Point three is that the Order knew there was at least one other world, which did not have Gates but did have rifts, which was destroyed by the Snarl. Where, again, the obvious implication of more rifts leading to Snarl escaping is the logical conclusion. Again, no knowledge of divine intervention needed.

Yeah, this still harks back to our point of disagreement. Given the previous world was destroyed in 27 minutes, I don't think it supports the Snarl sitting idle with an open rift for thirty years, and multiple rifts open for months or years. It is more consistent with my theory that the snarl cannot be released into the world unless there are a certain number of ungated rifts (seemingly five). Whether that is true or not, that is clearly how Roy understands the situation - we know this because he says so.


Yeah, they both said those things, but immediately after both admitted that they didn't really know what would happen (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0896.html), which kind of entirely undercuts their whole argument. Though I will say that I now see what you were getting at earlier, Roy seems to be under the impression that so long as a fifth Gate still stands then the Snarl cannot escape. This, however, seems not only entirely unfounded, but also, as previously noted, likely incorrect (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0945.html). And let's not forget that Roy assuming he is correct on things he woefully lacks knowledge on to his great detriment is hardly a new thing (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html).

Yes, that appears to be the crux of our disagreement. I think that so long as the fifth gate stands the snarl is either unable or very likely to escape, for the reasons I have given. You, if I understand correctly, think each gate presents a risk of escape for each day it is ungated (with the implication being that the risk grows as more gates are destroyed. If I am correct, Roy's actions were reasonable, if you are correct (and Roy knew what you know) they were not.

I don't follow why you think the strip you linked shows your view is correct though. Is it because the Snarl appears to lash out through the rift? I don't think that means the hole presents a risk of the Snarl escaping, I think of it more as being similar a prisoner lashing out between the bars of his cell. I still think it requires all five of the rifts before the fabric is weakened sufficiently for the Snarl to escape.


Roy does know one thing for a fact - that said dastardly deed will almost certainly not involve the destruction of the world for some time, if he ever does it at all (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html). He risks destroying the world immediately, as he himself acknowledges he doesn't really know what will happen when he blows the Gate.

As previously noted, rightly or wrongly, Roy did not think destroying the gate would lead to the destruction of the world. He may not have known what would happen, but he says very clearly that it wont destroy the world just before doing it.

On the other hand he does not know that allowing the capture of the gate would not lead to the destruction of the world. Xykon is not that relevant because he is not the most proximate threat. The two groups who are most likely to capture the gate at that stage is the Linear Guild and whatever Tarquin's part is called.


I would disagree that's a better analogy. This seems to go back to our different understandings of what exactly the rifts represent; everything told to us by authoritive sources(as previously linked) is that they are holes in the prison, while you suspect they may be separate layers of security that must all be breached.

Yes, I think most of our disagreement boils down to a different understanding of how the gates work - whether each gat individually present an opportunity to escape, or whether you need all to fall over. I have replied to you on this above, and I look forward to your reply.

[Hurkyl]

Having only one gate standing between the snarl and the unmaking of creation is a pretty dire situation. We can't let things get that far, the second-to-last gate should be protected at nearly all cost.

On the assumption that the snarl can't escape unless all of the gates are destroyed... I feel like people are using the existence of the last gate to vastly underappreciate how bad of an idea it was to destroy the previous two. (and the one before that, but that was done without awareness of the severity of the problem)

[pearl jam]

This is the world that V glimpsed through the rift? I don't think that indicates other rifts to other worlds, but I must admit I don't quite follow the significance of them.

In any case, Roy did not know about that when he destroyed the fourth rift. That was why V said that his decision was logical on the basis of the information before him, it was the existence of this world through the rift which was the knowledge Roy did not have.


No, not the world in the rift but the one world that they knew had predated the current world prior to Thor's revelation that there had, in fact, been many more.

[Liquor Box]

Having only one gate standing between the snarl and the unmaking of creation is a pretty dire situation. We can't let things get that far, the second-to-last gate should be protected at nearly all cost.

On the assumption that the snarl can't escape unless all of the gates are destroyed... I feel like people are using the existence of the last gate to vastly underappreciate how bad of an idea it was to destroy the previous two. (and the one before that, but that was done without awareness of the severity of the problem)

I totally agree. It's a big problem that they're down to the last gate and that is a dire situation. But, despite how bad it is that there's only one gate standing between the Snarl and the world, that is still much better than if there were already several places where the Snarl could enter the world.


No, not the world in the rift but the one world that they knew had predated the current world prior to Thor's revelation that there had, in fact, been many more.

Thanks for that, I'll go back and edit where I misunderstood

[elros]

I am starting to think that the members of Order of the Scribble had different opinions about destroying the gates. Some planned to destroy the gate if it fell into enemy hands:
Dorukan built a self-destruct mechanism into the gate.
O-Chul and Miko decided they would destroy it instead of falling to Xykon
Lirian had two treants attached to the gate, suggesting she was okay destroying it when it was attacked.
We don't know of any mechanism for Girard to destroy the gate, and we see that Serini is against destroying it.
I think it is interesting that the two chaotic members are the most dedicated to keeping the current world intact, even if it falls to evil.

[Hurkyl]

I am starting to think that the members of Order of the Scribble had different opinions about destroying the gates. Some planned to destroy the gate if it fell into enemy hands:
Dorukan built a self-destruct mechanism into the gate.
O-Chul and Miko decided they would destroy it instead of falling to Xykon
Lirian had two treants attached to the gate, suggesting she was okay destroying it when it was attacked.
We don't know of any mechanism for Girard to destroy the gate, and we see that Serini is against destroying it.
I think it is interesting that the two chaotic members are the most dedicated to keeping the current world intact, even if it falls to evil.
My perception of Dorukan is that he was playing out a meme of what wizards are "supposed" to do once they're done adventuring: build a stereotypical dungeon housing the gate and other artifacts he wanted to keep safe, and retire to its depths.

So, I suspect the self-destruct mechanism built into Dorukan's gate was never a thoughtful consideration of how best to protect the world from the snarl. Sure, Dorukan could likely find numerous ways to rationalize the decision, but I place my bet on it simply Dorukan doing what is "expected" without really thinking about it, rather than carefully weighing the pros and cons.

[Liquor Box]

My perception of Dorukan is that he was playing out a meme of what wizards are "supposed" to do once they're done adventuring: build a stereotypical dungeon housing the gate and other artifacts he wanted to keep safe, and retire to its depths.

So, I suspect the self-destruct mechanism built into Dorukan's gate was never a thoughtful consideration of how best to protect the world from the snarl. Sure, Dorukan could likely find numerous ways to rationalize the decision, but I place my bet on it simply Dorukan doing what is "expected" without really thinking about it, rather than carefully weighing the pros and cons.

Why would building a self destruct mechanism be stereotypical of a wizard or something that is expected?

It seems far more likely that the self destruct button is there for the usual reason - because he'd rather destroy the castle and gate than let it fall into the wrong hands.

[danielxcutter]

I suppose it’s fair to assume they didn’t expect to have to blow up a Gate more than once or twice regardless of their disagreements.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I am starting to think that the members of Order of the Scribble had different opinions about destroying the gates. Some planned to destroy the gate if it fell into enemy hands:
Dorukan built a self-destruct mechanism into the gate.
O-Chul and Miko decided they would destroy it instead of falling to Xykon
Lirian had two treants attached to the gate, suggesting she was okay destroying it when it was attacked.
We don't know of any mechanism for Girard to destroy the gate, and we see that Serini is against destroying it.
I think it is interesting that the two chaotic members are the most dedicated to keeping the current world intact, even if it falls to evil.

It is important to remember something here - the gates are not the rifts. The Gods are preparing to destroy the world because rifts are appearing, and if anything the Gates only gave a stay of execution, because rifts have already started forming.

The gates are there to stablise and seal the existing rifts. That doesn't mean that other rifts can't form, and it doesn't mean that the Snarl is immediately free after the gate is removed.

The Order of the Scribble acknowledged that destruction of the gates was a possibility because they left measures in place so the other members would know if a gate was destroyed so they could do something about it. So the failure of a single gate is not a huge disaster (from their point of view, at least). I don't think they thought beyond single enemy, though, so Xykon targeting the other gates (after being tipped off by Lirian) was a bit of a disaster.

The case of Dorukan: I really don't know, but last ditch "destroy rather than letting it fall into enemy hands" is reasonable. He does seem to be the only person who built in a self-destruct, though.

The case of O-Chul and Miko: The Ritual uses a gate (the thing that is stablising a particular rift) to move the rift to some other location. Thus destroying the gate means that Xykon can't use it for the ritual. Again, reasonable.

The case of Lirian: I don't think having the gate suspended between two treants suggests any more than Lirian - a druid and agent of Nature - wants the gates supported by something natural. It seems a little strange to me (and there would have to be some way of replacing treants) but well within parameters.

The case of Serini: This is the last remaining gate. She doesn't know that the Gods are already preparing to push the button, but she does see that it is the last gate standing, and is determined that her gate will not be destroyed.

[Hurkyl]

Why would building a self destruct mechanism be stereotypical of a wizard or something that is expected?

It seems far more likely that the self destruct button is there for the usual reason - because he'd rather destroy the castle and gate than let it fall into the wrong hands.
You have the load bearing boss trope, and, well, the apropos stereotype of destroying artifacts to keep them out of the hands of evil. These are relatively standard features of final encounters and major dungeons. Not universal, but definitely a stereotype.

It's worth remembering that the Dungeon employed support staff (e.g. Celia). I imagine under normal operating procedures, the staff would be ready with emergency measures (such as being in place to press the button) when Dorukan engaged an adventuring party reaching the depths, just in case he was defeated. This didn't happen since with the way things went down, IIRC, the support staff (or at least Celia) was completely unaware of Dorukan's defeat, and were only clued in by Xykon taking the place over. Those who lived long enough to get clued in, at least.

[RatElemental]

Regarding Dorukan's self destruct button, it is probably worthwhile to note that Dorukan and Lirian were the two who sealed the gates in the first place. In the hypothetical situation where Dorukan was under attack by a force he thought he couldn't defeat, all he had to do was push the button, teleport away, and come back to reseal the rift with Lirian once the rubble settled. Or at least, that's probably how he was thinking it would go.

[KorvinStarmast]

Regarding Dorukan's self destruct button, it is probably worthwhile to note that Dorukan and Lirian were the two who sealed the gates in the first place. In the hypothetical situation where Dorukan was under attack by a force he thought he couldn't defeat, all he had to do was push the button, teleport away, and come back to reseal the rift with Lirian once the rubble settled. Or at least, that's probably how he was thinking it would go. I'll offer two servings of guacamole in support of this line of thought. (My wife's home made guac is very, very good).

[Ruck]

She has laid out her logic for attacking the Order - what part of her logic is it that you think is wrong?

I'd say it's missing information more than faulty logic. She doesn't know that the world is already close to being destroyed / has just barely avoided being destroyed, and that if the Order fails to persuade Redcloak / Redcloak goes forward with The Plan, it will be destroyed.

Serini's priority is preserving the existence of this world, by preserving the last Gate. She does not know that the outcome where the Gate falls into Evil hands but is still left standing is also going to bring about the destruction of the world.

If she learns this and still opposes the Order*, then we can say she's being irrational or working from some personal grudge or some other motivation that is yet to be clear. But right now, given her set of moral priorities, of which preserving the Gate is first and all else is subservient to that, her actions make sense.

[* - I am assuming she will believe them in this case, because she's an Epic Rogue and will be able to tell that someone like Durkon is not bluffing.]

[danielxcutter]

I don't fault her for not knowing about the Plan. It's the fact that letting Xykon getting his phalanges on it would still be a horrible idea even with just what the Scribblers knew that's the problem for me - this isn't just a generic doomsday device, this is an abomination that could effortlessly butcher entire pantheons.

[Ruck]

It's certainly not a good outcome. It is a very bad outcome. But this is the thing about characters whose moralities have such clear priorities-- when two principles are incompatible in a situation, the lower-priority ones are discarded for the higher-priority ones. Serini's highest priority as far as we've seen is preserving the Gate, and she thinks the Order represent an unacceptably high risk to its safety, given their track record with the Gates and Xykon's power. She does not know what they know, unfortunately, not about the Ritual nor Durkon's goals nor the many previous worlds nor even any of the times Roy's previously expressed his commitment and responsibility toward saving this world and the people in it.

I'm reminded of the saying "drama isn't often about choosing between right and wrong; it's about choosing between two wrongs." Both options are bad outcomes, but Serini believes one is less bad than the other.

(As far as what she might know about the Snarl, she may be assuming the Snarl will be used as a threat rather than an actual weapon, or she may not think Xykon can move a rift to another plane. Or maybe she thinks losing a few Gods is an acceptable trade-off for keeping the world together, who knows. In any case she's decided that whatever it is isn't as bad as breaking the Gate and either letting the Snarl loose or having the world destroyed.)

[danielxcutter]

Personally I'm rather skeptical that her decision is entirely - or even mostly - based in logic and philosophy.

Actually, to be honest? I'd prefer that it wasn't.

Like obviously she's wrong, I don't think anyone's actually disputing that, but if the fundamental reason is fear of Xykon or the possibility of him hurting the people she cares about, or emotional baggage about the Scribblers or Kraagor specifically, or something else like that?

I can get that.

Even if it's something that I disagree with, it's still something that I can understand, empathize with to an extent. The events she's gone through are plenty enough to be a reason, even if it's a bad one - but that doesn't make her a bad or deluded, just... Well. I wouldn't blame her for that.

It also means she's just emotionally traumatized instead of completely off her rocker, so there's that too.

[georgie_leech]

...You find it easier to understand her being deeply traumatised by Xykon as a reason why she'd prefer living in world ruled by Xykon, compared to the world getting destroyed? :smallconfused:

--

It seems to me that Serini is just working from the premise that a world, however terrible it is when an Evil Lich has access to a god-killing super weapon, is preferable to one that, you know, doesn't exist. So I'd expect her priorities to change if she learns that Xykon getting control of the gate would get the plug pulled anyway.

[Ruck]

Personally I'm rather skeptical that her decision is entirely - or even mostly - based in logic and philosophy.

Actually, to be honest? I'd prefer that it wasn't.

Like obviously she's wrong, I don't think anyone's actually disputing that, but if the fundamental reason is fear of Xykon or the possibility of him hurting the people she cares about, or emotional baggage about the Scribblers or Kraagor specifically, or something else like that?

I can get that.

Even if it's something that I disagree with, it's still something that I can understand, empathize with to an extent. The events she's gone through are plenty enough to be a reason, even if it's a bad one - but that doesn't make her a bad or deluded, just... Well. I wouldn't blame her for that.

It also means she's just emotionally traumatized instead of completely off her rocker, so there's that too.

And, see, I feel essentially the opposite about it. I'd much rather a character's motivation come from their moral priorities than their trauma.

EDIT: In fact, I want to elaborate further-- I feel like a trauma explanation might make me sympathize with her more but empathize with her less. I can feel bad for her because of what she's been through, but I can't put myself in the shoes of her trauma, because it's not mine. But if she's consciously and rationally making a difficult and high-stakes decision between two choices where there is no good outcome? That's a situation people can find themselves in even through no fault of their own, one anyone could find themselves in*, and I find that to be a lot more powerful and compelling in terms of storytelling.

(* - albeit rarely with "all of existence" as the stakes.)

Again, though, I don't think she's acting irrationally. I think she's acting from a different set of priorities than the Order have or than that the posters who have complained about her behavior want her to have, and that's what makes her interesting-- a potential ally to the Order who is opposed to them because their priorities do not align with hers. I think she'd be far less interesting a player in the narrative if it turned out she was acting irrationally and just lashing out.

[Hurkyl]

Like obviously she's wrong, I don't think anyone's actually disputing that,
I dispute it's obvious she made the wrong decision with the information she had. I even dispute it's obvious she's wrong given the information we have -- I currently consider one of the most likely outcomes for the story's end to be the destruction of the in-universe cosmology, to be replaced with whatever we've caught glimpses of inside the rift, likely in some sort of LotR-esque or DQ-esque fashion where we learn that the world inside the rift is our world. And this is going to come after the OotS defeats Serini and engages with Xykon despite her objections. There are a couple of ways it could go down, one of which is the Order learning more about the nature of the world and Xykon's and/or TDO's true intentions, and deciding that that outcome really is better than letting the bad guys win.

[Peelee]

likely in some sort of LotR-esque or DQ-esque fashion where we learn that the world inside the rift is our world.

I recommend against putting money on that.

So no, it STILL isn't Earth in the Rift. It will never be Earth in the Rift. Earth will never show up.

[Hurkyl]

I recommend against putting money on that.
Okay. I still find it rather likely without that specific twist being in play, but it does reduce the odds a bit.

[KorvinStarmast]

It seems to me that Serini is just working from the premise that a world, however terrible it is when an Evil Lich has access to a god-killing super weapon, is preferable to one that, you know, doesn't exist. So I'd expect her priorities to change if she learns that Xykon getting control of the gate would get the plug pulled anyway. It is my guess that the italicized part {italics mine} is the only thing that will get her to change her priorities.

[georgie_leech]

It is my guess that the italicized part {italics mine} is the only thing that will get her to change her priorities.

Mm. I don't know how this will be revealed to her, but I'd be surprised if she never learns it. It wouldn't be a change in priorities though; she'd still be working to make sure the world keeps, you know, existing. It's just that she'd be aware of the stakes around the OotS, and how if they fail, the world goes kablooey anyway. So better to help them accomplish their goal. And then, given their track record, get them as far away from the Gate as she can, just in case :smallamused:

[elros]

Regarding the question of choosing between two wrongs: in the Pyramid, Roy other options other than destroying Girard's Gate. He could have asked Tarquin and Nale to join forces to defeat Xykon. He knew that Tarquin had an army at his disposal and that he would probably enjoy taking out a usurper like Xykon, and given their knowledge of Xykon's spell list and Tarquin's tactical genius, they probably would have won. And if the battle was going poorly, Roy (or even Tarquin) could still destroy the gate and keep it out of Xykon's hands.
Isn't that a better option than destroying the next-to-last-gate without a fight?

[georgie_leech]

Regarding the question of choosing between two wrongs: in the Pyramid, Roy other options other than destroying Girard's Gate. He could have asked Tarquin and Nale to join forces to defeat Xykon. He knew that Tarquin had an army at his disposal and that he would probably enjoy taking out a usurper like Xykon, and given their knowledge of Xykon's spell list and Tarquin's tactical genius, they probably would have won. And if the battle was going poorly, Roy (or even Tarquin) could still destroy the gate and keep it out of Xykon's hands.
Isn't that a better option than destroying the next-to-last-gate without a fight?

...Tarquin (erroneously) considered Xykon a b-lister that was a distraction from the main battle between himself and Elan. The odds of him teaming up with a "sidekick" like Roy to get sidetracked into a fight with some unimportant nobody he's never heard of are nil.

[hungrycrow]

Regarding the question of choosing between two wrongs: in the Pyramid, Roy other options other than destroying Girard's Gate. He could have asked Tarquin and Nale to join forces to defeat Xykon. He knew that Tarquin had an army at his disposal and that he would probably enjoy taking out a usurper like Xykon, and given their knowledge of Xykon's spell list and Tarquin's tactical genius, they probably would have won. And if the battle was going poorly, Roy (or even Tarquin) could still destroy the gate and keep it out of Xykon's hands.
Isn't that a better option than destroying the next-to-last-gate without a fight?

Roy didn't know it when he made the decision, by Xykon was going to show up before Tarquin, preventing them from teaming up.
Roy did know that Xykon was on his way, so he could realize that Xykon might show up first.

More importantly, even if they did manage to team up with Tarquin, that would just be giving control of the gate to a different megalomaniacal dictator.

[Mike Havran]

Roy didn't know it when he made the decision, by Xykon was going to show up before Tarquin, preventing them from teaming up.
Roy did know that Xykon was on his way, so he could realize that Xykon might show up first.

More importantly, even if they did manage to team up with Tarquin, that would just be giving control of the gate to a different megalomaniacal dictator.Tarquin, however, did not have any plan on what to do with the Gate, as it was news to him. That said, it would be extremely risky to rely on Tarquin to provide assistance after they learned he had teamed up with Nale, and that his clerical buddy killed Durkon and turned him into a vampire.

[elros]

Tarquin, however, did not have any plan on what to do with the Gate, as it was news to him. That said, it would be extremely risky to rely on Tarquin to provide assistance after they learned he had teamed up with Nale, and that his clerical buddy killed Durkon and turned him into a vampire.
I agree it would be risky to ask Tarquin for assistance, but would that be more risky than Serini teaming up with OOTS and the paladins? Those destroyed the last three gates, so it makes sense that she considers them too big a risk to work with.

[hungrycrow]

I agree it would be risky to ask Tarquin for assistance, but would that be more risky than Serini teaming up with OOTS and the paladins? Those destroyed the last three gates, so it makes sense that she considers them too big a risk to work with.

Serini has a lot better control of the situation than Roy did at Girard's gate. She doesn't have to let the Order through all her defenses to work with the Order.

[KorvinStarmast]

So better to help them accomplish their goal. And then, given their track record, get them as far away from the Gate as she can, just in case :smallamused: That would be wise. :smallsmile:

[Riftwolf]

Didn't Tarquin also say he would've destroyed the Gate because Nales plan was too vague to work? (seriously Nales plan was to capture a Gate then ask Xykon for the ritual to harness the Snarl. There's so many reasons that plan wouldn't work even if it did)

[Forum Explorer]

Didn't Tarquin also say he would've destroyed the Gate because Nales plan was too vague to work? (seriously Nales plan was to capture a Gate then ask Xykon for the ritual to harness the Snarl. There's so many reasons that plan wouldn't work even if it did)

He specified he would likely destroy the Gate. That does leave room for selling it to Xykon, either for money or a favor. He did, however, have no intention of using the Gate like Xykon plans to.

[Mike Havran]

Didn't Tarquin also say he would've destroyed the Gate because Nales plan was too vague to work? (seriously Nales plan was to capture a Gate then ask Xykon for the ritual to harness the Snarl. There's so many reasons that plan wouldn't work even if it did)He said "probably (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0912.html)" and that he was planning to secure and study it, possibly with help of his spellcasting comrades. I doubt he believed Nale and his "plan" for a second; he just needed that bluff to stall Malack.

[Matt620]

I'm not sure if "moron" is the exact word I'd use to describe Serini, but I think the word is correct.

[Liquor Box]

I'd say it's missing information more than faulty logic. She doesn't know that the world is already close to being destroyed / has just barely avoided being destroyed, and that if the Order fails to persuade Redcloak / Redcloak goes forward with The Plan, it will be destroyed.


Yeah, I think a lot of people think Serini is making a poor choice because she has insufficient information.

I think she is making a poor decision based on the information she has in terms of the goals she is wanting to achieve. I was wondering whether Peelee fell into this camp, or the same one as you.

[Peelee]

Yeah, I think a lot of people think Serini is making a poor choice because she has insufficient information.

I think she is making a poor decision based on the information she has in terms of the goals she is wanting to achieve. I was wondering whether Peelee fell into this camp, or the same one as you.

The former. Based on the information she has (the Order and their allies have destroyed three gates, two of them. Intentionally while knowing exactly what they are), I would say she's making an excellent decision in stopping them from getting close to the last Gate. Based on the information we know, it's a poor decision. She needs more information.