OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread

[georgie_leech]

The Dwarven Honor Tradition was created with the exclusive purpose to save dwarves from Hel, and by all accounts it has been extremely successful. From this premise it follows that anything dwarven tradition calls for is honorable, and everything honorable has become a dwarven tradition. I fail to see why you feel that this is not a logical conclusion from the facts.



In OotS it does, as per Rich's words. Selfish people do not take up chances to act with honor out of self-preservation. From this it stands that self-preservation is not honorable. It might not be dishonorable, but hard luck for the dwarves, "neutral honor" actions aren't good enough. They have to be honorable - and that means sacrificing yourself for others, the very definition of selflessness.

Grey Wolf

Quibble, we can't say for sure that Dwarven tradition contains everything honourable. Ongoing optimization approaches local maximums, not absolute maximums. If Dwarven Honour Tradition was was instead divinely inspired, we don't have good evidence that the Gods perfectly understand the underpinnings of their creation. The Snarl is direct evidence that the interactions of their creations can escape them, in fact. Thus, their account of honour could also exclude honourablenacts they didn't notice or understand.

But no argument that acting against Dwarven Tradition is generally Dishonorable, at least as far as Hel is concerned.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Quibble, we can't say for sure that Dwarven tradition contains everything honourable. Ongoing optimization approaches local maximums, not absolute maximums. If Dwarven Honour Tradition was was instead divinely inspired, we don't have good evidence that the Gods perfectly understand the underpinnings of their creation. The Snarl is direct evidence that the interactions of their creations can escape them, in fact. Thus, their account of honour could also exclude honourablenacts they didn't notice or understand.

But no argument that acting against Dwarven Tradition is generally Dishonorable, at least as far as Hel is concerned.

Fair enough, I can concede that there might be honorable actions that have not yet become part of the dwarven traditions. It makes sense, given that the search space is likely infinite. An evolutionary algorithm might even be in effect, too, with Thor occasionally giving feedback on what actions he was unable to defend.

GW

[Dr.Zero]

The Dwarven Honor Tradition was created with the exclusive purpose to save dwarves from Hel, and by all accounts it has been extremely successful. From this premise it follows that anything dwarven tradition calls for is honorable, and everything honorable has become a dwarven tradition. I fail to see why you feel that this is not a logical conclusion from the facts.

Again, I have to insist: you're mixing things and definitions, making a huge, entangled mess.
The tradition to save dwarfs from Hel has been shown to us: it is mostly them picking a fight with a tree when they are sick.
The other traditions, like respecting the marital vows (even if extorted) are something related to Durkon and the dwarfs being lawful (stupid lawful, for Durkon, being at it), and probably related to the fact that Thor managed to become, for some reason, the prevalent God in dwarven culture (and maybe the fact that lawful good afterlife seems indeed nicer and more appealing than everyone else).

But we are repeating ourselves, so let's try to be rational and bring evidences:

Evidence 1:
Malack: Does not your own pantheon have a goddess of Death? Hel, I think?
Durkon: Well, sorta, but nobody worships 'er, much less serves as 'er priest! She's keeper o' tha dishonored dwarven dead - those tha dinnae fall in battle, 'specially those dyin' o' sickness.
(panel 10)

The bold is mine.
I mean, could have he been clearer than that?
This alone should stop every single discussion on the subject: you need to fall in battle to save yourself from Hel. You don't fall in battle, you go to Hel.
Clear and simple. From one of the highest level Thor's cleric around.
Then from what I understood, Rich has clarified that "being killed because you're a honest politic for a political conspiracy" and similar conditions count as falling in battle.
Fine, it changes nothing in regard of what we are discussing (I still find odd that he felt the need to save politics and not doctors, children and housewives killed by fire, by sickness or by falling rocks, but this is his own stance, so let it be)

But let's move on
Evidence 2: same page, panel 11
Malack: Wait. Do not dwarven souls rest on the Outer Plane that matches their alignment, asi it is with my people, or the humans?
Durkon: Only those, tha die wit honor. Tha rest be lumped tagether an' sent ta Hel. Tha's OK, tho, since most sick dwarves'll just pick a fight wit a conifer an' die in battle. Also, thar be some grey areas.


Again, on a question about the alignement, Durkon replies that only the ones dying with honor go to their matching alingment. He makes no distinction about them being evil, chaotic, good or lawful.
And we were explained just a panel before this one what "die with honor" means: to fall in battle.

Evidence 3: The whole bulk of Hel's plan, which all the Gods seem to agree would work:
Hel: Gentle colleagues. The esteemed Heimdall is absolutely correct in his reasoning. If we obliterate the world by our own divine hands rather than allow the Snarl to consume it, the souls of the mortals who die will indeed safely retire to their rightful afterlife. Though I fear that, in our haste to protect ourselves, it has been forgotten that there would be no honor in such a death—and thus, per our understanding, the soul of every dwarf on this planet will rightfully belong to me. So by all means, parcel out the spirits of the humans and other races amongst the seventeen of you while I welcome ten million dwarves or more.


As I stated again and again, if following tradition in itself was of any use, this plan would not work, since everyone lawful enough (probably the majority of dwarven population, if the majority follows Thor) would be safe.

A countepoint was made about this: "Maybe it counts as being smote, and this breaks honor", and it has a vague sense, if not for the fact that we know we don't need this special rule: Evidence 1 explained clearly that, to be safe from Hel, you must fall in battle and since being unmade by the gods is not falling in battle, we don't need any other explanation.

Evidence 4, finally, adds up to Evidence 2, explaining that Thor gained no special role respect to the other Gods, since he keeps the normal deal. Aside, of course, the fact that maybe he is one of the most prominent gods in dwarven culture (and I suppose the fact that he told dwarfs how to save themselves from Hel helped)

Now, against these evidences, I say absolutely nothing.
Not a strip, a panel, a reference.

In OotS it does, as per Rich's words. Selfish people do not take up chances to act with honor out of self-preservation. From this it stands that self-preservation is not honorable. It might not be dishonorable, but hard luck for the dwarves, "neutral honor" actions aren't good enough. They have to be honorable - and that means sacrificing yourself for others, the very definition of selflessness.

I even read the commentary from the author posted by Jasdoif and referred by Kish a bit above (going against my own tradition of sticking to the death of the author, when discussing the logic development of a fictional universe), if that is the one you're talking about, and it sums up in: "Dwarven culture teaches to dwarfs to be always brave, to the point to be bold, and selfless, because in this way they have bigger chance to fall in battle or doing something heroic instead of dying of old age."

Fine. Who does contest this? What has it to do with respecting dwarven traditions in their entirety? What has it to do with the damn (and extorted) marital vows which Hylgia refuses to respect?

No idea.
So, please, if you have any in-universe evidence supporting your point, could you make the same job I did (and maybe explaining why Durkon, of all people, should not know how things work)?

PS: I thank the people of The Transcription of the Stick who avoided me the hassle to write down the dialogues by hand.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Again, I have to insist: you're mixing things and definitions, making a huge, entangled mess.
The tradition to save dwarfs from Hel has been shown to us: it is mostly them picking a fight with a tree when they are sick.

"Mostly" does not mean "always".

Would getting assassinated count as dying with honor? Durkon said "dinnae fall in battle" and "die with honor". I see two obvious interpretations to this.

#1: Dying in battle is the only way to die with honor.
#2: There are several ways of dying with honor, with dying in battle being the most common.

Yes, #2.

Fine. Who does contest this? What has it to do with respecting dwarven traditions in their entirety? What has it to do with the damn (and extorted) marital vows which Hylgia refuses to respect?

Again, one step at a time:
1) Dwarven traditions were created by Thor to help dwarves avoid Hel by establishing what Thor considers honorable
2) Dwarven tradition says that you do not have sex with a married woman

Therefore, Durkon and Hilgya were behaving dishonorably

3) The consequence of dying while not behaving honorably is Hel

Therefore, Hilgya and Durkon were both risking ending in Hel if they were killed in a circumstance related to their affair.

(and maybe explaining why Durkon, of all people, should not know how things work)?

Durkon has barely any ranks in Religion. He knows how to act like a dwarf by virtue of being a dwarf, but does not have the deep theological knowledge of how things work.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

3) The consequence of dying while not behaving honorably is Hel

This is incorrect. The consequence of dying dishonorably is Hel. While the probability of dying dishonorably goes up if you act dishonorably, dying honorably while not otherwise actively being honorable still gets you sent to your alignment afterlife.

[Dr.Zero]

"Mostly" does not mean "always".



Again, one step at a time:
1) Dwarven traditions were created by Thor to help dwarves avoid Hel by establishing what Thor considers honorable
2) Dwarven tradition says that you do not have sex with a married woman

Therefore, Durkon and Hilgya were behaving dishonorably

3) The consequence of dying while not behaving honorably is Hel

Therefore, Hilgya and Durkon were both risking ending in Hel if they were killed in a circumstance related to their affair.


Durkon has barely any ranks in Religion. He knows how to act like a dwarf by virtue of being a dwarf, but does not have the deep theological knowledge of how things work.

Grey Wolf

You clearly have not read the evidences I posted.
I invite you to do so.

Specifically, whetever if Durkon had sex with Hilgya or not, he would go to Hel if he died of sickness (let's say, a heart attack, if not happening during a battle).
Specifically, whetever if Durkon had sex with Hilgya or not, he would be safe if he died in battle.

Specifically, the same stands for Hilgya.

Specifically, the fact that I already dealt with the "you can be assasinated, but if that is related to a "battle" in a metaphorical sense you were fighting, then you are safe"-commentary.

Specifically, the fact that being a dwarven tradition and even being lawful has to do with Thor being lawful and therefore teaching them the lawful ways to avoid Hel, and not, for example, the chaotic-ruthless ways.

Specifically that, even if Durkon was the most ignorant cleric ever, ignoring what the whole dwarven society knows and what are the basis of their everyday life (and I find this concept in itself laughably) he believes that things work in that way, therefore, even if they had worked in the way you describe, he would have had no way to know that, and no reason to think his soul was put in danger.

Basically, specifically everything.

And I invite you again to bring some reference, as evidence, at least as a base for a discussion and to make inferences that otherwise are coming out from nowhere and are completely contradictory, as the one above about Durkon.

Edit: I stand corrected about Thor. I cannot be sure he is lawful in OOTS, since from what I remember, usually he is chaotic in D&D.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

<snip>

I courteously direct you to the forum rules.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

[Nomen]

In OotS it does, as per Rich's words. Selfish people do not take up chances to act with honor out of self-preservation. From this it stands that self-preservation is not honorable. It might not be dishonorable, but hard luck for the dwarves, "neutral honor" actions aren't good enough. They have to be honorable - and that means sacrificing yourself for others, the very definition of selflessness.

Grey Wolf

Dwarven honor does not only mean sacrificing yourself for others, otherwise picking a fight to avoid Hel would be questionable at best since your only doing it to avoid Hel or dishonorable at worst since you could either be picking a counterproductive fight like someone who would usually question whether the tree was good or evil first(, or actually getting in your party's way for selfish reasons.
Risking or sacrificing yourself for others is an honorable act, so is telling the truth, so is holding to your beliefs instead of giving into peer pressure, so is refusing to let those bandits stop you from making your trade route.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Dwarven honor does not only mean sacrificing yourself for others, otherwise picking a fight to avoid Hel would be questionable at best since your only doing it to avoid Hel or dishonorable at worst since you could either be picking a counterproductive fight like someone who would usually question whether the tree was good or evil first(, or actually getting in your party's way for selfish reasons.
Risking or sacrificing yourself for others is an honorable act, so is telling the truth, so is holding to your beliefs instead of giving into peer pressure, so is refusing to let those bandits stop you from making your trade route.

I didn't mean to imply it was the ONLY way to be honorable; sorry if I gave that impression. On re-reading my post I can see why that might feel it was the case, but that is only because I was addressing a very specific claim that selflessness didn't have anything to do with honor ("Being selfish or selfless has nothing to do with honor by itself.").

I agree there are many ways being shown to behave in honorable fashion, some of which are unconnected to selfishness and selflessness.

GW

[Jasdoif]

The Dwarven Honor Tradition was created with the exclusive purpose to save dwarves from Hel, and by all accounts it has been extremely successful. From this premise it follows that anything dwarven tradition calls for is honorable, and everything honorable has become a dwarven tradition. I fail to see why you feel that this is not a logical conclusion from the facts.

...okay, I think you're stretching a bit there. For "anything dwarven tradition calls for is honorable" to be workable...you'd have to show that "Dwarven Honor Tradition" is the entirety of "dwarven tradition" (not just a subset), or that the entirety of everything not honorable is inherently dishonorable (or more specifically, that honor-neutral activities cannot exist).

[Fyraltari]

or that the entirety of everything not honorable is inherently dishonorable (or more specifically, that honor-neutral activities cannot exist).

That is irrelevant. The default is Hel, with an exception for honorable deaths. If your death is honor-neutral, to Hel you go.

[Keltest]

...okay, I think you're stretching a bit there. For "anything dwarven tradition calls for is honorable" to be workable...you'd have to show that "Dwarven Honor Tradition" is the entirety of "dwarven tradition" (not just a subset), or that the entirety of everything not honorable is inherently dishonorable (or more specifically, that honor-neutral activities cannot exist).

For the purposes of going to Hel, only explicit honor gets you out of it, so while honor neutral may exist in theory, in practice it can be understood to be lumped in with outright dishonorable deaths.

Other than that, I agree.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

...okay, I think you're stretching a bit there. For "anything dwarven tradition calls for is honorable" to be workable...you'd have to show that "Dwarven Honor Tradition" is the entirety of "dwarven tradition" (not just a subset), or that the entirety of everything not honorable is inherently dishonorable (or more specifically, that honor-neutral activities cannot exist).

Honor neutral activities may exist, but they still land you in Hel. The honorable clause is an exception - after all the wager specifies that all dwarven souls go to Hel, full stop... with a small exception for honorable deaths. Yes, we have been treating honor as a duality, but if it is not, then honor-neutral deaths still land you in Hel, and thus might as well be lumped in with the dishonorable ones for the purpose of this conversation.

If the Dwarven Honor Tradition might be a subset of dwarven traditions, implying that there are some traditions that are non-honorable and thus a dwarf who died while following the requirements of said traditions could still land in Hel. In principle I could see that being the case, I suppose, but then it gets a bit self referential, because I suspect - but can't prove - that following dwarven traditions is, in itself, a honorable action. It certainly is plenty of other honor-driven societies, although of course drawing parallels to other societies is imperfect because they tend to be honorable-for-honor's-sake, which we now know does not apply here, this being a case closer to Pascal's Wager.

Grey Wolf

[Dr.Zero]

I courteously direct you to the forum rules.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

Ok, I see the rule, and I excuse myself for breaking it and if I came out as rude.

Nonetheless, at the n-th post about "all the traditions must be respected to be safe from Hel" given as a fact without any reference, proof, or anything about it, I wished to bang my head against the monitor.

Which is bad for my head and for my monitor.

[Jasdoif]

For the purposes of going to Hel, only explicit honor gets you out of it, so while honor neutral may exist in theory, in practice it can be understood to be lumped in with outright dishonorable deaths.

Is wearing a helm honorable, and able to get you out of going to Hel if you die while doing it? If not, is it dishonorable to wear a helm?

Once it's been boiled down to a single state, "honor neutral" is right there with "dishonorable", sure. But the existence of grey areas, and that dwarven traditions appear to include things not directly related to death, suggests to me that an "honor neutral" concept would have a lot of influence on arriving at that single state.

[Keltest]

Honor neutral activities may exist, but they still land you in Hel. The honorable clause is an exception - after all the wager specifies that all dwarven souls go to Hel, full stop... with a small exception for honorable deaths. Yes, we have been treating honor as a duality, but if it is not, then honor-neutral deaths still land you in Hel, and thus might as well be lumped in with the dishonorable ones for the purpose of this conversation.

If the Dwarven Honor Tradition might be a subset of dwarven traditions, implying that there are some traditions that are non-honorable and thus a dwarf who died while following the requirements of said traditions could still land in Hel. In principle I could see that being the case, I suppose, but then it gets a bit self referential, because I suspect - but can't prove - that following dwarven traditions is, in itself, a honorable action. It certainly is plenty of other honor-driven societies, although of course drawing parallels to other societies is imperfect because they tend to be honorable-for-honor's-sake, which we now know does not apply here, this being a case closer to Pascal's Wager.

Grey Wolf

That's a pretty ridiculous claim. Is a dwarven tradition to always eat noodles on sunday going to land somebody in Hel because it isn't explicitly honorable, or is it more likely to not have any effect on the honor of a dwarf's death either way?

Is wearing a helm honorable, and able to get you out of going to Hel if you die while doing it? If not, is it dishonorable to wear a helm?

Once it's been boiled down to a single state, "honor neutral" is right there with "dishonorable", sure. But the existence of grey areas, and that dwarven traditions appear to include things not directly related to death, suggests to me that an "honor neutral" concept would have a lot of influence on arriving at that single state.

I'm aware, hence why I lead my post with "for the purposes of going to Hel." Hel does not care if your death was honor neutral (although really, I'm struggling to imagine some way to kill yourself via the act of putting on or wearing a helm that wouldn't count as dishonorable), only if it was honorable. I'm sure the dwarves have several traditions that have no effect on their honor whatsoever, but by that same virtue theyre also unable to affect whether one goes to Hel.

[Fyraltari]

It certainly is plenty of other honor-driven societies, although of course drawing parallels to other societies is imperfect because they tend to be honorable-for-honor's-sake, which we now know does not apply here, this being a case closer to Pascal's Wager.

Grey Wolf

Name one honor-driven society where behaving honorably wasn't supposed to land you in the good afterlife.

The difference here is that the manner of the death is the only factor.

[The MunchKING]

(although really, I'm struggling to imagine some way to kill yourself via the act of putting on or wearing a helm that wouldn't count as dishonorable),

I can think of a few that might be honorable, especially if you are playing an old school game where it’s not even a mimic, it’s one of a dozen other monsters that look like a helmet just so you’ll put it on your head.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Name one honor-driven society where behaving honorably wasn't supposed to land you in the good afterlife.

British upper class society, c. 1850. Their honor rules were not predicated on the local religion, but on something that, while it encompassed the predominant state religion, went well beyond it.

(I may have been watching too much The Crown for my own good. Man those people have weird codes of conduct)

Now, you name a honor-driven society where they knew for a fact that lack of honor landed you in torture (not "believed", not "their religion told them", but verifiably so)

Also, not sure what this exercise is supposed to prove. That I was wrong and we can draw parallels between different honor-bound societies?

GW

[Manty5]

I think there are actually two axis of discussion:

1. Living honorably vs. Dying honorably: Whether you go to Hel depends on the latter ONLY, which afterlife you get other than Hel's domain depends on how you lived.

2. Dying honorably vs Dying heroically: I feel there may be some daylight between the two concepts that we don't have enough information to explore. Obviously, dying heroically is also dying honorably, but so far I feel this discussion only concentrates on heroic deaths... with some Lawful Stupid exceptions like fighting trees.

[Fyraltari]

British upper class society, c. 1850. Their honor rules were not predicated on the local religion, but on something that, while it encompassed the predominant state religion, went well beyond it.

(I may have been watching too much The Crown for my own good. Man those people have weird codes of conduct)

Huh. Good call. Is that a TV show? I've never heard of it?

Also, not sure what this exercise is supposed to prove. That I was wrong and we can draw parallels between different honor-bound societies?

GW

Me neither, I tend to be contradictory for no real reason. It's one of the... less pleasant sides of my personnality.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think there are actually two axis of discussion:

1. Living honorably vs. Dying honorably: Whether you go to Hel depends on the latter ONLY, which afterlife you get other than Hel's domain depends on how you lived.

Nitpick Clarification: if you survive Hel's gauntlet, honor ceases to matter, and we're back to "standard" alignment check.

Huh. Good call. Is that a TV show? I've never heard of it?

Netflix series about Queen Elizabeth II's life. A lot of the drama is that the Royal Family of England was still behaving in the manner set up by Queen Victoria... even though the rest of society had moved on from there. It is, by all accounts, quite accurate in its portrayal of British Royal life, and it is like seeing a period drama weirdly set in post-WW2 England. The dissonance is quite something.

Me neither, I tend to be contradictory for no real reason. It's one of the... less pleasant sides of my personnality.

Fair enough, we may be peas of a pod.

GW

[Nomen]

I didn't mean to imply it was the ONLY way to be honorable; sorry if I gave that impression. On re-reading my post I can see why that might feel it was the case, but that is only because I was addressing a very specific claim that selflessness didn't have anything to do with honor ("Being selfish or selfless has nothing to do with honor by itself.").

I agree there are many ways being shown to behave in honorable fashion, some of which are unconnected to selfishness and selflessness.

GW

Thanks for the clarification. Most people consider acting selflessly honorable, and I think that if your death is directly the result of selflessly risking your life it will count as an honorable. In this universe I get the impression unless someone does of something other than sickness either in battle of the non bullying variety or as the direct result of doing something completely heroic and selfless Hel will most likely at least try to claim them, and unless they die either of sickness contracted while not doing anything battle or helping others related, or in a not battle worst way to die event Thor will at least try to claim them. And who gets who ultimately comes down to weird precedents they set or whether Thor wears Hel down to agreeing honor has no limits or Hel wears down Thor to agreeing that sickness is sickness.

[Keltest]

I can think of a few that might be honorable, especially if you are playing an old school game where it’s not even a mimic, it’s one of a dozen other monsters that look like a helmet just so you’ll put it on your head.

I considered those, and decided they didn't count since it isn't actually a helmet youre putting your head in.

[Fyraltari]

Fair enough, we may be peas of a pod.

GW

Okay, my knowledge of english idioms actually fails me this time. What does this mean ?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Okay, my knowledge of english idioms actually fails me this time. What does this mean ?

That we are more alike than we are different. Effectively saying "oh, yeah, I do that too".

GW

[Fyraltari]

That we are more alike than we are different. Effectively saying "oh, yeah, I do that too".

GW

Oh. Accepted as a compliment.
Over here we say "comme deux goutes d'eau" "as two drops of water".

[Manty5]

You know, re-reading the last 50 pages or so, maybe Eugene Greenhilt's advice was the solution we're looking for.

Not the entire dwarven race charging dragons... but enough of them charging Kraagor's tomb after the Godsmoot arc is complete.

With every dwarf that dies fighting at Kraagor's tomb, the faster the tomb is cleared... and Hel's potential bounty drops.

Drop the living dwarven population enough so that she won't be the queen of the northern pantheon, and she might even be flipped to the other side... so that she can start anew when there are enough reborn dwarves to end the world with a net gain.

[Keltest]

You know, re-reading the last 50 pages or so, maybe Eugene Greenhilt's advice was the solution we're looking for.

Not the entire dwarven race charging dragons... but enough of them charging Kraagor's tomb after the Godsmoot arc is complete.

With every dwarf that dies fighting at Kraagor's tomb, the faster the tomb is cleared... and Hel's potential bounty drops.

Drop the living dwarven population enough so that she won't be the queen of the northern pantheon, and she might even be flipped to the other side... so that she can start anew when there are enough reborn dwarves to end the world with a net gain.

I'm sorry, what problem is that meant to solve exactly, and how is it a solution?

[Fyraltari]

You know, re-reading the last 50 pages or so, maybe Eugene Greenhilt's advice was the solution we're looking for.

Not the entire dwarven race charging dragons... but enough of them charging Kraagor's tomb after the Godsmoot arc is complete.

With every dwarf that dies fighting at Kraagor's tomb, the faster the tomb is cleared... and Hel's potential bounty drops.

Drop the living dwarven population enough so that she won't be the queen of the northern pantheon, and she might even be flipped to the other side... so that she can start anew when there are enough reborn dwarves to end the world with a net gain.

Wouldn't that just give Xykon a lot of bearded zombies to clear the area for him ?