Place your bets: Who will destroy the last gate?

[Peelee]

Loki's point is that the gods can destroy the world without a fuss if they agree to do so at the Godsmoot.

I don't think that was ever in question, so it seems like an odd point to make if that's how it's meant.

[Goblin_Priest]

It sounded to me like there was always a "snarl clause", where the gods may need a majority vote to undo the world while there remains gates to keep the Snarl in check, but should they all fail, then it's time to immediately undo the world.

[Metastachydium]

I'd say that if clause very clearly implies that there is no such thing as a pre-approved Armageddon Special.
The wording may suggest that the gods can table the current majority vote, but that doesn't mean that an absolute consensus will immediately form, especially since unleashing Armageddon Special takes three pantheons.

[The Pilgrim]

I really don't see all the Gods agreeing to destroying the world instead of letting it get unmade by the Snarl. Specially after Hel announced her plans about using the dwarven souls and winnings from the bet to become Queen of the Northern Pantheon (Hel gets absolutely nothing if the Snarl unmakes the World).

Not to mention that I'm not entirely sure the Gods could muster the courage to set foot on the Prime when the Snarl is about to break out of it's prison and go on a rampage.

Thor mentioned that, of the past worlds, some they cashed in before the Snarl destroyed them, others they did not (#1140). So, destroying the world before the Snarl gets released is not a guaranteed possibility for them.

[Ron Miel]

Who will destroy the last gate

I don't know and I don't give a damn.

[KorvinStarmast]

[B] I don't know and I don't give a damn.

Country Joe, I've got your fish right here.

(not sure how many folks will get the ref ... it may not have aged well)

[Goblin_Priest]

I really don't see all the Gods agreeing to destroying the world instead of letting it get unmade by the Snarl. Specially after Hel announced her plans about using the dwarven souls and winnings from the bet to become Queen of the Northern Pantheon (Hel gets absolutely nothing if the Snarl unmakes the World).

Not to mention that I'm not entirely sure the Gods could muster the courage to set foot on the Prime when the Snarl is about to break out of it's prison and go on a rampage.

Thor mentioned that, of the past worlds, some they cashed in before the Snarl destroyed them, others they did not (#1140). So, destroying the world before the Snarl gets released is not a guaranteed possibility for them.

Hel would only reign supreme for one pantheon, one world, but everyone would still get a great buffet to keep on going.

If the Snarl undoes the world, that's like everyone going into winter with empty granaries, just for the sake of the Lord not going in with more than everyone else. That's just suicidal. Plus the snarl may off a few gods in the process, and Hel's power would be mostly limited to just one of billions of iterations of the world.

A Snarl clause seems very plausible to me.

[InvisibleBison]

I don't think that was ever in question, so it seems like an odd point to make if that's how it's meant.

Loki was making that point in order to convince the gods that destroying the world immediately would be premature.

[Metastachydium]

Hel would only reign supreme for one pantheon, one world, but everyone would still get a great buffet to keep on going.

If the Snarl undoes the world, that's like everyone going into winter with empty granaries, just for the sake of the Lord not going in with more than everyone else. That's just suicidal. Plus the snarl may off a few gods in the process, and Hel's power would be mostly limited to just one of billions of iterations of the world.

The gods have lost many worlds to the Snarl before (as per Thor), including the very first one. We know of a grand total of two gods who might not make it through the transition period: Big Purple and Hel. The rest would almost certainly be fine.

A Snarl clause seems very plausible to me.

We have possible evidence in the text against this idea (Loki's „if we all agree”), and no evidence for it.

[The Pilgrim]

Hel would only reign supreme for one pantheon, one world, but everyone would still get a great buffet to keep on going.

If the Snarl undoes the world, that's like everyone going into winter with empty granaries, just for the sake of the Lord not going in with more than everyone else. That's just suicidal. Plus the snarl may off a few gods in the process, and Hel's power would be mostly limited to just one of billions of iterations of the world.

A Snarl clause seems very plausible to me.

The Gods have went under that "going into winter with empty granaries" scenarios a lot of times, though. And survived.

On the other hand, they only need a few Gods objecting to destroy the World for all the Gods to do nothing out of fear of creating a second Snarl. As far as we know, the only means the Gods have to take a "safe" decission is the Godsmoot. And the current one has been stalled indefinitely with no decision taken.

Loki mentioning that they still have a few minutes to destroy the world after the last gate is blown, *if* they agree to *that* course of action, seems to imply that no auto-destroy-the-world clause exists.

[Ionathus]

Hel would only reign supreme for one pantheon, one world, but everyone would still get a great buffet to keep on going.

Who's to say Hel would only rule the pantheon in the next single world? She says she'd be "Queen of the Northern Pantheon" and nobody seems to refute that. It's not a single-term election, it's a coup. And once she's on top, it'll be easier to stay on top.

[Peelee]

Loki was making that point in order to convince the gods that destroying the world immediately would be premature.

Yes, but you yourself said "if they agree to do so at the Godsmoot." Agreeing to do so at the godsmoot means it goes immediately, so that's a remarkably poor argument to make for someone who doesn't want it to go immediately.

"Even if we all agree on pizza today, we can still have pizza tomorrow, so vote spaghetti!" Well, if we all agree on pizza today, then it's pizza today. For the Spaghetti argument to make any sense at all, that's clearly not what must be meant.

[InvisibleBison]

Yes, but you yourself said "if they agree to do so at the Godsmoot." Agreeing to do so at the godsmoot means it goes immediately, so that's a remarkably poor argument to make for someone who doesn't want it to go immediately.

"Even if we all agree on pizza today, we can still have pizza tomorrow, so vote spaghetti!" Well, if we all agree on pizza today, then it's pizza today. For the Spaghetti argument to make any sense at all, that's clearly not what must be meant.

The "if they agree to do so at the Godsmoot" that I mentioned wasn't in reference to the vote that actually happened at the Godsmoot. It was in reference to Loki's alternative proposal, that the gods wait and only destroy the world if the last Gate would be destroyed.

To appropriate your metaphor, Loki's argument is "We don't need to eat pizza, we can eat spaghetti instead if we all agree to."

[Peelee]

The "if they agree to do so at the Godsmoot" that I mentioned wasn't in reference to the vote that actually happened at the Godsmoot. It was in reference to Loki's alternative proposal, that the gods wait and only destroy the world if the last Gate would be destroyed.

To appropriate your metaphor, Loki's argument is "We don't need to eat pizza, we can eat spaghetti instead if we all agree to."

That seems at odds with this:

Loki's point is that the gods can destroy the world without a fuss if they agree to do so at the Godsmoot.

You first said Loki's point is that the gods can destroy the world without a fuss if they agree to do so at the godsmoot. You then said Loki's argument was "we don't need to destroy the world, we can not do that instead if we all agree to". You're having Loki say they're agreeing to completely opposite things.

[InvisibleBison]

That seems at odds with this:

You first said Loki's point is that the gods can destroy the world without a fuss if they agree to do so at the godsmoot. You then said Loki's argument was "we don't need to destroy the world, we can not do that instead if we all agree to". You're having Loki say they're agreeing to completely opposite things.

In the first post that you quoted, I was attempting to explain Loki's alternative solution to the issue of all but one of the gates having been destroyed, which was to wait and only destroy the world if the last gate were to be destroyed as well. Loki's argument is "We don't need to destroy the world now, we should agree to do so later if it's necessary."

In the second post that you quoted, I was arguing that the gods cannot destroy the world without having previously agreed to do so at a Godsmoot, and Loki's speech at the Godsmoot implies there is no standing agreement to destroy the world if all the gates are destroyed, so if the last gate is destroyed the gods will not be able to destroy the world (able politically, that is).

[The Pilgrim]

Loki's exact words are:

"Look, if that last rift is opened, there will still be, like, ten to fifteen minutes before You-Know-Who gets out, right? More than enough time to pull the plug, if we all agree to that course of action today".

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0998.html

Peelee seems to understand the "that course of action" means "not destroying the world now". While my take is "that course of action" means "waiting until the last gate falls before destroying the world".

This is how Loki's words look depending on the interpretation:

#1
"Look, if that last rift is opened, there will still be, like, ten to fifteen minutes before You-Know-Who gets out, right? More than enough time to pull the plug, if we all agree to not destroy the World yet".

#2
"Look, if that last rift is opened, there will still be, like, ten to fifteen minutes before You-Know-Who gets out, right? More than enough time to pull the plug, if we all agree to wait until the last gate falls before destroying the World".

#1 implies that the decission to destroy the world if the last gate falls is already granted, for a pre-existing agreement. #2 implies the Gods need not only to agree not to destroy the world yet, but also agree to destroy the World after the last gate has fallen.

So, as far as I understand, Peelee (and several others) stance is:
- The Gods have already a Rule binding them to destroy the world if the last gate falls.

My point (and apparently some other people's too) is:
- There is no agreement between the Gods to destroy the world if the last gate falls.

I substantiate my stance in the following points:

1. There is no mention in the Comic that the Gods have any Rule binding them to destroy the World if the Last Gate Falls.

2. Destryoing the World before the Snarl breaks out isn't a guaranteed possibility, given that Thor mentions several previous worlds were unmade by the Snarl before they could destroy them and cash in the souls. This is why the Gods are now discussing destroying the World *before* the Last Gate goes, while it's still safe to do so.

Think about it. If blowing up the last gate automatically involved the Gods destroying the World, why would Hel need to devise an intrincate plan to rig the vote at the Godsmoot, when she could have just instructed her High Priest, already infiltratad in the Order, to just march with them to the North Pole and blow the last gate as soon as it's found?

[Edreyn]

Don't know why or how, but the last (what) Gate will be destroyed by MiTD. Maybe he will also be revealed by this stage.

[WanderingMist]

Hey, wait, what if the Snarl itself destroys the last Gate? What if the Gates were never as effective as anyone thought? What if the Snarl was simply choosing not to destroy them, as the planet within the rift indicates it's more intelligent than everyone has been led to believe.

[Metastachydium]

Hey, wait, what if the Snarl itself destroys the last Gate? What if the Gates were never as effective as anyone thought? What if the Snarl was simply choosing not to destroy them, as the planet within the rift indicates it's more intelligent than everyone has been led to believe.

I'd argue that the existence of the planet tells us precious little about the Snarl's level of intelligence.

[Mariele]

Country Joe, I've got your fish right here.

(not sure how many folks will get the ref ... it may not have aged well)

Open up those pearly gates!

I don't think it'll get destroyed, but if I had to guess anyone, I dunno man, Serini? Why not that sounds like a fun guess I'll go with it

[denthor]

Serini hired even shoddier contractors than Dorukan did.

Not shoddy contractors. Union mob labor she forgot to pay the bribes. Wrote a contract that she later admitted was poorly worded and used as cigar wrapping. So the evidence could not be used in court.

See comic 410 for reference

[Precure]

IFCC, it's their time shine.

[KorvinStarmast]

IFCC, it's their time shine.

Putting on my DM hat: they aren't PCs so they don't need to shine. That their further involvement has been foreshadowed assures us that we'll see more of them.