The Godsmoot Crisis Could Have Been Resolved Really Easily

[ATHATH]

Spoilers, etc., etc.

After Hel gloats about her plan to the other deities in the Godsmoot, she reminds Heimdall about the No Backsies rule. However, later in the Roy vs. Vamp!Durkon fight, Roy mentions that a high priest needs to be present in the room (and presumably not dead) for their vote to count. Couldn't Heimdall have just ordered his high priest to commit suicide or to defer their position to someone who wasn't in the temple?

[Dion]

Couldn't Heimdall have just ordered his high priest to commit suicide or to defer their position to someone who wasn't in the temple?

No, because Durkula would have changed that priest into a vampire, this preserving the vote.

Also, I’ve read the rules for the godsmoot. After a suicide, puppets are allowed to vote. And I have it on good authority that Banjo wants to destroy the world and watch it burn.

[Quebbster]

Spoilers, etc., etc.

After Hel gloats about her plan to the other deities in the Godsmoot, she reminds Heimdall about the No Backsies rule. However, later in the Roy vs. Vamp!Durkon fight, Roy mentions that a high priest needs to be present in the room (and presumably not dead) for their vote to count. Couldn't Heimdall have just ordered his high priest to commit suicide or to defer their position to someone who wasn't in the temple?

Your story doesn't sound as exciting as the one the Giant is telling.
Also, the other gods might consider that violating the terms of the godsmoot, which could become quite nasty.

[Heksefatter]

Your story doesn't sound as exciting as the one the Giant is telling.
Also, the other gods might consider that violating the terms of the godsmoot, which could become quite nasty.

Agreed. Most likely, the gods have a rule against this. One very legalistic and full of loopholes, but Heimdal seems like a lawful and rigid god, not likely to think in loopholes.

[Ionathus]

Spoilers, etc., etc.

After Hel gloats about her plan to the other deities in the Godsmoot, she reminds Heimdall about the No Backsies rule. However, later in the Roy vs. Vamp!Durkon fight, Roy mentions that a high priest needs to be present in the room (and presumably not dead) for their vote to count. Couldn't Heimdall have just ordered his high priest to commit suicide or to defer their position to someone who wasn't in the temple?

I don't have a link, but this exact question has come up before and Rich responded to it. I believe he said that he refuses to present suicide as a reasonable solution to anything, ever, even in a fantasy world, because he doesn't want to ever contribute to anyone's real-life thoughts of self-harm.

[Precure]

That would be cheting and only a dirty cheater would lower himself to that level.

[Shale]

If you want a rules-based explanation, you can just assume that the "no backsies" rule is written expansively enough to nullify any deliberate act that would have the effect of allowing a god to change or withdraw their duly-cast vote, even to the point of continuing to recognize a vote from a god who no longer has an eligible priest present.

[Dion]

Godsmoot s are sort of like Nightmare on Elm Street. If a gods cleric dies in the godsmoot, the god dies in real life.

[Peelee]

Couldn't Heimdall have just ordered his high priest to commit suicide or to defer their position to someone who wasn't in the temple?

Short answer? No.

Long answer? Noooooooooooooooo.

As others have said, this has been brought up before, and the author shot it down with a vengeance. So there's probably some sort of rule that lops suicide in with it which wasn't told to us because it's relatively unimportant, if you want an in-universe reason to line up with the out-of-universe one. Shale's works.

[Dr.Zero]

If you want a rules-based explanation, you can just assume that the "no backsies" rule is written expansively enough to nullify any deliberate act that would have the effect of allowing a god to change or withdraw their duly-cast vote, even to the point of continuing to recognize a vote from a god who no longer has an eligible priest present.

In that case even a bodyguard killing his own high priest shouldn't have worked, but anyone happened to think it would.[1]

So, the Gods could order to his high priest to order to his bodyguard to kill him.

[1] It doesn't matter that Roy wasn't really Hel's follower. Everyone assumed he was and claimed it was an internal dispute.

[Shale]

Ah, but that wasn't a deliberate act by the god in question, and thus not an attempt at a take-back. It was still clear to all involved that he was trying to avert Hel's wishes.

[NerdyKris]

Aside from Rich's stance on a story glorifying suicide, the gods really don't care who's in charge. Hel being in charge doesn't change much for them. It only makes the next world bad for mortals, and only the ones that worship northern gods. Even if she survived to the next world, she would quickly need to tone it down or else lose all souls, because nobody would worship her.

Thor's problem is that he wants to stop the Snarl for good, and a lot of the gods don't believe that the Dark One has a new Quiddity. As far as they're concerned, this is just the same vote they've held countless times before. None of them are going to disrupt the vote in that manner because to them it's not worth it. It would be the equivalent of blowing up all your personal relationships because you want to get sushi tonight and they want burgers.
edit- or more appropriately, blowing up your D&D group because you don't like how the vote is going on whether to continue a campaign that's going off the rails.

[Heksefatter]

You don't even have to suggest something as far out as suicide. You could just say that the high priest could leave the room and then their god's vote was nullified.

I think that it is fair to assume that if the gods have a "no backsies" rule, they also have rules for the most obvious loopholes, such as not ordering your high priest to leave or something even more radical.

Maybe there's a loophole in the rules somewhere. But the most obvious ones are likely closed.

EDIT: As others have pointed out, it is also not an important plot point. AND as I said, it is easy to imagine the gods having an obvious rule against such methods. So it can easily be "solved."

[Crimsonmantle]

I would assume the Gods, in looking for loopholes to close, were concerned mostly about ways that a God might cheat. It's only natural. Roy attacked "his" high priest on his own accord - that could easily blindside a rulebook by Gods for Gods.

[ziproot]

I would assume the Gods, in looking for loopholes to close, were concerned mostly about ways that a God might cheat. It's only natural. Roy attacked "his" high priest on his own accord - that could easily blindside a rulebook by Gods for Gods.

So that means there might be a rule, say, against ordering your priest to leave the premises, but not against a mortal forcefully removing the priest (say, by killing them).

[Crimsonmantle]

So that means there might be a rule, say, against ordering your priest to leave the premises, but not against a mortal forcefully removing the priest (say, by killing them).

And there was, of course, (canonically) a rule against attacking another God's priest. I would assume (but I don't think this is canon) that there was a rule against ordering the bodyguard to attack his own priest, too - seems like the kind of thing a divine rules lawyer trying to prevent "backsies" would have thought of. Bodyguard going rogue against his own priest to change a vote? Who'd think of that? What heavenly reason for such an event could there be? Anyways it's literally not cheating by any of the players (Gods) which is what rules are written to prevent.