OOTS #1177 - The Discussion Thread

[Fyraltari]

As I said elsewhere, I don't think he expected the Chaotic Thor to actually be able to do as good a job as he did of making Dwarven society rigidly honour-bound. If not for that, Hel would have been fine--possibly even better than fine. So, while he's definitely guilty of putting his daughter at unnecessary risk, that doesn't mean he doesn't actually love her and want what's best for her. (See also: Hilgya taking her own child into combat).

I didn’t say he didn’t love her. He just doesn’t love her enough to put her well-being above the funsies. And yeah he expected it to go south for her, he said that he thought that at worst she’d amp up her act in the next world. Also his holy book tells his faithful to loathe the undead. He was setting her up for failure.

[The Pilgrim]

They mentioned Hilgya, it was inevitable, if they mentioned Miko, someone whose name starts with M someone whose name included M we’d be arguing over her ages ago.

And the last thread is still detailing as we speak, I didn’t even know that could happen but they’re detailing it back onto Star Wars, we probably weren’t going to talk about it here with perfectly good Star Wars somewhere else.

Yeah I think there is also an ongoing thread derrailed into Familicide.

Poor Miko, she used to be the star.

[D.One]

Yeah I think there is also an ongoing thread derrailed into Familicide.

Being Familicide an Epic Spell, could it affect a god? If so, would it affect the other gods related to that one?

[Schroeswald]

We're derailing into levels we've never derailed before.

Yesterday we derailed threads into each other, and in the spirit of crazed derailment, how about that Miko girl? I think that she is Redcloak’s niece. Now you may think “that’s crazy, you’re crazy” but I have my reasons. See she was an orphan, perhaps by the paladins, when she was picked up by monks who transmogrified her into a human and gave her a new name. She decided that Evil must be punished for the death of her family and so was taken in by paladins, not knowing they killed her family.

[D.One]

Yesterday we derailed threads into each other, and in the spirit of crazed derailment, how about that Miko girl? I think that she is Redcloak’s niece. Now you may think “that’s crazy, you’re crazy” but I have my reasons. See she was an orphan, perhaps by the paladins, when she was picked up by monks who transmogrified her into a human and gave her a new name. She decided that Evil must be punished for the death of her family and so was taken in by paladins, not knowing they killed her family.

Redcloak's niece?! That's a pretty simple and boring assumption.

Miko is clearly Rey's twin sister, who was left in a different planet/galaxy/universe by their parents, who would go on to establish themselves in another world by the surname "Potter" and have a third child.

[mjasghar]

As I said elsewhere, I don't think he expected the Chaotic Thor to actually be able to do as good a job as he did of making Dwarven society rigidly honour-bound. If not for that, Hel would have been fine--possibly even better than fine. So, while he's definitely guilty of putting his daughter at unnecessary risk, that doesn't mean he doesn't actually love her and want what's best for her. (See also: Hilgya taking her own child into combat).

You’ve actually made a clear point against yourself
Both see their child as a possession that can be used. Their only thought considering protection is revenge against the one who harms their child, instead of actually protecting them. So their so called love is actually selfish.
Just like the ABD

[Roderick_BR]

When the trickster god opens up to his greatest rival (even if just to rub it in/vent), you know things are serious.

Interesting how he put it too, that he's not allowed to do some stuff because of his portfolio, like being fully honest about things that are bothering him. At first it sounds like some cosmic rule thing (trickster god, can't tell the truth), but then he mentions Hel simply wouldn't believe him, more because of his fame than anything, just like she wouldn't trust Thor, for considering him an enemy.

[Worldsong]

When the trickster god opens up to his greatest rival (even if just to rub it in/vent), you know things are serious.

Interesting how he put it too, that he's not allowed to do some stuff because of his portfolio, like being fully honest about things that are bothering him. At first it sounds like some cosmic rule thing (trickster god, can't tell the truth), but then he mentions Hel simply wouldn't believe him, more because of his fame than anything, just like she wouldn't trust Thor, for considering him an enemy.

It is a cosmic truth.

This is a misunderstanding of what Loki is saying.

He's not saying he can't say something because his followers would find out and be upset. He's saying that he is physically constructed from the beliefs of his followers (and the broader public), and thus because his followers believe he is incapable of honesty, he actually is incapable of honesty (except to Thor). Everything is made up of ideas, even him.

As far as Loki saying just six strips ago that he can do whatever he wants: he is incapable of honesty (except to Thor).

Loki can speak the truth, but he must always keep his true thoughts and intentions obscure (Thor being the exception). As long as the mortals believe him to be incapable of honesty he is physically incapable of honesty.

That Hel wouldn't believe him even if he did find a way to tell her about the plan is just insult added to already existing injury.

[The Pilgrim]

Being Familicide an Epic Spell, could it affect a god? If so, would it affect the other gods related to that one?

That's an interesting question. If familicide affects outsiders, and given that all outsiders fron the same type come from the same essence, would familicide kill a race of outsiders as a whole if applied to an outsider or half-outsider? Could Familicide wipe clean the elemental plain of Air if applied to Roy and Celia potential offsprings?

[Worldsong]

That's an interesting question. If familicide affects outsiders, and given that all outsiders fron the same type come from the same essence, would familicide kill a race of outsiders as a whole if applied to an outsider or half-outsider? Could Familicide wipe clean the elemental plain of Air if applied to Roy and Celia potential offsprings?

Possible although the spell seems to be based on bloodlines, so maybe being formed of the same essence wouldn't actually count and the only outsiders affected would be those who could actually be said to be related to the original target by blood.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think you mean Andy, who lost his leg. Danny just picked up a batch of shrapnel.

Yes, Andy lost his leg, but I mean Danny.

When you get to the very last scene where Mac drops Danny off at the train station, he asks him about his "flipper" and the response is that it won't be much use in throwing footballs. Danny either lost the use of his arm or he lost a part of his arm. (My take on that, since I first read it in 1970 or so, was that a part of his arm was gone hence the gallows humor of referring to it as his flipper). And no, I never saw the movie version of that book.
And then comes the fade to black as his true love runs to him ...

Home is the sailor home from the sea
And the hunter home from the hill

[Doug Lampert]

I didn't find him all that cool, and his plan was ridiculous, but I guess that's just me.

Nope, he's not cool and my thought on his plan was: "So this solves the alleged problem for what? One generation, two tops? Why not reduce fertility if the goal is to reduce population pressure, not that that will help long term, but it could work for evolutionary timescales, not just a few decades at best."

His plan was insanely silly and stupid even if you uncritically accept his definition of the problem. Given that he's obviously insane, uncritically accepting that he's correct about the problem (or even about the existence of a problem) is probably wrong. In point of fact, when our heroes have something like omnipotence, their acts are (a) undo, and (b) get rid of Thanatos.

Almost as if the good guys don't think overpopulation is a serious problem and accept neither Thanatos's definition of the problem nor his idea of a solution.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Nope, he's not cool and my thought on his plan was: "So this solves the alleged problem for what? One generation, two tops? Why not reduce fertility if the goal is to reduce population pressure, not that that will help long term, but it could work for evolutionary timescales, not just a few decades at best."

His plan was insanely silly and stupid even if you uncritically accept his definition of the problem. Given that he's obviously insane, uncritically accepting that he's correct about the problem (or even about the existence of a problem) is probably wrong. In point of fact, when our heroes have something like omnipotence, their acts are (a) undo, and (b) get rid of Thanatos.

Almost as if the good guys don't think overpopulation is a serious problem and accept neither Thanatos's definition of the problem nor his idea of a solution.

Fact: the black death brought about a significant increase in living conditions in Europe, for those that survived it, as there was a sudden wide-spread re-distribution of wealth. I have seen argued that it was also the catalyst that brought about the industrial revolution, due to the need to automate tasks that used to be handled by excessive worker supply which was now lacking/weakening the power of institutions/etc.

To the wrong kind of mind, therefore, it follows logically that causing black death-equivalent crisis will inevitably cause more jumps in living conditions.

It is of course a ridiculous conclusion, stupid once you look at what similar plagues caused elsewhere in history and how more often than not things got worse, not better (see the effects of the Antonine and Justinian plagues on the Roman/Byzantium Empire), but the logic, ridiculous, shaky and above all cruel as it is, is there.

Grey Wolf

[Schroeswald]

Nope, he's not cool and my thought on his plan was: "So this solves the alleged problem for what? One generation, two tops? Why not reduce fertility if the goal is to reduce population pressure, not that that will help long term, but it could work for evolutionary timescales, not just a few decades at best."

His plan was insanely silly and stupid even if you uncritically accept his definition of the problem. Given that he's obviously insane, uncritically accepting that he's correct about the problem (or even about the existence of a problem) is probably wrong. In point of fact, when our heroes have something like omnipotence, their acts are (a) undo, and (b) get rid of Thanatos.

Almost as if the good guys don't think overpopulation is a serious problem and accept neither Thanatos's definition of the problem nor his idea of a solution.

Yeah, I don’t understand why people would think we are supposed to think “that’s a good idea that unfortunately is impossible and would require murder”, and the weird thing is that the idea that Thanos is at all right is only proposed by people who are joking, so the critics who recognize the problems with the plan criticize the movie for correctly showing that Thanos is wrong in all ways. The only real way for the movie to do this better is if they attacked the plan on its merits, which is unnecessary in this type of movie, which is a series a action beats trying to stop a clearly Evil man from killing half of everyone, in all the best ways.

[The Pilgrim]

Fact: the black death brought about a significant increase in living conditions in Europe, for those that survived it, as there was a sudden wide-spread re-distribution of wealth. I have seen argued that it was also the catalyst that brought about the industrial revolution, due to the need to automate tasks that used to be handled by excessive worker supply which was now lacking/weakening the power of institutions/etc.

To the wrong kind of mind, therefore, it follows logically that causing black death-equivalent crisis will inevitably cause more jumps in living conditions.

It is of course a ridiculous conclusion, stupid once you look at what similar plagues caused elsewhere in history and how more often than not things got worse, not better (see the effects of the Antonine and Justinian plagues on the Roman/Byzantium Empire), but the logic, ridiculous, shaky and above all cruel as it is, is there.

Grey Wolf

Actually the Black Plague was followed by innumerable civil wars all around Europe due to the collapse of the social system. It was like living in a post-apocaliptic world full of marauding gangs led by savage warlords, only that it was actually real.

Only when things settled down did the Renaissance come. Pre-plague population levels were already recovered in 1400, so by the times of the Industrial Revolution, fall of population due to the Plague was a problem long ago forgotten.

In fact, by the time of the industrial revolution, Europe had been already exporting surplus population to the Americas for almost three centuries. Not to mention that the industrial revolution was preceded by an agrarian revolution that multiplied the yield of grain and thus provoked a population boom and a massive emigration to the urban areas. The first industries used little to no machinery, the word "Manufactured" means "made by hand", after all.

[a_flemish_guy]

What do you mean, recent? Ain’t nobody reading Jonhattan Harker. Tell people ‘‘Professor Aronax’’ and you get blank stares, but when you say ‘‘Captain Nemo’’ you get ‘‘Oh, the cool submarine dude’’.

Villains have been more popular than heroes pretty much ever since villains were allowed to be characters rather than plot devices.

I mean Paradise Lost, anyone?

It’s really not worth anybody’s time but if you must know you should google it. It would not be an appropriate subject of discussion around here.

I get what you mean but it isn't the fault of the people that they don't remember aronax

20000 leagues under the sea isn't about aronax, it's a story with a villain protagonist told from a third person limited perspective
aronax doesn't have a role in the story beyond telling us about nemo and he doesn't have a personality beyond talking about nemo in 3 different viewpoints
hell, at the end our "heroes" aren't even responsible for the destruction/dissapearance of the nautilus, except for ned (the only other character in the book beyond nemo) our trio doesn't really do anything except things that allow them to learn more about what nemo is doing

[factotum]

I didn’t say he didn’t love her. He just doesn’t love her enough to put her well-being above the funsies. And yeah he expected it to go south for her, he said that he thought that at worst she’d amp up her act in the next world. Also his holy book tells his faithful to loathe the undead. He was setting her up for failure.

Your quote contradicts what you're saying. Clearly things have gone worse for Hel than Loki ever believed they would--in no way was he expecting things to go as far south as they actually did; it never remotely crossed his mind that she might become so starved she wouldn't make the transition between one world and the next.

[a_flemish_guy]

Nope, he's not cool and my thought on his plan was: "So this solves the alleged problem for what? One generation, two tops? Why not reduce fertility if the goal is to reduce population pressure, not that that will help long term, but it could work for evolutionary timescales, not just a few decades at best."

His plan was insanely silly and stupid even if you uncritically accept his definition of the problem. Given that he's obviously insane, uncritically accepting that he's correct about the problem (or even about the existence of a problem) is probably wrong. In point of fact, when our heroes have something like omnipotence, their acts are (a) undo, and (b) get rid of Thanatos.

Almost as if the good guys don't think overpopulation is a serious problem and accept neither Thanatos's definition of the problem nor his idea of a solution.

you want to know something even more insane, halving the population of life included plant life

also the first scenes in endgame beyond the garden are really there to hamer home that "no, things aren't allright, this is a horrible thing that has happened"

[danielxcutter]

Your quote contradicts what you're saying. Clearly things have gone worse for Hel than Loki ever believed they would--in no way was he expecting things to go as far south as they actually did; it never remotely crossed his mind that she might become so starved she wouldn't make the transition between one world and the next.

Plus it's one thing to know of the possibility, and an entirely different gut punch to see it right in front of you.

[Cazero]

So, while he's definitely guilty of putting his daughter at unnecessary risk, that doesn't mean he doesn't actually love her and want what's best for her. (See also: Hilgya taking her own child into combat).

But...
If I follow that analogy to it's logical conclusion... That means...
THOR IS HEL'S FATHER?
*le gasp*

Also his holy book tells his faithful to loathe the undead. He was setting her up for failure.

Considering the Thor/tree situation, I'm not quite sure the undead/icky one is Loki's fault. We'd need more data.

[Jasdoif]

The bet itself is recounted in #1083; we don't know what the prize the winner of the bet gets, but the significant details are all in that strip.

The object of the bet is likely the souls themselves (i.e. "who can end up with more?") I imagine; it's the only thing the gods really care about, resource-wise. Had Thor not warned the dwarves about it, or had they not believed him, Hel would have gained far more power (specifically Dedication and Souls) than she would have under a normal alignment-based afterlife setup.

In the same strip, Hel specifically talks about collecting millions of souls and her winnings from the bet; in a way that makes little sense unless she'd be winning something other than the souls she's collecting.

[Kereminde]

He deliberately messed up his daughter’s food for funsies. He left ‘good parent’ territory a long time ago.
Also he doesn’t care about the world, he wants to throw it in the trash. He’s doing this for himself.

Actually I'd say he's doing it because, to paraphrase what he said to Thor: "This opportunity only is going to come once, and we can't waste it, so make it work."

All things otherwise being equal, if there was a chance to burn the world down he'd be walking in the other direction with an empty box of matches. And try to make something more interesting the next time. (Hopefully without making that stupid mask happen again.)

[Fyraltari]

Your quote contradicts what you're saying. Clearly things have gone worse for Hel than Loki ever believed they would--in no way was he expecting things to go as far south as they actually did; it never remotely crossed his mind that she might become so starved she wouldn't make the transition between one world and the next.

So what if it has gone worse than he thought? He expected to go bad. He knew this would be hurtful to Hel. It was a cruel trick that, in typical Loki fashion, had worse consequences that he expected. I didn’t think I would have to say that but good parents are never cruel to their children.

[Rogar Demonblud]

When you get to the very last scene where Mac drops Danny off at the train station, he asks him about his "flipper" and the response is that it won't be much use in throwing footballs. Danny either lost the use of his arm or he lost a part of his arm. (My take on that, since I first read it in 1970 or so, was that a part of his arm was gone hence the gallows humor of referring to it as his flipper).

Flipper is just an old slang term for a limb, generally the arm.

[georgie_leech]

I get what you mean but it isn't the fault of the people that they don't remember aronax

20000 leagues under the sea isn't about aronax, it's a story with a villain protagonist told from a third person limited perspective
aronax doesn't have a role in the story beyond telling us about nemo and he doesn't have a personality beyond talking about nemo in 3 different viewpoints
hell, at the end our "heroes" aren't even responsible for the destruction/dissapearance of the nautilus, except for ned (the only other character in the book beyond nemo) our trio doesn't really do anything except things that allow them to learn more about what nemo is doing

Hey now, be fair. Aronax also did an excellent job of exhaustingly listing the different fish he saw

[Rogar Demonblud]

That was his lab assistant. Interestingly, when the Victorians translated the book and cut a fifth of it out, they kept the lists of fish but removed conversations and characterization. Almost like they didn't know what they were doing.

[The Pilgrim]

Regarding that debate about people remembering more the antagonist than the protagonist from Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, I should mention that nobody remembers the name of any protagonist of a Jules Verne novel besides Phileas Fogg and perhaps Michael Strogoff, the latter only because it's the title of the book.

[Peelee]

Regarding that debate about people remembering more the antagonist than the protagonist from Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, I should mention that nobody remembers the name of any protagonist of a Jules Verne novel besides Phileas Fogg and perhaps Michael Strogoff, the latter only because it's the title of the book.

I don't recall the plot of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Or Journey to the Center of the Earth. Or any other Jules Verne book I've read. Which makes me think, while his ideas were awesomely ahead of his time, maybe his execution left something to be desired. Could be wrong, I dunno.

[Jasdoif]

I don't recall the plot of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Or Journey to the Center of the Earth. Or any other Jules Verne book I've read. Which makes me think, while his ideas were awesomely ahead of his time, maybe his execution left something to be desired. Could be wrong, I dunno.

If I recall from reading it once decades ago, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was more like a travelogue than a dramatic story. The overarching "plot" was a framing device, rescuing the POV character from drowning on a ship at the beginning and releasing him back home at the end (I seem to recall the last sentence of the book was him breaking the surface of the water?). The book was actually about how Nemo and company lived on the Nautilus and dealt with challenges, told from the perspective of an outsider who would need to get any explanations (hence the framing device).

[The Pilgrim]

A travelogue is actually the basic theme of practically all of Jules Verne's novels.

- Five Weeks in a Balloon:
People travel in a Balloon, Verne indulges in Scenery Porn depictions of Africa

- The Adventures of Captain Hatteras: (this one I didn't remember even though his name was on the title!)
People travel to the North Pole, Verne indulges in Scenery Porn depictions of the Artic

- Journey to the Center of the Earth:
People travel to the Center of the Earth, Verne indulges in Scenery Porn depictions of Spelunking

- From the Earth to the Moon:
People travel to the Moon, Verne indulges in Scenery Porn depictions of the Moon

- Michael Strogoff, the Courrier of the Tzar:
A guy crosses Russia, Verne indulges in Scenery Porn depictions of Siberia

- And so on...

The Begum's Fortune is perhaps his sole novel not about someone traveling to somewhere as an excuse for Verne indulging in Scenery Porn. And even then, it can be argued that The Begum's Fortune is about someone traveling to a German Industrial Nightmare Dystopia were Verne indulges in Scenery Porn.

(Yes, yes, I know, The Mysterious Island. And I give you that the protagonists of Around the World in 80 Days have characterization. That's probably why it's his most famous novel).