OOTS #1229 - The Discussion Thread

[The Pilgrim]

I still am struggling to wrap my head around Xykon's part in the endgame of the comic, I really don't see it just being "Welp, I guess my whole plan was a lie so I'll just kill everyone now". Like, he's the big bad of the comic, and it would be weird if he didn't really had an achievable scheme or win condition of some kind.

My bet is that Xykon intends to destroy the Last Gate, then retreat to his Astral Plane and enjoy the interim period watching endless rerruns of the Armageddon on TeeVo.

After all, we know that the only thing that entertains him is to watch living things die.

[ebarde]

I don't think Xykon would get much of a kick out of killing everything, there is no game for him if he does so

[arimareiji]

Well, while the latter can be argued due to Familicide, the former is just not true (Xykon already had it by that point) and they *did* put up a fight in stopping Xykon from getting Soon's Gate. And then failed.

It's true that the Order didn't weaken the defenses of Dorukan's gate, although arguably their participation helped Xykon figure out how to get access. (Which is what she seems to be worried about here.)

But it'd be a really bad idea for them to bring up their relative innocence wrt weakening the defenses of Dorukan's gate, considering Elan pretty much destroyed it for the lulz and this was discussed during the trial. And we still don't know the source of her knowledge about O-Chul's katana being used to destroy the gate.

While I largely agree, everyone's information about the big picture is out of date and woefully incomplete.

I'm really glad I previewed before posting, 'cause I wanted to say something similar. Just for one obvious start, what gives about the "planet within the planet" that even the gods don't know about (panels 4-6)?

[TRH]

I should add that Serini's logic does have the flaw that as far as character judgments go, she's decided a priori that anyone who would destroy a Gate under any circumstances is likely to do so in all circumstances. At least for the paladins, the "going-forward" promise O-Chul suggested should be reliable enough. Her rebuttal to that was pretty tautological, really.

[ebarde]

To be fair, I feel that after every other gate has been systematically destroyed after remaining undisturbed for a fair bit of time, I can't blame her for not taking any chances

[Doug Lampert]

In core Wizards and Sorcs share a list, but official splat books did have wizard-only and sorc-only spells.

Even in core there is Mordekain's Lucubration/Mage's Lucubration, which is wizard only.

The lists are ALMOST identical, but not quite.

[Peelee]

I should add that Serini's logic does have the flaw that as far as character judgments go, she's decided a priori that anyone who would destroy a Gate under any circumstances is likely to do so in all circumstances. At least for the paladins, the "going-forward" promise O-Chul suggested should be reliable enough. Her rebuttal to that was pretty tautological, really.

Based on the fact that a person in the Sapphire Guard opted to do the exact opposite of guarding the titular Sapphire, it's not much of a stretch.

Even in core there is Mordekain's Lucubration/Mage's Lucubration, which is wizard only.

The lists are ALMOST identical, but not quite.

Oh, forgot that one, thanks! 5e has taken it a step farther by having more differences in core spell lists, but that's irrelevant for Stickworld.

[The MunchKING]

In core Wizards and Sorcs share a list, but official splat books did have wizard-only and sorc-only spells.

Except one or two spells that deal with remembering cast spells, so Sorcs don't need them.

Can that be worked around by having multiple crossbows cocked and loaded in advance?

Yeah, but we only saw he with one in the last panel, and I think drawing a new one from a resting point is a move action anyway, unless you sunk some feats into it.

[ManuelSacha]

Lien is a sweet summer child.
Who knew?

But seriously, I don't follow Serini's train of thought, here.
She thinks she's so far stronger than the OotS that she can capture all of them without recurring to deadly force...
...but at the same time she thinks she's so much weaker than Xykon that she doesn't even consider fighting him alongisde the OotS.
Even though she clearly thinks he's bad news.

[TRH]

Based on the fact that a person in the Sapphire Guard opted to do the exact opposite of guarding the titular Sapphire, it's not much of a stretch.

Sure, if you assume their oaths explicitly forbade destroying the Sapphire and O-Chul avoided falling through rules lawyering, then he might wriggle out of another explicit promise not to do something. But at that point you've essentially gone full Girard in terms of finding a paladin's principles entirely devoid of meaning.

[HalfTangible]

Lien is a sweet summer child.
Who knew?

But seriously, I don't follow Serini's train of thought, here.
She thinks she's so far stronger than the OotS that she can capture all of them without recurring to deadly force...
...but at the same time she thinks she's so much weaker than Xykon that she doesn't even consider fighting him alongisde the OotS.
Even though she clearly thinks he's bad news.

In no particular order:

-In Serini's mind, any risk to the gate is unacceptable. Xykon won't destroy the gate because he needs it to rule the world. So he's definitely not going to do it and has done nothing to suggest he would even risk it. (Destroying Lirian's gate doesn't count as it was entirely through Redcloak's mistake)

-Xykon is undead and thus immune to knockout poisons. They are, in fact, immune to a lot of the Rogue's best abilities. None of which applies to the Order. So yes, the latter is a much easier target for an epic rogue (possibly multiclass) than the former

-Just because she could take out Xykon by teaming up with this random group of adventurers she knows nothing about doesn't mean she should. She in actual fact doesn't know anything about the Order except that they are perfectly able and willing to destroy at least one gate.

-Her tomb is working flawlessly on Team Evil. she is dead certain she can stop Xykon so long as these idiot gate-destroying ****ers don't decide to blow it up anyway.

-Her analysis that letting Xykon have a gate is better than blowing up the world =/= "I want Xykon to win".

[unbjorn]

I feel like at least Hinjo should be informed, and I feel like he wouldn't have left O-Chul and Lien in the dark either.

May I remind you of the time that Hinjo didn't inform O-Chul that Soon Himself backed by a host of ghost paladins would defend the Azure City gate after the living paladin guardians died, and therefore under no circumstances should O-Chul destroy the gate? Good thing Xykon stepped in to stop O-Chul at that point, if unrelated subsequence events panned out differently then Soon might have ended Xykon's threat permanently. Don't gate me wrong, it is hard to blame O-Chul for trying to destroy the gate at that point since he was, well you know, acting on incomplete information.

[137beth]

Oh no, she's going after the Order

[Gurgeh]

And Serini votes for Safety over Freedom.

Rather unexpected on a Chaotic character, but people tend to go that way as they grew older.

Serini's alignment has not been established, for what it's worth.

[Aris Katsaris]

I should add that Serini's logic does have the flaw that as far as character judgments go, she's decided a priori that anyone who would destroy a Gate under any circumstances is likely to do so in all circumstances. At least for the paladins, the "going-forward" promise O-Chul suggested should be reliable enough. Her rebuttal to that was pretty tautological, really.

One gate (the 1st one, before the OotS was even involved) was destroyed by complete accident, as a result of the conflict taking place near it.

One gate was destroyed just for the lulz, by a person who didn't even know or care what it would do.

Two other gates were destroyed deliberately, because they still had one or two 'spares' left.

The thing is that, in Serini's point of view, ALL of these were irresponsible destruction of one of the very safeguards of the universe. The fewer 'spares' that remained, the more irresponsible it was, but she doesn't think they should have done that, even if they did have "spares". Because each gate's destruction brought the destruction of the whole world one step closer.

And a promise by the paladin to not destroy the gate, even if she could fully trust the paladins and the rest of OoTS (whish she doesn't) is not enough -- because she doesn't want to risk it getting destroyed accidentally in the battle either (as the first gate was).

So she doesn't want to have any battle over the gate. If Xykon manages to find it, she wants to let him just have it, rather than risk it.

[Peelee]

Sure, if you assume their oaths explicitly forbade destroying the Sapphire and O-Chul avoided falling through rules lawyering, then he might wriggle out of another explicit promise not to do something. But at that point you've essentially gone full Girard in terms of finding a paladin's principles entirely devoid of meaning.

Or if you simply assume "Soon founded this order for the express reason of defending the Gate, and they decided to destroy the Gate as a better option to letting this guy have it". Which doesn't involve the oaths in any way, is an entirely reasonable line of thought, and has the added benefit of being absolutely correct.

[TRH]

Or if you simply assume "Soon founded this order for the express reason of defending the Gate, and they decided to destroy the Gate as a better option to letting this guy have it". Which doesn't involve the oaths in any way, is an entirely reasonable line of thought, and has the added benefit of being absolutely correct.

He founded it to keep the Gate out of the wrong hands, whether that meant killing those who would abuse it, or destroying it if the former was no longer feasible. Either approach is a means to the same end, not allowing the Gate's abuse, so that they abandoned the first option doesn't mean that they reneged on an explicit commitment, because there was no such promise to never destroy Soon's Gate. There never was. And that being the case, a promise not to destroy this Gate would be a different commitment than they had before.

[Peelee]

He founded it to keep the Gate out of the wrong hands, whether that meant killing those who would abuse it, or destroying it if the former was no longer feasible.

Under that interpretation, the paladins are still likely to destroy the new Gate if the only other option is for Xykon to take it. So, again, Serini has a reasonable belief.

[TRH]

Under that interpretation, the paladins are still likely to destroy the new Gate if the only other option is for Xykon to take it. So, again, Serini has a reasonable belief.

They are if they make no commitments otherwise. If they do, well, I suppose it doesn't matter, since Serini's apparently read too much Kant and thinks you should never do anything unless it's always permissible.

[Peelee]

They are if they make no commitments otherwise. If they do, well, I suppose it doesn't matter, since Serini's apparently read too much Kant and thinks you should never do anything unless it's always permissible.

If she had that belief about anything, you would be correct. She has that belief about one and only one incredibly specific thing. The Gate is a line in the sand. It's a bridge too far. It's the one thing that she will not compromise for. I get that you don't agree, but that doesn't make her Girard-level paranoid.

[danielxcutter]

Can that be worked around by having multiple crossbows cocked and loaded in advance?

Rapid Reload. That’s Core. Also for hand crossbows, there’s Hand Crossbow Focus, which is Rapid Reload(hand crossbow) and Weapon Focus(hand crossbow) in one.

[xroads]

If it wasn't for the added complication of Red Cloak's secret plan, I'd be on Aunt Serini's side. She has a very valid point.

[TRH]

If she had that belief about anything, you would be correct. She has that belief about one and only one incredibly specific thing. The Gate is a line in the sand. It's a bridge too far. It's the one thing that she will not compromise for. I get that you don't agree, but that doesn't make her Girard-level paranoid.

Well, speaking of Girard, he's the only other Scribbler who could possibly have shared her viewpoint on this. Dorukan literally added a self-destruct rune, Soon's paladins were instructed to destroy their Gate at the first sign of trouble, Lirian strapped her Gate to two living creatures such that it would be nearly impossible to kill them without sundering the Gate in the process. So I don't agree, and neither did the majority of her party, from the looks of it.

[russdm]

Well, speaking of Girard, he's the only other Scribbler who could possibly have shared her viewpoint on this. Dorukan literally added a self-destruct rune, Soon's paladins were instructed to destroy their Gate at the first sign of trouble, Lirian strapped her Gate to two living creatures such that it would be nearly impossible to kill them without sundering the Gate in the process. So I don't agree, and neither did the majority of her party, from the looks of it.

I think that this point here probably shows that the Scribbles had their falling out something like mere moments after Kraagor died. Not a few days or something, but right after. Which makes a thing worse.

They apparently didn't discuss the plan for what would happen if they secured all the rifts. Like at all. And for what safe-guards to use either. Before they succeeded, despite at what was them holding 4 out of the 5 rifts.

And that Serini is still basing her judgement on the paladins from that final group meeting before the fellowship imploded. if there was ever an actual fellowship between them in the first place.

I think for the Scribbles, that it was teeth-clenched teamwork through nearly all of it. So they don't go away with having the best opinions of each other.

[TRH]

Rapid Reload. That’s Core. Also for hand crossbows, there’s Hand Crossbow Focus, which is Rapid Reload(hand crossbow) and Weapon Focus(hand crossbow) in one.

None of those let you full attack in a surprise round as you said initially. You're still stuck with one standard action. There's a really obscure splatbook feat I found somewhere that would let you do a full attack during the surprise round, but highly unlikely Rich would trot out something like that.

If it wasn't for the added complication of Red Cloak's secret plan, I'd be on Aunt Serini's side. She has a very valid point.

Even putting my recent arguments aside, her point is also undercut by the present willingness of the gods to destroy the world even with her Gate intact. Either the threat is neutralized, or it's curtains for the whole world anyways. She thinks there's still time to stuff the genie back in the bottle, but there really isn't.

I think that this point here probably shows that the Scribbles had their falling out something like mere moments after Kraagor died. Not a few days or something, but right after. Which makes a thing worse.

They apparently didn't discuss the plan for what would happen if they secured all the rifts. Like at all. And for what safe-guards to use either. Before they succeeded, despite at what was them holding 4 out of the 5 rifts.

And that Serini is still basing her judgement on the paladins from that final group meeting before the fellowship imploded. if there was ever an actual fellowship between them in the first place.

I think for the Scribbles, that it was teeth-clenched teamwork through nearly all of it. So they don't go away with having the best opinions of each other.

They had a general understanding of what everyone else was going to use for their defense, since that came up in Shojo's explanation, and there was a bit with them discussing ideas, but apparently not the finer details like Lirian's virus or Soon's ghost army. And yeah, clearly no consensus on whether a Gate destroyed or a Gate in the hands of the Dark One is the worse outcome.

[Peelee]

Well, speaking of Girard, he's the only other Scribbler who could possibly have shared her viewpoint on this. Dorukan literally added a self-destruct rune, Soon's paladins were instructed to destroy their Gate at the first sign of trouble, Lirian strapped her Gate to two living creatures such that it would be nearly impossible to kill them without sundering the Gate in the process. So I don't agree, and neither did the majority of her party, from the looks of it.

OK? They don't need to agree with Serini. In fact, every other party member disagreed with the others on how to best defend the Gates. Their disagreements are entirely irrelevant; they all had reasonable belief in their chosen method, just as Serini as reasonable belief that destroying a Gate should absolutely not be done. Whether or not they or you agree or disagree is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything.

[arimareiji]

Spoiler: collapsed for space

Show

One gate (the 1st one, before the OotS was even involved) was destroyed by complete accident, as a result of the conflict taking place near it.

One gate was destroyed just for the lulz, by a person who didn't even know or care what it would do.

Two other gates were destroyed deliberately, because they still had one or two 'spares' left.

The thing is that, in Serini's point of view, ALL of these were irresponsible destruction of one of the very safeguards of the universe. The fewer 'spares' that remained, the more irresponsible it was, but she doesn't think they should have done that, even if they did have "spares". Because each gate's destruction brought the destruction of the whole world one step closer.

And a promise by the paladin to not destroy the gate, even if she could fully trust the paladins and the rest of OoTS (whish she doesn't) is not enough -- because she doesn't want to risk it getting destroyed accidentally in the battle either (as the first gate was).

So she doesn't want to have any battle over the gate. If Xykon manages to find it, she wants to let him just have it, rather than risk it.

Good points about not wanting to risk accidental destruction (I missed the fact she called that out in 1229 panel 9), and the fact that she thinks destroying any gate was foolhardy*.
_{* - As evidenced by his response of having "had no choice" provoking her angry response that no, he did have a choice and decided <risking the utter destruction of the world> was better than <letting a "vicious a**hole" win>.}

Tacking on an additional reason she doesn't trust them, which imo goes far beyond "if you ever destroyed any gate for any reason I can't trust you" (an unfair characterization of Serini's thought process): She thinks they're not unlikely to decide their oaths would require it. And she demolished their response to that assertion, in the last four panels of 1228.

A more general note, to those saying that Serini's last panel in 1228 wasn't fair or formally-logical: It wasn't meant to be, not did it need to be. She had already laid out her case, and in response they basically pleaded, "You should trust us anyway because we mean well". The last panel of 1228 wasn't an argument, it was a wordier version of "Ha ha, no."**
_{** - I first misread it as "Sure, I'll take an 'I won't do it again' promise! Here are the conditions."
But when I reread it, "if in the future, [this event that already happened is still true]" renders it closer to "Sure... when hell freezes over."}

[TRH]

OK? They don't need to agree with Serini. In fact, every other party member disagreed with the others on how to best defend the Gates. Their disagreements are entirely irrelevant; they all had reasonable belief in their chosen method, just as Serini as reasonable belief that destroying a Gate should absolutely not be done. Whether or not they or you agree or disagree is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything.

It's irrelevant to what? Were you under the impression that I said she was "objectively and factually wrong" in a character judgment, of all things? I said I found her interpretation of the paladins' characters questionable, since she's using Kantian deontology to dismiss the possibility of them seeing the situation differently now that there are no other Gates left. And if she only adheres to that principle in this particular situation, then as I pointed out, she's pretty much alone in that belief as well.

Now to be fair I can say this issue doesn't extend to the Order, who probably couldn't be so easily trusted, but she didn't even bring that up until later.

[Peelee]

It's irrelevant to what? Were you under the impression that I said she was "objectively and factually wrong" in a character judgment, of all things?

No, I was under the impression that you said "I should add that Serini's logic does have the flaw that as far as character judgments go", so the fact that you and her party disagree with how she reacts is indeed irrelevant to that.

she's using Kantian deontology to dismiss the possibility of them seeing the situation differently now that there are no other Gates left.

Again, she is not, as she is only being steadfast about this one specific thing which she has every reason to believe.

And if she only adheres to that principle in this particular situation, then as I pointed out, she's pretty much alone in that belief as well.

And, as I pointed out, the fact that she is alone in that belief (among all of five people, at that) is irrelevant to your assertion, since they were all alone in various specific beliefs about defending the Gates.

[CountDVB]

If it wasn't for the added complication of Red Cloak's secret plan, I'd be on Aunt Serini's side. She has a very valid point.

Yeah, but if it wasn't for Redcloak's plan, Xykon wouldn't have become the danger he was now, either in the Gates or even becoming a Lich.

I think that this point here probably shows that the Scribbles had their falling out something like mere moments after Kraagor died. Not a few days or something, but right after. Which makes a thing worse.

They apparently didn't discuss the plan for what would happen if they secured all the rifts. Like at all. And for what safe-guards to use either. Before they succeeded, despite at what was them holding 4 out of the 5 rifts.

And that Serini is still basing her judgement on the paladins from that final group meeting before the fellowship imploded. if there was ever an actual fellowship between them in the first place.

I think for the Scribbles, that it was teeth-clenched teamwork through nearly all of it. So they don't go away with having the best opinions of each other.

It does seem like all the tension just burst out. Anger at his death and perhaps at Soon willing to let them die for the cause (hence Dorukan's anger). I am thinking that they did have a plan for once the gates were sealed, but not much else. Soon was too emotionally comprormised to help deal with the problems and it all burst out.

Though it's fascinating that the three Gates that had shutdown features or contingencies were the ones headed by Soon, Dorukan and Lirian... aka a Paladin and an Intelligence caster and a Wisdom caster. Additionally, the fact that Dorukan and Lirian, who designed the gates and would have the best understanding of them, felt the need to do so means they must've had their reasons.

I am curious what Kraagor would've thought. Being a Dwarf Barbarian may mean he was an outcast or something different than traditional dwarven society. Did he still try to live an honorable life or did he follow his own creed? He did fight alongside Soon on the front lines as the front fighting force so I get the feeling that because of that, both went in knowing they could die from it...