Did the High Priest of Hel miss a trick?

[dancrilis]

So we have confirmation (panel 7) that the priests of many of the gods who voted yes were willing to protect random vampires - and panel 2 we have confirmation that Roy is no longer a bodyguard and panel 4 (same page) that he would be considered an outside force.

So on the same logic that some clerics were able to attack the vampires and others were willing to defend the vampires - could not the High Priest of Hel have pointed out that Roy was unprotected and so get him killed by her allies?

Not-Durkon could also have pointed it out before leaving I suppose i.e "if we are not protected protected neither are you" before teleporting out.

[KorvinStarmast]

So we have confirmation (panel 7) that the priests of many of the gods who voted yes were willing to protect random vampires - and panel 2 we have confirmation that Roy is no longer a bodyguard and panel 4 (same page) that he would be considered an outside force.

So on the same logic that some clerics were able to attack the vampires and others were willing to defend the vampires - could not the High Priest of Hel have pointed out that Roy was unprotected and so get him killed by her allies?

Not-Durkon could also have pointed it out before leaving I suppose i.e "if we are not protected protected neither are you" before teleporting out.

I got the impression that she was enthusiastic, but not necessarily the sharpest knife in the drawer. So not making a tactically perfect choice is well within her error bounds.

As to Durkula himself, he had a lot of gloating and other verbal stuff to do. Running out of talkie time to tell her one more clever tactical thing ran up against being more interested in "getting the Hel out of here and up to Firmament" rather than worrying about the end result of a delaying action that had succeeded in getting him what he needed: teleport globe to Firmament.

[Precure]

If it's illegal for a bodyguard to attack a priest of another god, same rule should apply to the priests who attacked a bodyguard serving another god.

Ponytail Priestess: Be careful! We can't accidentally hit any priests or bodyguards with our magic!

EDIT: Nevermind that, it's just a plot hole.

[Jasdoif]

So on the same logic that some clerics were able to attack the vampires and others were willing to defend the vampires - could not the High Priest of Hel have pointed out that Roy was unprotected and so get him killed by her allies?

Roy said himself he was going to go after the vampires, and none of the clerics were willing to stop him. So the question is: what could de facto High Priest of Hel and/or de jure High Priestess of Hel do to change that state of affairs?

[factotum]

So on the same logic that some clerics were able to attack the vampires and others were willing to defend the vampires - could not the High Priest of Hel have pointed out that Roy was unprotected and so get him killed by her allies?

The fourth panel of the very same strip says "The covenant between the gods is explicit--an attack on any attendee by an outside force is an attack on all". Roy is technically still an attendee of the Godsmoot, so an attack on *him* by anyone would be similarly problematic for anyone who tried it.

[dancrilis]

Nevermind that, it's just a plot hole.

It isn't a plot hole for characters with a few seconds to consider something to miss it, particularly when I didn't notice it for years and from my brief review of topics no one else noticed it either.

I am not criticising The High Priest of Hel (or not-Durkon, or The Giant for that matter) merely highlighting it as a potential interesting item - where people might be able to go 'ah no, you didn't think of X'.

The fourth panel of the very same strip says "The covenant between the gods is explicit--an attack on any attendee by an outside force is an attack on all". Roy is technically still an attendee of the Godsmoot, so an attack on *him* by anyone would be similarly problematic for anyone who tried it.

Except that Roy would be the 'outside force' being referred to in that quote.

[Riftwolf]

If yes-vote priests had attacked Roy, no-vote priests would have been allowed to aid him (as we saw with the vampires, but the other way round). If Roy had fought back, it'd be illegal, but as he hadn't broken any law and was prepared to leave, the stalemate no-help no-hinder was the best he could've hoped for.

[Fyraltari]

So we have confirmation (panel 7) that the priests of many of the gods who voted yes were willing to protect random vampires - and panel 2 we have confirmation that Roy is no longer a bodyguard and panel 4 (same page) that he would be considered an outside force.

So on the same logic that some clerics were able to attack the vampires and others were willing to defend the vampires - could not the High Priest of Hel have pointed out that Roy was unprotected and so get him killed by her allies?

Not-Durkon could also have pointed it out before leaving I suppose i.e "if we are not protected protected neither are you" before teleporting out.

They don't really have a reason to attack him, though. I had the feeling they protected the vampires because the other side was attacking them so they felt they need to take action but whatever the former high priest of Hel and his former bodyguard gets up to, that's a them problem.

Another explanation would be that while the rules orders priests to destroy anybody who attacks a priest, they're not force to do so if that person is merely defending themself, and nothing stops them from healing and buffing that person, so it'd just satrt another proxy war and should they get killed by Roy, their god would be very angry at them on account of making them lose that vote.

So all in all, great risk, little rewrd: why bother?

Nevermind that, it's just a plot hole.

No, people not doing a thing isn't a plothole. People doing a thing that was established as something they can't do, that's a plot hole.

[dancrilis]

Another explanation would be that while the rules orders priests to destroy anybody who attacks a priest, they're not force to do so if that person is merely defending themself, and nothing stops them from healing and buffing that person, so it'd just satrt another proxy war and should they get killed by Roy, their god would be very angry at them on account of making them lose that vote.

I thought of this - but I don't think so, otherwise when they started to attack the vampires the vampires could have responded and attacked back ganging up on one of the attacking ones and seeking to kill them in defence.

So no I don't think Roy could have defended himself without breaking the rules if he had been attacked, I could be wrong on that of course, but that would mean that the priests who attacked the vampires risked the world and the vote also.

[Fyraltari]

I thought of this - but I don't think so, otherwise when they started to attack the vampires the vampires could have responded and attacked back ganging up on one of the attacking ones and seeking to kill them in defence.

Those vampires were all very weak, though. Going down in one or two hits each. Roy is much more resilient. As he had just proven.

[Anymage]

Remember that the rules are enforced, not by some magic effect like the rules in the dwarven hall were, but by the priests in attendance. They are allowed to use their judgment.

If Roy swung at the frontarch first, the collected clerics would most likely incinerate him on the spot because they don't want any precedent allowing someone to take a swing at a high priest without severe consequences. But if one priest takes a swing at another, foolishly robotic judgment would insist that any priests or bodyguards who took them down would be in violation too and lead to an ever widening cycle of punishing offenders and being punished in return. Good sense, whether enshrined in the law or simply an aspect of the people counted on to enforce it, means that taking a swing at someone forfeits your own protection. The frontarch would be taking an awfully big gamble that the assembled priests would only run on the most convenient interpretation for her.

[Keltest]

Once Greg surrendered his position, he wasn't protected either. Roy never attacked anybody part of the moot.

[Riftwolf]

Remember that the rules are enforced, not by some magic effect like the rules in the dwarven hall were, but by the priests in attendance. They are allowed to use their judgment.

If Roy swung at the frontarch first, the collected clerics would most likely incinerate him on the spot because they don't want any precedent allowing someone to take a swing at a high priest without severe consequences. But if one priest takes a swing at another, foolishly robotic judgment would insist that any priests or bodyguards who took them down would be in violation too and lead to an ever widening cycle of punishing offenders and being punished in return. Good sense, whether enshrined in the law or simply an aspect of the people counted on to enforce it, means that taking a swing at someone forfeits your own protection. The frontarch would be taking an awfully big gamble that the assembled priests would only run on the most convenient interpretation for her.

There might be steps between 'one priest is attacked' and 'perpetrator(s) are slain': hold magic (of various kinds) or Command being spammed by multiple high-level clerics would be enough to stop a lone assailant (as well as dispels etc if they're buffed, and priests healing the victim). Once an assailant is subdued, the Godsmoot could execute them on the spot under a preagreed protocol, rather than a fight.

That said I don't think Roy would have attacked any priest attacking him; yes-votes could've ganged up on him, but no-votes could've defended him as well. It would've ended in a stalemate fought over Roy's HP, at least until he left the moot (however, despite what some people thought during the Godsmoot arc, it seems to me the Godsmoot isn't a kill-crazy make-a-wrong-move-and-we-all-shoot-to-kill group. They prefer to stay out of the fight, and then politely ask Roy to leave afterwards.

It's possible Durkon* could've renounced Roy as his bodyguard shortly before the fight, I guess, but the fact he didn't probably means there's a rule about that.

[The Pilgrim]

So we have confirmation (panel 7) that the priests of many of the gods who voted yes were willing to protect random vampires - and panel 2 we have confirmation that Roy is no longer a bodyguard and panel 4 (same page) that he would be considered an outside force.

So on the same logic that some clerics were able to attack the vampires and others were willing to defend the vampires - could not the High Priest of Hel have pointed out that Roy was unprotected and so get him killed by her allies?

Not-Durkon could also have pointed it out before leaving I suppose i.e "if we are not protected protected neither are you" before teleporting out.

Technically, yes, the clerics could attack Roy.

However, they had no reason to attack him.

And, on the other hand, they had one very good reason to not attack him: They had just seen how Roy was capable of fighting a high level vampire cleric and force it to flee.

So, it was not safe to attack him, and they had no reason to do it anyway.

[denthor]

By the rules only the head priest of hel was protected by the bodyguard. The others were interlopers who did not belong there. Priests on the floor bodyguards in the balcony.

The fact that some helped they were the ones that voted with hel to end it all.

As the sun priest said random vampires how mad can she be at me.

Convoluted rules are just that.

[Peelee]

No, people not doing a thing isn't a plothole. People doing a thing that was established as something they can't do, that's a plot hole.

Not if it doesn't affect the plot. Then it's just an inconsistency.

[factotum]

Except that Roy would be the 'outside force' being referred to in that quote.

Only if he initiated the combat. In your scenario, it's the HPoH who starts things off.