OOTS #1195 - The Discussion Thread

[Reathin]

One more argument:
As Roy pointed out back during #999, the gods are the ones who stand to lose the less in this matter (with an exception for Hel and the Dark One maybe), si it really ought not to be their call to make.

I'm not so sure it isn't. Having more to lose doesn't really make the situation different. If the gods don't intervene to secure the souls of living beings before the Snarl unmakes them, specifically because they thought it wasn't their choice, I think most of us would be pretty outraged if that happened. "Sorry, it was your thing, we're not getting involved" doesn't feel like a call to heroic action for mortals. It sounds like they're being locked out in the cold and told to go build their own house before night falls and the wolves show up.

ThatÂ’s precisely it, I think. Maybe they used to care but after the millionth time theyÂ’ve become dulled to it. Every time they make a word they assume it will go kaboom like the others so getting emotionally invested the way Thor does is asking to be hurt the next time around.

As for the experience argument, it would hold some water if they agreed with each other but they donÂ’t.
Also their experience matters very little since this is the first time theyÂ’ve been in a situation where ending the cycle was a possibility.

Eh, their lack of agreed position isn't really my problem. Many people in the same circumstances over long periods of time can come to totally different conclusions. My argument is that having prolonged exposure increases the likelihood of having the needed information to at least make it an informed one.

Possibly, but you would agree these are not the reasons Roy and Julia (okay maybe her, we donÂ’t know) share that sentiment, right ?

Kinda, yeah. Roy's not happy that he sees the gods as giving up so easily (understandable, but I would still argue that those with the opinion that souls are too important to risk erasure have an excellent point). But he seems to be reinforcing that position with Eugene's perspective (going so far as to actually compliment it, despite his general distaste for Eugene as a person).

How so? Remember that Thor himself compares his one-essence creations to what a wizard would make (Panel 6).

Thor compares his illusions to only somewhat better wizard's illusions. I am referring to the casters, in this case. Just because two species can do something (especially something trivial) does not mean the to species are the same.

The only way they are of a different nature is in that they are made of thoughts rather than flesh which would point to giving their opinions less weight.

I agree that their influenced nature does make their position somewhat less reliable. But again, my point is that this is not a minor factor (ie. not just super wizards). It suggests that they are entities that interact with existence in a fundamentally different way (which wouldn't be surprising, seeing as they predate quite a few iterations of it. Not sure about the first instance, and if they made themselves, always existed or reality came first).

From what I'm reading, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, is that your view is less "they're not different types of beings" as much as "it doesn't matter if they're different types of beings, they are not reliable", which is slightly different from my point. I am, very specifically, arguing against the idea that they're "just" super wizards. Their reliability is a separate issue and we seem to agree that it is not unquestionable.

I donÂ’t see the issue, thatÂ’s a perfectly valid description.

Know a lot of talking carbon piles, Mr. Edward Elric?

I think this is a point of departure we won't be able to reconcile, however. Sapience is too big and fundamentally important in my view to be considered a mere add on.

IÂ’d like to know how you came to that conclusion. The gates held for sixty years and none fell by itself. If Redcloak and Xykon died, who can say how long the fifth Gate can hold the Snarl (remember that Roy does not know that the Snarl is beginning to reach through)? Long enough to repair the others? Maybe.

Correct, I have already accounted for the fact that Roy doesn't know about the currently escaping bits of the Snarl. I am more basing this on the fact that the godsmoot brought it up in front of him with no small degree of urgency. If there were a lot of spare time, they wouldn't necessarily be as rushed. And if it were JUST a matter of stopping Zykon and Redcloak before the gates are subverted, rather than reality starting to come apart at the seems, they wouldn't need to make that choice. The safer and less horrible solution would be to provide as much of their worldly support structure (clerics, that is to say) in aiding anyone trying to stop it. They might not be able to drop giant rocks on Xykon directly, due to their rules, but they can certainly muster support (their hands are more tied with the godsmoot in session, but if they hadn't called it, they can send their clerics, and by extension their supporters, with negotiation perhaps, to help).

Then again, this was brought up in comic by Belkar in the pyramid, that if the cavalry was coming it would have been there by now. From a narrative perspective, I understand that the heroes are the focus and can't have their importance undermined by NPCs doing all the heavy lifting. In universe though, I'm wondering what possible combination of factor prevents at least SOME help. The idea that their only recourse to stop the gate from being subverted is to kill the world seems almost farcical. Drown Xykon in 100 Planar Ally Solar Angels (or similar) if needed, he's not invincible (as Soon demonstrated pretty handily).

Now remember that Roy is only arguing for killing Red if that becomes necessary to save the current world. What situations would that be? Ref attempting the Ritual and Red breaking the Gate are the only ones I can think of. In which case killing Red is definitely the right course of action.

Breaking the gate, yes. It's the lesser of two evils, although it still functionally dooms both the current and future ones. Maybe they could ressurect him. Maybe. But at least you buy a little extra time.

Casting the ritual though, that can be interrupted. If they can stop him from finishing it, they might be able to subdue and then attempt negotiation. It's risky, and they'd be fighting against Redcloak's vicious Sunk Cost fallacy, but he's not completely irrational. Honestly, it might be harder to convince him than to destroy Xykon. But if they could convince him that it would give goblinkind their rightful place as more than XP fodder (and get past the whole "I killed my brother for this" issue), the fact that he could be convinced makes it key for both this world and potential later ones that it be attempted to the utmost before trying to kill him.

Also all of that will be rendered (gods)moot as the explanation of the World-Within-The-Rift will inevitably change the situation completely.

Agreed. I would be pretty shocked if the full details of the World Within didn't alter the situation enormously.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The only way they are of a different nature is in that they are made of thoughts rather than flesh which would point to giving their opinions less weight.

Fyraltari, you said we were good to agree to disagree, but if you are opening the can of worms again, then you leave me no choice. Sure, in your opinion, there is no difference, but that is not the universal view on the matter. To many people in OotS, gods are not the same as mortals, and are due consideration because of what they are.

Also, if you think that being made of ideas makes you lesser, Plato may want to have a word with you. According to him, if I managed to understand what on Earth he was going on about, ideas in their (ha!) platonic state are more real than the pale imitations of things in our world. Regardless of what you think of that in the real world, which I won't touch here, in OotS the reality is that ideas are real, and in many way more real than the things those ideas came up with. Which means that yes, to many people, their opinions hold more weight.

Grey Wolf

[bunsen_h]

There's a factor that I don't think has been brought up. This is the first time that a new god has spontaneously arisen "without any sponsorship by one the existing pantheons"; until now, the gods hadn't realized that it was even possible. Now that they do know, in any future worlds that they need to create, they could tweak things to improve the chances that it will happen again. It might take a few tries to get the necessary balance: enough nudging to have it happen, but not enough to have the effect of "sponsorship", whatever that entails. Perhaps a few non-goblinoid clerics hinting about worshipping a goblin hero, in the hearing of a few goblins who would be allowed to escape.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

There's a factor that I don't think has been brought up. This is the first time that a new god has spontaneously arisen "without any sponsorship by one the existing pantheons"; until now, the gods hadn't realized that it was even possible. Now that they do know, in any future worlds that they need to create, they could tweak things to improve the chances that it will happen again. It might take a few tries to get the necessary balance: enough nudging to have it happen, but not enough to have the effect of "sponsorship", whatever that entails. Perhaps a few non-goblinoid clerics hinting about worshipping a goblin hero, in the hearing of a few goblins who would be allowed to escape.

That is an assertion that runs counter to the canon. Thor is pretty much convinced that this is something that won't happen again, that there is no way to tap into this purple quiddity if the DO dies in the interorbis period. Either because they don't know what caused it, or because the circumstances that caused it, even if known, cannot be reproduced.

It is perfectly plausible that any attempt to nudge things in that direction will simply "infect" any prospective godling with the quiddity of the pantheon doing the nudging, for example.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

I'm not so sure it isn't. Having more to lose doesn't really make the situation different. If the gods don't intervene to secure the souls of living beings before the Snarl unmakes them, specifically because they thought it wasn't their choice, I think most of us would be pretty outraged if that happened. "Sorry, it was your thing, we're not getting involved" doesn't feel like a call to heroic action for mortals. It sounds like they're being locked out in the cold and told to go build their own house before night falls and the wolves show up.

What I meant is that they ought to ask the mortals what course of action they would prefer.

Eh, their lack of agreed position isn't really my problem. Many people in the same circumstances over long periods of time can come to totally different conclusions. My argument is that having prolonged exposure increases the likelihood of having the needed information to at least make it an informed one.

So how is Roy to decide which god to listen to then?

Kinda, yeah. Roy's not happy that he sees the gods as giving up so easily (understandable, but I would still argue that those with the opinion that souls are too important to risk erasure have an excellent point). But he seems to be reinforcing that position with Eugene's perspective (going so far as to actually compliment it, despite his general distaste for Eugene as a person).

Nope. This isn't the first time Roy has expressed this kind of sentiment. Also you've got that backwards, he is not renforcing that position through Eugene's poerspective, he says that of the many thing Eugene taught him that's one of the few ones he thinks is actually correct. He has rejected many of Eugene's belief (wizards are the best come to mind) but he is willing to admit it when he has a point (broken clock twice a day and all that).

Thor compares his illusions to only somewhat better wizard's illusions. I am referring to the casters, in this case. Just because two species can do something (especially something trivial) does not mean the to species are the same.

Answer the question, please. In what way are gods more than wizards that is relevant to the discussion?

I agree that their influenced nature does make their position somewhat less reliable. But again, my point is that this is not a minor factor (ie. not just super wizards). It suggests that they are entities that interact with existence in a fundamentally different way (which wouldn't be surprising, seeing as they predate quite a few iterations of it. Not sure about the first instance, and if they made themselves, always existed or reality came first).

From what I'm reading, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, is that your view is less "they're not different types of beings" as much as "it doesn't matter if they're different types of beings, they are not reliable", which is slightly different from my point. I am, very specifically, arguing against the idea that they're "just" super wizards. Their reliability is a separate issue and we seem to agree that it is not unquestionable.

Okay I think I see the point of contention here. What do you think the Greenhilts mean when they call the gods "alien wizards who found a way to crowdsource their magic"? Because my reading of that line is "They're just another form of life who is more powerful than the mortals but are not inherently morally better or possessing a better insight thna the other, therefore their opinion weighs the same as mortal who would be in a similar position".

Know a lot of talking carbon piles, Mr. Edward Elric?

Some of my best friends are talking carbon piles! In fact all of my best friends are. Actually everyone I ever met or will ever meet* is.

I think this is a point of departure we won't be able to reconcile, however. Sapience is too big and fundamentally important in my view to be considered a mere add on.

I thought sapience was implied by the "talking" part.

Correct, I have already accounted for the fact that Roy doesn't know about the currently escaping bits of the Snarl. I am more basing this on the fact that the godsmoot brought it up in front of him with no small degree of urgency. If there were a lot of spare time, they wouldn't necessarily be as rushed.

Rushed? They're voting!

And if it were JUST a matter of stopping Zykon and Redcloak before the gates are subverted, rather than reality starting to come apart at the seems, they wouldn't need to make that choice. The safer and less horrible solution would be to provide as much of their worldly support structure (clerics, that is to say) in aiding anyone trying to stop it. They might not be able to drop giant rocks on Xykon directly, due to their rules, but they can certainly muster support (their hands are more tied with the godsmoot in session, but if they hadn't called it, they can send their clerics, and by extension their supporters, with negotiation perhaps, to help).

Then again, this was brought up in comic by Belkar in the pyramid, that if the cavalry was coming it would have been there by now. From a narrative perspective, I understand that the heroes are the focus and can't have their importance undermined by NPCs doing all the heavy lifting. In universe though, I'm wondering what possible combination of factor prevents at least SOME help. The idea that their only recourse to stop the gate from being subverted is to kill the world seems almost farcical. Drown Xykon in 100 Planar Ally Solar Angels (or similar) if needed, he's not invincible (as Soon demonstrated pretty handily).

Not all the gods want the world keep going on. Hel, Surtur, Fenrir, Njord, Thrym and even Loki (technically) want it gone for reasons that have nothing to do with the Snarl. That's why they are voting, to know who would rather continue with that world and who would rather blow it up there and then. They don't reach out to their clerics because they've forbidden themselves from talking to mortals about the Snarl unless they already know. And they don't send solars kill Xykon because that would allow the gods who want the world to be destroy to smite them. They are voting rather than fighting it out.

Breaking the gate, yes. It's the lesser of two evils, although it still functionally dooms both the current and future ones. Maybe they could ressurect him. Maybe. But at least you buy a little extra time.

Casting the ritual though, that can be interrupted. If they can stop him from finishing it, they might be able to subdue and then attempt negotiation. It's risky, and they'd be fighting against Redcloak's vicious Sunk Cost fallacy, but he's not completely irrational.

You try subduing a borderline epic-spellcaster without killing him and then get back to me on how feasible that is, okay?

Honestly, it might be harder to convince him than to destroy Xykon. But if they could convince him that it would give goblinkind their rightful place as more than XP fodder (and get past the whole "I killed my brother for this" issue), the fact that he could be convinced makes it key for both this world and potential later ones that it be attempted to the utmost before trying to kill him.

That's what Roy is proposing, though. Try to convince Redcloak until it's become clear that the only way to save the world is to kill him. Do note that if the world explodes Redcloak dies as well.



*Barring the possibility of First Contact with a silicon-based alien intelligence, naturally.

[Peelee]

Answer the question, please. In what way are gods more than wizards that is relevant to the discussion?

Spellbook and study/prep time.

Clearly, the gods are super sorcerers!

[JumboWheat01]

Spellbook and study/prep time.

Clearly, the gods are super sorcerers!

No wonder Eugene hates them so. Bloody Sorcerers just flaunting their stuff without the proper study.

[Fyraltari]

Fyraltari, you said we were good to agree to disagree, but if you are opening the can of worms again, then you leave me no choice.

Hey, now. I agreed to disagree on the definition of apatheism and atheism and how the provability of the dvines influence them. That is not the subject under discussion.

Sure, in your opinion, there is no difference, but that is not the universal view on the matter. To many people in OotS, gods are not the same as mortals, and are due consideration because of what they are.

And if they have any rational argument for that position, I'll listen to it.

Also, if you think that being made of ideas makes you lesser

That's not what I meant. Being made of ideas makes (arguably, I have not given that much thought in all honesty) your opinions hold less weight because it's not an opinion you came to by yourself. The god of seccrets is always going to choose what keeps the fewest people in the loop, so saying "Vafthrudnir thinks that..." is only an argument if the number of people in the know is concern of yours. And the same goes for every god with regard to the domain.

[Jasdoif]

Not all the gods want the world keep going on. Hel, Surtur, Fenrir, Njord, Thrym and even Loki (technically) want it gone for reasons that have nothing to do with the Snarl. That's why they are voting, to know who would rather continue with that world and who would rather blow it up there and then. They don't reach out to their clerics because they've forbidden themselves from talking to mortals about the Snarl unless they already know. And they don't send solars kill Xykon because that would allow the gods who want the world to be destroy to smite them. They are voting rather than fighting it out.

Also, Xykon isn't even relevant to them. They care about the rifts, all but one of which are lacking a Gate surrounding them now; and in that perspective, Xykon is just a lich that was in the vicinity of each of those Gates at the time of their destruction. Eliminating Xykon doesn't resolve their concerns, particularly since Xykon hasn't even destroyed any of the Gates.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Hey, now. I agreed to disagree on the definition of apatheism and atheism and how the provability of the dvines influence them. That is not the subject under discussion.

No, it is, because in your opinion, the extra baggage that makes a god a gods and not a very powerful magician is irrelevant, but to many people it is not. Thus, you don't see a difference between "acknowledging the baggage exists, but giving them no precedence" and "refute the baggage exists at all". Which is fine, that puts you on the same boat as Roy, but it is, as I say, not a universally accepted position.

And if they have any rational argument for that position, I'll listen to it.

And again, I'm not syaing it is wrong to think that way, but you cannot extrapolate from that to a universally valid position. You want rational arguments from creatures you consider no better than mortals. To many other people, that is an irrational position of its own. Say, this theoretical OotS!Plato.

That's not what I meant. Being made of ideas makes (arguably, I have not given that much thought in all honesty) your opinions hold less weight because it's not an opinion you came to by yourself. The god of seccrets is always going to choose what keeps the fewest people in the loop, so saying "Vafthrudnir thinks that..." is only an argument if the number of people in the know is concern of yours. And the same goes for every god with regard to the domain.

You really don't want to start deciding whose ideas are valid based on how they came to them. Your ideas aren't spontaneous either. Most of them were given to you in your formative period by those who were in charge of your education. Yes, in some cases you may have rejected some of those and made your own, but be honest with yourself: how many ideas you have only given cursory consideration? And I'm not throwing rocks here: we all have to adopt external ideas. I cannot start gainsaying medical doctors over how long to wash my hands just to claim that it must be an idea I came up with by myself.

Yes, the OotS gods are shaped by belief - but it is a two way street. They shape the beliefs and understanding of mortals too. If you discard their opinions because they were influenced by the opinions of mortals, well, then you need to discard the opinions of mortals because they were influenced by the opinions of gods. Or in Roy's case, his dad's.

Grey Wolf

[Reathin]

What I meant is that they ought to ask the mortals what course of action they would prefer.

"Hey everyone, there's a nigh-unstoppable god-killing eldritch abomination in the basement that'll rip your souls into shreds if it gets out. And it will. Do you want us to save you or not?"

I'm parodying slightly, but keep in mind that a lot of people knowing about the Snarl has its own consequences. Imagine a bunch more villains figuring it out and wanting in on that action. It would cause more pain and suffering than it would solve even on the general social level.

So how is Roy to decide which god to listen to then?

At this point, I believe you think I'm making a different argument than the one I am intending (and if so, sorry for not wording my position as well as I should have. I tend to ramble and make tangents a fair bit). I am not saying that Roy should definitely agree with all of them. As you pointed out, this is not possible. I am merely curious about the ease of which he is dismissing opinions of things that have been around the block for a long, long time. He doesn't have to agree with ANY of them. It's just the aura of "they're old, big deal" that throws me off.

Nope. This isn't the first time Roy has expressed this kind of sentiment. Also you've got that backwards, he is not renforcing that position through Eugene's poerspective, he says that of the many thing Eugene taught him that's one of the few ones he thinks is actually correct. He has rejected many of Eugene's belief (wizards are the best come to mind) but he is willing to admit it when he has a point (broken clock twice a day and all that).

Let me rephrase my point, as I feel that we're arguing two different positions.

1. Eugene's position on magical matters and wizardly superiority is established and known by Roy. It's very key to him, even, since he became a fighter partially to prove they don't suck compared to wizards, an attitude heavily influenced by Eugene.
2. Eugene's position on deities is that they are super wizards that learned to crowdsource.
3. Question: with Eugene's objectivity on the matter compromised, why is Roy, who does NOT have any reason to accept Eugene's position without further support, using it himself? Especially since he's not prone to taking his father's position in general, so you can't call it a tendency to listen to one's parents.

Answer the question, please. In what way are gods more than wizards that is relevant to the discussion?

You suggested that Thor himself compared himself to wizards. I am countering that this equated the two in more than a VERY specific capacity, which is not the same. "Being able to use magic" is a shared value for wizards and gods, but it does not equate the two in a way that suggests one is just a more "evolved" form of the other. I am suggesting that, aside from other "inborn" traits such as their immortality, ability to channel and redirect souls into afterlives and such, the very fact that they CAN outsource magic (which strikes me as an overly simplified statement anyway) makes them more than just wizards. It's like people in a rowboat pointing at a vessel that can also fly into space and say "yeah, it's just a boat with some extra bits". They're fundamentally different things, even if they share SOME similarities.

Okay I think I see the point of contention here. What do you think the Greenhilts mean when they call the gods "alien wizards who found a way to crowdsource their magic"? Because my reading of that line is "They're just another form of life who is more powerful than the mortals but are not inherently morally better or possessing a better insight thna the other, therefore their opinion weighs the same as mortal who would be in a similar position".

Ah, there we go, yes, I think this might be the point of departure for us. I ALMOST agree with your assessment. My issue is with the "or possessing a better insight than the other". If you are talking to someone who has done a thing literally millions of times, if not more, than yes, I would lend more weight to their opinion. Power is not relevant to their opinion, only their experiences. Now, the OTHER factor can migitae this, such as mortal influence on their minds, but at their core, their opinions probably should be listened to more carefully by virtue of experience. That's all. Not agreed to, just more worthy of extensive consideration.

Some of my best friends are talking carbon piles! In fact all of my best friends are. Actually everyone I ever met or will ever meet* is.


I thought sapience was implied by the "talking" part.

What I'm saying is that if a pile of carbon starts talking, I think we can go ahead and say it's more than "just" a pile of carbon. It's got a fundamentally different nature than just "a pile". Similarly, that's what I mean when I say that "outsourcing magic" is more than the afterthought/extension that Eugene's opinion implies.

Rushed? They're voting!

Because they can't afford to skip the rules without risking another Snarl if they start fighting. They did say that if they voted Yes, they would destroy the world immediately. That's pretty rushed, in my view

They don't reach out to their clerics because they've forbidden themselves from talking to mortals about the Snarl unless they already know.

This is a very important part that I flat out forgot. Excellent point, that greatly bolsters my suspension of disbelief.

And they don't send solars kill Xykon because that would allow the gods who want the world to be destroy to smite them. They are voting rather than fighting it out.

Specifically, I said Planar Allied, meaning that the clerics would do it. The rules being what they are (even the evil gods don't want to risk another Snarl), cleric can be used to advance the gods' goal in the world (their job description, really). I don't believe there's anything stopping the high priests from summoning entity after entity with the Calling subschool spells and sending them to destroy our favorite lich. The point about not being able to tell them though, is a limiting factor here. Might skirt too close.

You try subduing a borderline epic-spellcaster without killing him and then get back to me on how feasible that is, okay?

I didn't mean to imply it would be easy or simple. I only mean that it would be one of the few ways to get out of this situation without the world being doomed (now and forever). I sincerely doubt they'll manage to convince him without fighting first, though. But while he's busy casting the ritual, it might actually keep him occupied enough that he can't fight back effectively. Might be the only chance, really.

That's what Roy is proposing, though. Try to convince Redcloak until it's become clear that the only way to save the world is to kill him. Do note that if the world explodes Redcloak dies as well.

He is. But he makes it sound like he's not thinking that killing Redcloak is also curtain for everyone's hopes and dreams. The wording was "The gods can find some other way to talk to the dark one once the last gate is safe", except that's too late. Without the ability to get a 17+ level cleric back in play, even IF the Dark One is onboard after the other gods make contact somehow, the situation appears to be so far along that it won't have enough time to get that one 9th level spell out.

[Fyraltari]

Xykon hasn't even destroyed any of the Gates.

You know, i keep forgetting that.

No, it is, because in your opinion, the extra baggage that makes a god a gods and not a very powerful magician is irrelevant, but to many people it is not. Thus, you don't see a difference between "acknowledging the baggage exists, but giving them no precedence" and "refute the baggage exists at all". Which is fine, that puts you on the same boat as Roy, but it is, as I say, not a universally accepted position. And again, I'm not syaing it is wrong to think that way, but you cannot extrapolate from that to a universally valid position.

I never said it was universally agreed upon.

You want rational arguments from creatures you consider no better than mortals. To many other people, that is an irrational position of its own. Say, this theoretical OotS!Plato.

Say what? It's irrational to want to hold a position based on a rational argument?

You really don't want to start deciding whose ideas are valid based on how they came to them. Your ideas aren't spontaneous either. Most of them were given to you in your formative period by those who were in charge of your education. Yes, in some cases you may have rejected some of those and made your own, but be honest with yourself: how many ideas you have only given cursory consideration?

But that's just the thing. I can change my mind. If my ideas are challenged properly, I can come to a new conclusion. The OOTS gods cannot. They are hardwired to think in terms of their sphere first and foremost, this makes every conclusion they reach biaised (which does not mean wrong, I know you are familiar with the fallacy fallacy), and therefore suspect.
[QUOTE=Grey_Wolf_c;24407279]gainsaying(/QUOTE]
Ooh, new word!

Yes, the OotS gods are shaped by belief - but it is a two way street. They shape the beliefs and understanding of mortals too. If you discard their opinions because they were influenced by the opinions of mortals, well, then you need to discard the opinions of mortals because they were influenced by the opinions of gods. Or in Roy's case, his dad's.

I'm not discarding anything. I'm just saying "the gods know better" is not a tenable position. Thor explained his motives, reasonning and plan in detail, and finding no flaw with his assessment of the situation and his desired response to it, I agree with him. But not because "Thor said so".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I never said it was universally agreed upon.

But without that clause, your whole position vanishes. If it is only in your opinion that gods are not better than mortals, then any conclusion derived from that is merely an opinion, not a rational conclusion.

Say what? It's irrational to want to hold a position based on a rational argument?

I'm saying that you cannot assert that an argument is irrational just because you don't agree with the premise that gods are fundamentally different from mortals, and therefore their opinion holds more weight. You have said that is an irrational argument, and that in itself is an opinion. If with the exact same set of premises, it is possible to arrive to the opposite conclusion based on a key change of opinion, then it is not rational.

ETA: That didn't quite come out like I meant it. I agree that the conclusion "the gods know best" is irrational. My problem is that so is "the gods should be ignored, because they are sapient ideas".

ETA2: To be clear, you said: "they are made of thoughts rather than flesh which would point to giving their opinions less weight."

That is an irrational statement, as irrational as "they are made of thoughts rather than flesh which would point to giving their opinions more weight."

In the end, different people will reach different conclusions based on the same fact. Some will trust the gods, some will reject their opinion, some will not know which way to go. None of those positions is prima facie better or more rational than any other.

But that's just the thing. I can change my mind. If my ideas are challenged properly, I can come to a new conclusion. The OOTS gods cannot.

False. Thor changed his mind about the Dark One. Thus, proving they can in fact change their minds.

I'm just saying "the gods know better" is not a tenable position. Thor explained his motives, reasonning and plan in detail, and finding no flaw with his assessment of the situation and his desired response to it, I agree with him. But not because "Thor said so".

And I refer you back to "how long should you be washing your hands for, these days". Now, it is possible that you had to get a doctor explain to you, to the point where you were convinced they were correct, the reasons and exact mechanisms by which 20 seconds is the right answer (something something lipid shell and a bunch of other mechanisms), and then presumably you set up a double blind clinical trial to make sure they were not lying to you. Me, I accepted that the gal knows better than I do about the topic, so when they said "20 seconds" I went, "well, that's going to be annoying" and did it anyway. Because they said so.

Grey Wolf

[Jaxzan Proditor]

So how is Roy to decide which god to listen to then?

Somehow this whole discussion reminds me of Euthyphro. It's tricky to know what is dear to the gods when they have their differences. Although Roy probably doesn't think that what is right is what the gods love.

[Fyraltari]

This little argument just mae me realize something: Roy's position is the eaxct mirror opposite of Redcloak's (Xykon-related familial issues notwithstanding). Red is willing to sacrifice all of the currently living goblins for the hypotheticzal greater good of the future goblins while Roy is unwilling to sacrifice all of the currently living mortals for the hypothetical greater good of the future mortals.
This thing is going to be hard.

"Hey everyone, there's a nigh-unstoppable god-killing eldritch abomination in the basement that'll rip your souls into shreds if it gets out. And it will. Do you want us to save you or not?"

I'm parodying slightly, but keep in mind that a lot of people knowing about the Snarl has its own consequences. Imagine a bunch more villains figuring it out and wanting in on that action. It would cause more pain and suffering than it would solve even on the general social level.

I disagree. The vast majority of people (including the bad guys) don't want the world to end and no mortal has anyway to control the Snarl. I'm sure there are enough high-level characters to protect the rifts against the few loons who might try to break them.

1. Eugene's position on magical matters and wizardly superiority is established and known by Roy. It's very key to him, even, since he became a fighter partially to prove they don't suck compared to wizards, an attitude heavily influenced by Eugene.
2. Eugene's position on deities is that they are super wizards that learned to crowdsource.
3. Question: with Eugene's objectivity on the matter compromised, why is Roy, who does NOT have any reason to accept Eugene's position without further support, using it himself? Especially since he's not prone to taking his father's position in general, so you can't call it a tendency to listen to one's parents.

Most likely because Roy, who is generally of the clever sort would know better than to reject a position simply because Eugene holds it and disagrees with his father on most things from personal experience and sound logic. Unless given reason to believe the gods are better at this moral stuff than mortals are (and all evidence given in comic points towards that evidence being non-existent) he would hold the position that they're not.

Ah, there we go, yes, I think this might be the point of departure for us. I ALMOST agree with your assessment. My issue is with the "or possessing a better insight than the other". If you are talking to someone who has done a thing literally millions of times, if not more, than yes, I would lend more weight to their opinion. Power is not relevant to their opinion, only their experiences. Now, the OTHER factor can migitae this, such as mortal influence on their minds, but at their core, their opinions probably should be listened to more carefully by virtue of experience. That's all. Not agreed to, just more worthy of extensive consideration.

But they have never been in this situation before! The Dark One is a completely unprecedented phenomenon!

What I'm saying is that if a pile of carbon starts talking, I think we can go ahead and say it's more than "just" a pile of carbon.

Yup. It's a talking pile of carbon. That makes a difference with your bog standard pile of carbon, I agree, but it's still a pile of carbon.

It's got a fundamentally different nature than just "a pile".

No it doesn't. And if you think it's fundamentally different from a pile of carbon why on Earth would you include "a pile of carbon" in the definition?

Because they can't afford to skip the rules without risking another Snarl if they start fighting. They did say that if they voted Yes, they would destroy the world immediately. That's pretty rushed, in my view

Look, it's been five in-comic days since they called the Moot and not a single god has expressed worry that the Snarl might escapeon its own while they are busy elsewhere. I feel like if there was a deadline Thor would probably have told Durkon.

Specifically, I said Planar Allied, meaning that the clerics would do it. The rules being what they are (even the evil gods don't want to risk another Snarl), cleric can be used to advance the gods' goal in the world (their job description, really). I don't believe there's anything stopping the high priests from summoning entity after entity with the Calling subschool spells and sending them to destroy our favorite lich. The point about not being able to tell them though, is a limiting factor here. Might skirt too close.

Definitely would. Loki could only send Hilgya because she had unrelated business with Durkon.

But without that clause, your whole position vanishes. If it is only in your opinion that gods are not better than mortals, then any conclusion derived from that is merely an opinion, not a rational conclusion.

No, I really think that "the powerful Outsiders have no moral ground to order people around/have a definite insight on right and wrong" is the null-hypothesis, there.

I'm saying that you cannot assert that an argument is irrational just because you don't agree with the premise that gods are fundamentally different from mortals, and therefore their opinion holds more weight. You have said that is an irrational argument, and that in itself is an opinion. If with the exact same set of premises, it is possible to arrive to the opposite conclusion based on a key change of opinion, then it is not rational.

Again null-hypothesis. What proof is there than a god's opinion has more weight than a mortal's?

False. Thor changed his mind about the Dark One. Thus, proving they can in fact change their minds.

With respect to their domains. Storms have nothing to do with this issue, therefore Thor can change his mind on it.

And I refer you back to "how long should you be washing your hands for, these days". Now, it is possible that you had to get a doctor explain to you, to the point where you were convinced they were correct, the reasons and exact mechanisms by which 20 seconds is the right answer (something something lipid shell and a bunch of other mechanisms). Me, I accepted that the gal knows better than I do about the topic, so when they said "20 seconds" I went, "well, that's going to be annoying" and did it anyway. Because they said so.

There's a fundamental difference on knowing something about a technical subject and a moral opinion.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No, I really think that "the powerful Outsiders have no moral ground to order people around/have a definite insight on right and wrong" is the null-hypothesis, there.

And that's your opinion. The opposite opinion "Gods are fundamentally different from and more qualified than mortals to opine on the configuration of the universe they created" is also a perfectly valid null hypothesis.

Again null-hypothesis. What proof is there than a god's opinion has more weight than a mortal's?

The same proof that an architect's opinion on the foundations of the house they designed has more weight than the current renter's.

With respect to their domains. Storms have nothing to do with this issue, therefore Thor can change his mind on it.

Since none of their domains seem to be Snarl-related, that pretty much accepts that they are all capable of changing their mind about this issue.

There's a fundamental difference on knowing something about a technical subject and a moral opinion.

"What to do about the crumbling jail holding the Snarl" is a technical subject. It has a moral component, sure, but so does washing hands, which most of us do to stop others from getting sick, rather than ourselves.

Grey Wolf

[Worldsong]

There's a factor that I don't think has been brought up. This is the first time that a new god has spontaneously arisen "without any sponsorship by one the existing pantheons"; until now, the gods hadn't realized that it was even possible. Now that they do know, in any future worlds that they need to create, they could tweak things to improve the chances that it will happen again. It might take a few tries to get the necessary balance: enough nudging to have it happen, but not enough to have the effect of "sponsorship", whatever that entails. Perhaps a few non-goblinoid clerics hinting about worshipping a goblin hero, in the hearing of a few goblins who would be allowed to escape.

That is an assertion that runs counter to the canon. Thor is pretty much convinced that this is something that won't happen again, that there is no way to tap into this purple quiddity if the DO dies in the interorbis period. Either because they don't know what caused it, or because the circumstances that caused it, even if known, cannot be reproduced.

It is perfectly plausible that any attempt to nudge things in that direction will simply "infect" any prospective godling with the quiddity of the pantheon doing the nudging, for example.

Grey Wolf

Just going to sail around the argument regarding the value of the opinion of the gods for the moment. Instead: purple quiddity

The theory I support is that the four types of nourishment a god needs (#1144) can be formed in sufficient quantities without the involvement of gods, but it's difficult because gods are almost always involved in one way or another and the moment a god can lay claim to these resources they will, either automatically or compulsively.

The only way to give rise to a new quiddity is to have a sufficient amount of mortals produce enough of all four of these things to force all of it to combine and force apotheosis on whatever it is that has provoked such large amounts of Belief, Worship, Dedication and Souls. The last two in particular are problematic since it's not just enough for a lot of people to belief in something/someone and worship it/them: you must have a large amount of people die/sacrifice themselves for that thing/person. And then their souls must be unclaimed by any other deity or supernatural entity which makes it even more difficult since it seems like members of the PC races get their souls divvied up among the existing gods whether they like it or not (or rather they go to one of the nine/seventeen/however many afterlives and anything they produce there goes straight to the related gods).

So you need a whole load of creatures who no god can lay claim to (such as the goblins) who all (or a large part of them) have an extreme level of devotion to a single thing/cause/person (such as the Dark One), and then have a significant portion of them get killed in the name of that thing/cause/person. In fact merely being unclaimed by the existing gods may not be enough: they might actually need to be fundamentally hostile to any of the existing gods to create an extra barrier that keeps any of the existing gods from getting anything from them. So you might need a very strong Rage Against The Heavens factor to be involved.

That's extremely difficult, especially since the moment an existing god tries to orchestrate this intentionally it's very likely that the entire process gets corrupted. Which means that the only way for this to work is for the gods to just hope that the stars once again align and create something like the Dark One to lead a large quantity of forsaken creatures on a rampage against the PC races and the gods. And have them actually be successful. Without actually wiping out the PC races or otherwise inflicting real damage to the gods.

[Schroeswald]

Just going to sail around the argument regarding the value of the opinion of the gods for the moment. Instead: purple quiddity

The theory I support is that the four types of nourishment a god needs (#1144) can be formed in sufficient quantities without the involvement of gods, but it's difficult because gods are almost always involved in one way or another and the moment a god can lay claim to these resources they will, either automatically or compulsively.

The only way to give rise to a new quiddity is to have a sufficient amount of mortals produce enough of all four of these things to force all of it to combine and force apotheosis on whatever it is that has provoked such large amounts of Belief, Worship, Dedication and Souls. The last two in particular are problematic since it's not just enough for a lot of people to belief in something/someone and worship it/them: you must have a large amount of people die/sacrifice themselves for that thing/person. And then their souls must be unclaimed by any other deity or supernatural entity which makes it even more difficult since it seems like members of the PC races get their souls divvied up among the existing gods whether they like it or not (or rather they go to one of the nine/seventeen/however many afterlives and anything they produce there goes straight to the related gods).

So you need a whole load of creatures who no god can lay claim to (such as the goblins) who all (or a large part of them) have an extreme level of devotion to a single thing/cause/person (such as the Dark One), and then have a significant portion of them get killed in the name of that thing/cause/person. In fact merely being unclaimed by the existing gods may not be enough: they might actually need to be fundamentally hostile to any of the existing gods to create an extra barrier that keeps any of the existing gods from getting anything from them. So you might need a very strong Rage Against The Heavens factor to be involved.

That's extremely difficult, especially since the moment an existing god tries to orchestrate this intentionally it's very likely that the entire process gets corrupted. Which means that the only way for this to work is for the gods to just hope that the stars once again align and create something like the Dark One to lead a large quantity of forsaken creatures on a rampage against the PC races and the gods. And have them actually be successful. Without actually wiping out the PC races or otherwise inflicting real damage to the gods.

And because the problems that were found in the DO still almost certainly exist you'll have to do a similar quest to the OOTS one.

[Worldsong]

And because the problems that were found in the DO still almost certainly exist you'll have to do a similar quest to the OOTS one.

True: if it's actually necessary for there to be a Rage Against The Heavens factor to keep any of the Belief, Worship, Dedication and Souls from going to the existing gods then any newly created god is going to start out with a heavily antagonistic relationship with the older gods no matter what you do.

[Jasdoif]

Since none of their domains seem to be Snarl-related, that pretty much accepts that they are all capable of changing their mind about this issue.

...huh. Now I'm wondering if a factor in the gods' general withholding of Snarl knowledge is specifically so (most) mortals won't even have a basis to form any beliefs about it.

[Fyraltari]

And that's your opinion. The opposite opinion "Gods are fundamentally different from and more qualified than mortals to opine on the configuration of the universe they created" is also a perfectly valid null hypothesis.

What’s this about configuration? We are talking about wether risking the lives of the mortals to possibly save the future worlds is the right thing to do.

The same proof that an architect's opinion on the foundations of the house they designed has more weight than the current renter's.

Same as above nobody is questioning the gods’ assessment of how the OOTS-world works.

If there’s a hostage situation taking place in a building, the opinion of the architect does not hold more weight than the renter’s.

Since none of their domains seem to be Snarl-related, that pretty much accepts that they are all capable of changing their mind about this issue.

Twice I singled out the god of secrets whose name I can’t remember the spelling of as one whose domain would interfere with his decision making regarding the Snarl, but since you didn’t catch that, I’ll reiterate: As the god of secrets he cannot do otherwise but choose the option that ends up with fewer people knowing what’s going on. The goddess of Life on the other hand has to choose the option that involves killing the fewer people. The god of war, meanwhile cannot chose the peaceful option. And so on and so forth.

"What to do about the crumbling jail holding the Snarl" is a technical subject. It has a moral component, sure, but so does washing hands, which most of us do to stop others from getting sick, rather than ourselves.

Yes but in this precise case the way to protect oneself is also the way to protect others. If there were a moral quandry as in a situation were you could keep someone from getting sick but at the cost of somebody else you wouldn’t just do what the doctor says because they’re a doctor, you would say ‘Hang on. Why would this one deserve to be healthy rather than this one? Explain yourself!’ And then you would make the call.

[RatElemental]

Regarding the "killing Redcloak ruins the plan" thing I feel I have to point out that just because the gates will crumble eventually and more rifts will eventually probably form, that doesn't mean putting new gates up wouldn't slow down the process a bit longer. Perhaps long enough for a new high priest of the dark one to emerge. This is the first world with a new quiddity, but it's also (possibly) the first one that's been getting maintenance at all after its initial creation. From mortals who didn't fully understand how to maintain it properly, but still. Even Thor's plan revolves around using the mortal-invented gate construction ritual to fix the world, just enhanced with an extra quiddity.

[Jasdoif]

Regarding the "killing Redcloak ruins the plan" thing I feel I have to point out that just because the gates will crumble eventually and more rifts will eventually probably form, that doesn't mean putting new gates up wouldn't slow down the process a bit longer. Perhaps long enough for a new high priest of the dark one to emerge.

How many of the gods are going to wait around for the sake of that possibility, though? Loki isn't.

[danielxcutter]

If the choice is “either kill Redcloak or let the Snarl rampage across the multiverse (whether by itself or due to TDO moving the Gates around)”, I think Roy’s not wrong to choose the former. Roy is saying that he will IF the situation gets that bad, though.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's extremely difficult, especially since the moment an existing god tries to orchestrate this intentionally it's very likely that the entire process gets corrupted.

Something like a quantum cat or Schroedinger's string ...

As to the differences between mortals and gods in OoTS verse: If we go back to Shojo's crayon montage on creation of the world, etc, and then Thor's follow up on that, the deities of OoTS verse came first and the general case is that the deities created all else. And they seem to have created a bit of a self licking ice cream cone in the process, with their followers feeding them various nutrients. (I am tempted to use analogy of a given farmer taking an unimproved plot of land and eventually putting enough effort into that plot to grow the crops that then sustain the farmer - parallel to deities create worlds/humanoids who then provide nutrients to deities). With this basic model in mind, we discover that, as far as confirmed deities go (not demigods), TDO is a novel exception to that rule of origin.
The ascension seems to be quite rare, and perhaps is a singularity.
(The dwarf example is in the demigod box).

I find the analogy Grey Wolf makes vis a vis the architect and the tenant to be a pretty good one insofar as weight of influence. That, and the ideas/thoughts being placed in the Astral plane - as depicted in comic - support that side of the discussion as well.
+1 for Wolf.
(While I like the nod to Plato and his cave, and the various shadows, I think that's best left for elsewhere)

[Scizor]

Just going to sail around the argument regarding the value of the opinion of the gods for the moment. Instead: purple quiddity

The theory I support is that the four types of nourishment a god needs (#1144) can be formed in sufficient quantities without the involvement of gods, but it's difficult because gods are almost always involved in one way or another and the moment a god can lay claim to these resources they will, either automatically or compulsively.

The only way to give rise to a new quiddity is to have a sufficient amount of mortals produce enough of all four of these things to force all of it to combine and force apotheosis on whatever it is that has provoked such large amounts of Belief, Worship, Dedication and Souls. The last two in particular are problematic since it's not just enough for a lot of people to belief in something/someone and worship it/them: you must have a large amount of people die/sacrifice themselves for that thing/person. And then their souls must be unclaimed by any other deity or supernatural entity which makes it even more difficult since it seems like members of the PC races get their souls divvied up among the existing gods whether they like it or not (or rather they go to one of the nine/seventeen/however many afterlives and anything they produce there goes straight to the related gods).

So you need a whole load of creatures who no god can lay claim to (such as the goblins) who all (or a large part of them) have an extreme level of devotion to a single thing/cause/person (such as the Dark One), and then have a significant portion of them get killed in the name of that thing/cause/person. In fact merely being unclaimed by the existing gods may not be enough: they might actually need to be fundamentally hostile to any of the existing gods to create an extra barrier that keeps any of the existing gods from getting anything from them. So you might need a very strong Rage Against The Heavens factor to be involved.

That's extremely difficult, especially since the moment an existing god tries to orchestrate this intentionally it's very likely that the entire process gets corrupted. Which means that the only way for this to work is for the gods to just hope that the stars once again align and create something like the Dark One to lead a large quantity of forsaken creatures on a rampage against the PC races and the gods. And have them actually be successful. Without actually wiping out the PC races or otherwise inflicting real damage to the gods.

That is a nicely coherent theory, I love it!

(The dwarf example is in the demigod box).

The first King of the dwarfs is also firmly part of the Northern pantheon.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Xykon getting destroyed and the party negotiating some sort of peace w/ Redcloak is what I've wanted all along, so it's kind of nice seeing it explicitly mentioned as The Plan. On the other hand, highlighting it now probably dooms it to not actually occurring...

Also...Roy and Julia referenced a quote from their dad that would've occurred a long time ago about the gods crowdsourcing their magic, and it made me realize that when this comic started crowdsourcing didn't exist yet, which gave me an odd sensation and also made me feel old....

[danielxcutter]

Xykon getting destroyed and the party negotiating some sort of peace w/ Redcloak is what I've wanted all along, so it's kind of nice seeing it explicitly mentioned as The Plan. On the other hand, highlighting it now probably dooms it to not actually occurring...

While Xykon and TDO are two very big reasons why Redcloak didn’t stop after Gobbtopia, I don’t think he’ll let go of the Plan that easily even without those external reasons. The guys who’ve actually read Start of Darkness should be able to explain better, but what I’ve heard myself, it sounds like it’ll need a damn good Diplomacy check...

Also...Roy and Julia referenced a quote from their dad that would've occurred a long time ago about the gods crowdsourcing their magic, and it made me realize that when this comic started crowdsourcing didn't exist yet, which gave me an odd sensation and also made me feel old....

A bit ago, I looked at some of the latest Garfield strips and saw Jon using a smartphone. Times sure have changed...

[factotum]

Xykon getting destroyed and the party negotiating some sort of peace w/ Redcloak is what I've wanted all along, so it's kind of nice seeing it explicitly mentioned as The Plan. On the other hand, highlighting it now probably dooms it to not actually occurring...

I can't help but think that Thor's comment that it wouldn't take much power--say, one ninth-level spell--for them to work with may be significant; could the gods just take the power of a ninth-level spell cast by Redcloak on one of the Order, for instance, even without his permission?

[Yirggzmb]

I can't help but think that Thor's comment that it wouldn't take much power--say, one ninth-level spell--for them to work with may be significant; could the gods just take the power of a ninth-level spell cast by Redcloak on one of the Order, for instance, even without his permission?

Tbh, I interpreted it as "it's the same power level as a ninth-level spell", but that it would still have to be a specific action.

Meta-wise, I feel like being able to just hijack a cast spell against his will would be too easy.