#1231 - The Discussion Thread

[Ginasius]

win - Ruck
place - dancrilis
show - Fyraltari

Thanks to the three of you.

BTW for someone that has not read SoD the most helpful answer was Fyraltary's

[Peelee]

Thanks to the three of you.

BTW for someone that has not read SoD the most helpful answer was Fyraltary's

You should totally check out SoD, btw. It's fantastic.

[bunsen_h]

A dwarf came up to me and said
"I'd like to change your mind
By hitting it with a hammer, " he said,
"Though I am not unkind."

Nice, but rather than have said rhyme with said in lines A and C ... let's try this, maybe?
A dwarf came up to me and said
"I'd like to change your mind,
By using this hammer to hit your head -
"Though I am not unkind."

Shosho's version is close to the original verse from "Whistling in the Dark" by They Might Be Giants.

Which reminds me of the group We're Certainly Dwarfs, mentioned in Terry Pratchett's Soul Music.

[KorvinStarmast]

Shosho's version is close to the original verse from "Whistling in the Dark" by They Might Be Giants.

And a fine bit of verse it was, I just have a weird thing about using the same word in a rhyme scheme ... but that's likely a personal quirk.

[Ghosty]

...BTW for someone that has not read SoD the most helpful answer was Fyraltary's

Piling onto Peelee, it's some of the best writing I've seen the Giant do. Well worth whatever the .pdf costs.

[Fyraltari]

Thanks to the three of you.

BTW for someone that has not read SoD the most helpful answer was Fyraltary's

Fyraltari*.

You should totally check out SoD, btw. It's fantastic.

Piling onto Peelee, it's some of the best writing I've seen the Giant do. Well worth whatever the .pdf costs.

Imma hop onboard that train. TCHOO-TCHOO!

[bunsen_h]

And a fine bit of verse it was, I just have a weird thing about using the same word in a rhyme scheme ... but that's likely a personal quirk.

In general, I feel the same way. The re-use stands out more when the stanza is excerpted from its context.

[Roselily2006]

Shosho's version is close to the original verse from "Whistling in the Dark" by They Might Be Giants.

Realized why the lyrics were familiar and decided to see if anyone else had said it. Turns out they had, but thanks for reminding me of a song that I haven't listened to in ages.

Honestly TMBG was my childhood. Having a dad who's a big fan of them meant I listened to them a lot. My fav album was "Here Comes Science". I'm probably rambling, sorry...

[eaglewingz]

I'm probably rambling, sorry...

Welcome to the Forums!

Believe us, NO need to apologize!

[WanderingMist]

I know you didn't say "infinite", but it's the easiest way to explain it so I'm still using it. "Infinite" does not mean "all". There is an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, but none of those numbers are 3. Just because there are billions of worlds does not make it likely that the trickster gods (or even any gods, for that matter) have pulled a con like this before if it's not possible to pull the con to start with. Assuming that it's a con by the trickster gods assumes facts not in evidence (ie that gods can make fairly convincing illusory gods).

Um, I'm arguing against The Dark One being a con there, not in favor of it. Billions of worlds may not be infinite, but the idea of a fake new god certainly must have come up before, simply because we know directly from Thor other gods have both risen and faded away between worlds.

But other facts against The Dark One being a con is that we know the Snarl exists AND that it is a threat to the gods, including Loki. Loki presumably enjoys not having been slain by a god-killing abomination, and would most likely prefer to keep it that way.

[Doug Lampert]

Welcome to the Forums!

Believe us, NO need to apologize!

I think by page ten of the thread you are required to apologize if your post is on topic and doesn't involve an insane theory of some sort.

[ByzantiumBhuka]

I think by page ten of the thread you are required to apologize if your post is on topic and doesn't involve an insane theory of some sort.

Yeah, usually we'd be arguing about the quality of the Star Wars sequels by now.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, usually we'd be arguing about the quality of the Star Wars sequels by now.

What's gotten into us, right?

[Schroeswald]

This book has had pretty rare tangents in discussion threads overall, sometimes we even end a thread mostly on topic.

[mjasghar]

The fact is that the DO has a new quiddity and that can’t be faked.

[arimareiji]

This book has had pretty rare tangents in discussion threads overall, sometimes we even end a thread mostly on topic.

Not to mention, how much of a tangent is "talking about OotS, but not anything that was directly brought up by the last strip"? :-/


Not saying it's not a tangent, but (if X, Y, and Z are all OotS topics) "X that you could infer from Y that's sort of related to Z which happens in in the current strip" seeems to me like less of a tangent than "Compare and contrast: Elan, C3P0, and Bilbo Baggins" (^_~)

(Much less if it's something crazy like "X that directly pertains to Y that happens in the current strip.")

[dancrilis]

The fact is that the DO has a new quiddity and that can’t be faked.

Unless the Western Gods are right and he is just someone that Tiamet made up as one of her schemes.

Compare and contrast: Elan, C3P0, and Bilbo Baggins" (^_~)

Elan and Bilbo are effectively main characters with Bilbo being the main character and Elan is merely a main character - C-3PO is a secondary character and argueable merely a tertiary character (supporting the secondary character of R2D2).
Bilbo is something of a driving force for events (he undertakes rescues, thefts on his own initiative etc) where Elan and C-3PO are more present for events - and those events may center of them - but not really the driving force for them seperate from other characters.

The above is very arguable of course as I don't feel like putting much thought into it, but I think it broadly holds up.

[Mad Humanist]

Unless the Western Gods are right and he is just someone that Tiamet made up as one of her schemes.



Elan and Bilbo are effectively main characters with Bilbo being the main character and Elan is merely a main character - C-3PO is a secondary character and argueable merely a tertiary character (supporting the secondary character of R2D2).
Bilbo is something of a driving force for events (he undertakes rescues, thefts on his own initiative etc) where Elan and C-3PO are more present for events - and those events may center of them - but not really the driving force for them seperate from other characters.

The above is very arguable of course as I don't feel like putting much thought into it, but I think it broadly holds up.

Elan blowing up Dorukan's gate is still driving the plot to this day. That may be why he doesn't drink and drive the plot any more.

[arimareiji]

Elan and Bilbo are effectively main characters with Bilbo being the main character and Elan is merely a main character - C-3PO is a secondary character and argueable merely a tertiary character (supporting the secondary character of R2D2).
Bilbo is something of a driving force for events (he undertakes rescues, thefts on his own initiative etc) where Elan and C-3PO are more present for events - and those events may center of them - but not really the driving force for them seperate from other characters.

The above is very arguable of course as I don't feel like putting much thought into it, but I think it broadly holds up.

Elan blowing up Dorukan's gate is still driving the plot to this day. That may be why he doesn't drink and drive the plot any more.

Ha, thank you for picking up my fumble and running with it. (^_~)b

My main thought about their commonalities was "Avatar of Annoyance", which isn't especially fair to Bilbo... it's based only on seeing someone here reference the Chip the glasses and crack the plates song, and a mismatched memory of Frodo (who didn't especially annoy me per se, but had the misfortune to be played by Elijah Wood).

_{Edit: Minor reword}

[mjasghar]

Is there any quote from the comic where it is said his new quiddity is fake?

[Peelee]

Um, I'm arguing against The Dark One being a con there, not in favor of it. Billions of worlds may not be infinite, but the idea of a fake new god certainly must have come up before, simply because we know directly from Thor other gods have both risen and faded away between worlds.

But other facts against The Dark One being a con is that we know the Snarl exists AND that it is a threat to the gods, including Loki. Loki presumably enjoys not having been slain by a god-killing abomination, and would most likely prefer to keep it that way.

And I wasn't arguing for or against TDO being a con in the comment. I was saying that it's not necessarily likely that any of the trickster gods were ever able to fake a new god, because that may well be impossible for them to do, regardless of whether or not they thought of it. Your argument is hinged upon the likelihood that they probably have at some point before, but that's not something we can say is probable, since we can't even say if it's possible.

[arimareiji]

And I wasn't arguing for or against TDO being a con in the comment. I was saying that it's not necessarily likely that any of the trickster gods were ever able to fake a new god, because that may well be impossible for them to do, regardless of whether or not they thought of it. Your argument is hinged upon the likelihood that they probably have at some point before, but that's not something we can say is probable, since we can't even say if it's possible.

(segue)
...if TDO doesn't exist, does that make Redcloak one of those weird unaligned clerics that don't get their spells from any specific deity (but he's in complete denial about it)?

Don't get me wrong, Redcloak is a better candidate for Queen of Denial than Cleopatra. But in this specific case, it seems like pretty long odds that Thor is risking the fate of the universe and all the gods because he was taken in by a trickster god pulling a con... because they don't want anything to exist^*, I guess? That's just my take, not intended as a reply to or comment on anyone else.

_{* - Actually happened as a credible late-stage development in one of my favorite fantasy trilogies. A demigod tries to start an apocalypse, because he doesn't want the world that witnessed his humiliation to exist.}
(/segue)

[Peelee]

a better candidate for Queen of Denial than Cleopatra.

Im totally stealing that in the future, FYI.

[Rrmcklin]

Discussions like this one make me wonder if the Giant regrets using color as a short-hand for what's going on here. Because a lot of people seem fixated on the specific colors, even though we're specifically told those are just a visual short-hand for the actual meta-physical property of the gods being discussed.

But even so, you still have things like "wait, couldn't they just mix Red and Blue together to get Purple" or "Roy's sword glows green so maybe that's Eastern Pantheon quiddity", even though with the former you'd think the gods would have figured that out long ago if it were actually viable, and with the latter it just calls into question how a piece of the Eastern Gods' quiddity both managed to survive for so long and how the gods haven't been able to figure out that's what it is, again, for such a long period of time.

And by the same token, we have no reason to think they should be able to produce an illusion capable of fooling other gods.

[Mad Humanist]

Discussions like this one make me wonder if the Giant regrets using color as a short-hand for what's going on here. Because a lot of people seem fixated on the specific colors, even though we're specifically told those are just a visual short-hand for the actual meta-physical property of the gods being discussed.

But even so, you still have things like "wait, couldn't they just mix Red and Blue together to get Purple" or "Roy's sword glows green so maybe that's Eastern Pantheon quiddity", even though with the former you'd think the gods would have figured that out long ago if it were actually viable, and with the latter it just calls into question how a piece of the Eastern Gods' quiddity both managed to survive for so long and how the gods haven't been able to figure out that's what it is, again, for such a long period of time.

And by the same token, we have no reason to think they should be able to produce an illusion capable of fooling other gods.

I agree. But the odd thing is that according to Thor: "Most of the Western Gods don't even believe the Dark One really is a new colour. Tiamat is the only one who has met him in person, and they think she's lying to further some scheme."

So presumably most Western gods accept that the Dark One is a real god, but think he is a protege of Tiamat perhaps. So it looks like no god believes it is possible to fake the existence of a god, but perhaps they do think it is possible to outright lie about the quiddity.

[danielxcutter]

I agree. But the odd thing is that according to Thor: "Most of the Western Gods don't even believe the Dark One really is a new colour. Tiamat is the only one who has met him in person, and they think she's lying to further some scheme."

So presumably most Western gods accept that the Dark One is a real god, but think he is a protege of Tiamat perhaps. So it looks like no god believes it is possible to fake the existence of a god, but perhaps they do think it is possible to outright lie about the quiddity.

It sounds more to me that the Western Pantheon is assuming "it's Tiamat saying it, it's obviously BS." Considering the Western Pantheon appears to squabble more than the Faeurnian one, I'd say it's more mistrust than anything else.

I wonder why the Northern Pantheon bother to listen to Loki at all considering he's the one who literally can't be straight with someone who's not Thor, actually, but maybe they tolerate him and know him well enough for that.

[Mic_128]

I wonder why the Northern Pantheon bother to listen to Loki at all considering he's the one who literally can't be straight with someone who's not Thor, actually, but maybe they tolerate him and know him well enough for that.

It does help that Thor has seen/encountered him, so while the NG might not trust Loki, Thor's a trustworthy source.

EDIT:

Actually happened as a credible late-stage development in one of my favorite fantasy trilogies. A demigod tries to start an apocalypse, because he doesn't want the world that witnessed his humiliation to exist.

What series is that? Sounds like a good read.

[Kornaki]

I wonder why the Northern Pantheon bother to listen to Loki at all

This is a reasonable question in the original mythology as well.

[danielxcutter]

This is a reasonable question in the original mythology as well.

Well yes, but at least that one wasn't literally incapable of being honest on a metaphysical level.

[CheesePirate]

This is a reasonable question in the original mythology as well.

{Scrubbed}