Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

[hamishspence]

A case can be made that no sapient has the right to survive by exploiting other sapients (as opposed to equal exchange - trading).

[Jason]

Regardless of that, genocide does not only cover races, and the ability to join a group does not mean that the group cannot be genocided.

Genocide of religious groups thst one can convert to in the real world is possible and all too common.

[masamune1]

A case can be made that no sapient has the right to survive by exploiting other sapients (as opposed to equal exchange - trading).

A case can also be made that every sapient group survives by exploitation in some way (and trading often involves an element of exploitation anyway).

A case can further be made that allowing one side of the arrangement to die in order to end said exploitation is morally wrong, especially if it will only be replaced by a different kind of exploitation (in this case, from the other races exploiting each other).

Genocide of religious groups thst one can convert to in the real world is possible and all too common.

Yep.

[Shadowknight12]

Aren't "refusing to give the gods any worship so they all die out," and "confining the goblins to land that can't support them so they all die out," basically the same thing?

If you use violent means to free yourself from oppression, that does not make you as bad as your oppressors, because the circumstances are not the same. Mortals being placed in an exploitative system without their consent and choosing to let the gods die so that they can build their own system is not the same as the gods exploiting them.

[masamune1]

If you use violent means to free yourself from oppression, that does not make you as bad as your oppressors, because the circumstances are not the same. Mortals being placed in an exploitative system without their consent and choosing to let the gods die so that they can build their own system is not the same as the gods exploiting them.

It is debatable how oppressive the system is, and it is highly debatable that the ones who are trying to overthrow the gods are not looking to build their own exploitative systems, or that exploitative systems would not spring up regardless.

It's also not really a question of whether you are "as bad" or not, as you could still be "bad enough".

Also, if mortals can ascend to godhood, then merely killing all of the gods or letting them die out wouldn't really work since new gods would just pop up to replace them.

Assuming that mortals or life can even exist without gods in the first place.

[Shadowknight12]

Assuming that mortals or life can even exist without gods in the first place.

As per the Creed of Stone, we know mortals can obtain divine magic just fine without gods.

[masamune1]

As per the Creed of Stone, we know mortals can obtain divine magic just fine without gods.

But can they live without gods?

The gods create life after all.

Whole species would not exist if the gods did not create them, including the goblins.

[Shadowknight12]

But can they live without gods?

The gods create life after all.

Considering that gods cannot intervene after a world is created (as per 1232), that Fenris abandoned the goblins when his strategy for them failed and they survived, and that there is a world inside the Snarl (who presumably unmade the Eastern Pantheon and therefore is a world with no gods), I would say that odds are extremely high that yes, mortals can live without gods just fine.

Whole species would not exist if the gods did not create them, including the goblins.

As I said earlier in this thread, "A made B" does not give A the right to exploit B.

[hamishspence]

Ultimately, "XP for killing" is the biggest plank in the exploitativeness of the system, combined with the idea that the more powerful a god's worshippers and clerics are, the more powerful that god is.

As a result, gods are encouraged to encourage their clerics and worshippers, to kill as often as possible, so that their worshippers and clerics increase in power and the gods increase in power.

[masamune1]

Considering that gods cannot intervene after a world is created (as per 1232), that Fenris abandoned the goblins when his strategy for them failed and they survived, and that there is a world inside the Snarl (who presumably unmade the Eastern Pantheon and therefore is a world with no gods), I would say that odds are extremely high that yes, mortals can live without gods just fine.



As I said earlier in this thread, "A made B" does not give A the right to exploit B.

Well, I guess we'll see. For all we know, the Eastern Pantheon are still alive inside that world. Could alternatively be that the world inside the Snarl is dead.

And I wasn't discussing rights- I was discussing the fact that if you remove the gods then these races might not exist, so removing them might have negative effects on creation in the future.

Ultimately, "XP for killing" is the biggest plank in the exploitativeness of the system, combined with the idea that the more powerful a god's worshippers and clerics are, the more powerful that god is.

As a result, gods are encouraged to encourage their clerics and worshippers, to kill as often as possible, so that their worshippers and clerics increase in power and the gods increase in power.

Lots of gods don't seem to encourage their followers to do anything of the sort though.

And lots of characters and NPCs exploit "XP for killing" for their own ends rather than because any god is compelling them to do so.

[Jason]

If you killed off the gods and then the Snarl escaped and destroyed the world and devoured everybody's souls that would pretty much be it, wouldn't it? No gods to create a new world, so no more worlds.

Edit: Either that or the Snarl would start creating worlds. Would it not exploit the souls it created in the new world? It literally eats souls, not like the gods "eat" them.

[Shadowknight12]

If you killed off the gods and then the Snarl escaped and destroyed the world and devoured everybody's souls that would pretty much be it, wouldn't it? No gods to create a new world, so no more worlds.

That was the entire point of the Godsmoot arc, yes. And our protagonist Roy gave an entire speech on letting mortals get a chance to fix the world since it's their lives on the line too.

While I expect the story to eventually find some way for the gods to fix the mistakes they made, the text so far has been nothing but explicitly against the exact mentality of "preserve the gods at all costs because they are the most important". It has reinforced, time and again, that the mortals matter more.

[TRH]

True. The gods *think* the Snarl can be sealed forever with a four-color lock, but we don't actually know that.

Actually, the impression I got was that they expect new rifts to keep cropping up every now and then forever even with four-color locks, probably because the world as a whole would remain three-color, so there'd never be a point at which their part is done with.

[dps]

Doesn't change my "let them all die" opinion at all. "Somewhat less awful exploitation" is still exploitation. If we can't have gods without exploitation then hey, maybe it's okay to not have gods at all! After all, as I stated before, OOTS has non-godly sources of divine power (Creed of Stone), so mortals can still have all the benefits of divine magic with none of the exploitation.



It's only a mistake if you think that the author isn't making a deliberate point here. To me, the whole point of that is to prove that, when the chips are down, the good gods are fundamentally just as bad as the rest (something that gets reinforced in the Godsmoot when alignment is completely irrelevant re: their votes).



Or just not have any at all! And then they don't have to live under the tyranny of a powerful being that exploits you for your soul-juice before you're even born and after you die, and doesn't care what happens to you so long as they get a steady stream of meals and are secure in their oligarchic power over mortals.

I had made a lengthy reply to this, but then I accidentally deleted it when I was trying to fix a typo. I hate posting from my phone, but right now that's really my only option. Anyway, I don't feel like re-doing the whole post right now--perhaps I will tomorrow--but for now let me just go on record as saying that I disagree with your position and believe that you are missing the point the author is trying to make.

[Shadowknight12]

I had made a lengthy reply to this, but then I accidentally deleted it when I was trying to fix a typo. I hate posting from my phone, but right now that's really my only option. Anyway, I don't feel like re-doing the whole post right now--perhaps I will tomorrow--but for now let me just go on record as saying that I disagree with your position and believe that you are missing the point the author is trying to make.

I am sorry that happened to you, but do let me clarify (once again) that I do not expect the Giant to go with the solution I would go, nor do I believe it's heading in that direction.

[Rrmcklin]

Considering that gods cannot intervene after a world is created (as per 1232), that Fenris abandoned the goblins when his strategy for them failed and they survived, and that there is a world inside the Snarl (who presumably unmade the Eastern Pantheon and therefore is a world with no gods), I would say that odds are extremely high that yes, mortals can live without gods just fine.



As I said earlier in this thread, "A made B" does not give A the right to exploit B.

I agree with your overall point, but I have to point out there's no indication there's any life on the planet in the Snarl. That fact is specifically noted when Laurin exams it, although we might find out more.

Regardless, while it seems the gods are necessary for the origins of life in this universe, there's nothing indicating they're required for the continuance of it.

[mjasghar]

People seem to forget something
When beings die their souls (usually) go off to the alignment plane they identify with - with assessments for their actual right to be there.
There’s an exemption for those particularly devoted to a certain god - that’s why LG Durkon goes to CN/G Valhalla.
Even if you killed the gods the souls would still end up there and sooner or later some one or something would harness their power. Furthermore the gods have another purpose in d&d: they keep a lid on the fiendish races who are powerful enough that it’s usually stated that only the Blood War keeps them overwhelming reality.

[Rrmcklin]

People seem to forget something
When beings die their souls (usually) go off to the alignment plane they identify with - with assessments for their actual right to be there.
There’s an exemption for those particularly devoted to a certain god - that’s why LG Durkon goes to CN/G Valhalla.
Even if you killed the gods the souls would still end up there and sooner or later some one or something would harness their power. Furthermore the gods have another purpose in d&d: they keep a lid on the fiendish races who are powerful enough that it’s usually stated that only the Blood War keeps them overwhelming reality.

This is also important too. The system is exploitative, and the gods are all largely complicit in that if not actively trying to make it more so, but I've never understood condemning the gods for how the afterlife system here actually works which seems like a part of this conversation. For all of the problems we're supposed to see with them, I don't think that's particularly fair.

[Emberlily]

Blood War is mentioned in a joke line by the IFCC but would it make sense for it to be a true struggle between gods and demons/devils? Here in OotS setting it's implied that not only did the gods create all the outsiders but they maintain enough control over them that they can memory wipe all of them each new world.

[Ionathus]

I agree with your overall point, but I have to point out there's no indication there's any life on the planet in the Snarl. That fact is specifically noted when Laurin exams it, although we might find out more.

No indication of intelligent/sapient life, but the planet that Blackwing saw in the rift had large swathes of green land, and the simplest explanation for that is plant growth.

[KorvinStarmast]

Lots of cases of murder have been justified (by the perp) as a kind of self-defence, like shooting someone that you think is plotting to kill you or is exploiting you.

That isn't murder. It is a kind of killing, yes, but murder is a sub set of the general thing of killing another human being, as is manslaughter, homicide, etc.

Words that are related to each other at a certain level are not necessarily synonyms.
As an example the general term mammal applies to both dog and cow but a dog is not a cow.

Sorry to get overly pedantic there, we now return you all to your usual broadcast.

[masamune1]

That isn't murder. It is a kind of killing, yes, but murder is a sub set of the general thing of killing another human being, as is manslaughter, homicide, etc.

Words that are related to each other at a certain level are not necessarily synonyms.
As an example the general term mammal applies to both dog and cow but a dog is not a cow.

Sorry to get overly pedantic there, we now return you all to your usual broadcast.

In what way is intentionally starving the gods to death not murder?

[SavageWombat]

What if "killing = XP" isn't an intent of the rules, but an unavoidable byproduct? You get XP for overcoming challenges, and for some reason most sentient creatures (like most players) interpret that as fighting enemies.

[Shadowknight12]

In what way is intentionally starving the gods to death not murder?

If they need to eat you to survive, refusing to give yourself to them out of your own self-priority is not murder.

If someone is going to die unless they get an organ donation and you refuse to donate your organs to them and they die, that is not murder. That is having bodily autonomy and agency. This is the same with your faith/soul.

[hamishspence]

Indeed. A similar logic would apply to vampires or mind flayers "not letting them drink from (or implant) you" is not a bad thing. Even if it eventually results in extinction of vampires or mind flayers. Right to Autonomy overrides "right to survive".

[Nephrahim]

I am confused when this thread turned in such a nihilistic direction as "Since the worlds the gods create have conflict and strife, it would be better to stop existing at all."

[Crusher]

A case can be made that no sapient has the right to survive by exploiting other sapients (as opposed to equal exchange - trading).

Exploitative is in the eye of the beholder. Rock thinks Paper is OP and Scissors just needs to LTP.

Joking aside, lets start with the example someone had a couple pages back. The system in which lions eat antelopes which eat grass which eat worms (sort of) which eat the lions after the die is perfectly fair and balanced overall, yet each individual member of each group (except maybe the lions) would see the system as cruel and exploitative. You'd probably respond "Sure, but I said 'sapient' creatures."

To which I'd say sapient by whose standards? Antelopes are sapient by their own standards, with wants and needs and fears. We don't consider them sapient because we're smarter than them and we set the bar above the antelope and just slightly below our own level (convenient for us). To the gods, mortal intellect is laughable. Thor is, I believe, considered a little slow for the gods yet can trivially remember every single worshiper he's ever had across billions of worlds. The gods are so far beyond the average mortal in conscious awareness that saying mortals are the antelope and the gods are the people in that analogy is probably insulting to the gods.

Yes, Thor can have meaningful conversation with Durkon and Durkon can probably come up with something Thor finds funny or surprising. But a plant can surprise you with how it grows, and by manipulating its dirt or sunlight you can communicate with it in a way that's meaningful to the plant but probably staggeringly imprecise and unmeaningful to you. Doesn't mean you don't do it, I mean, why not? Its even kinda fun. But its not like the plant is your intellectual equal. Color me skeptical that the gods would consider mortals to be sapient by their godly standards.

Finally, meaningful consent isn't really an option for the gods. Because the gods plan each time is to create a new world with people (of some sort) using their god-energy. The people then live their lives, worship the gods, and then die returning the energy to the gods in various fashions. Even if the gods wanted to, I'm not sure how they'd ask the consent of these brand new people to be part of this process *before creating them*. That seems like a paradox even the gods would have trouble overcoming.

Indeed. A similar logic would apply to vampires or mind flayers "not letting them drink from (or implant) you" is not a bad thing. Even if it eventually results in extinction of vampires or mind flayers. Right to Autonomy overrides "right to survive".

You can say that but it doesn't make it true in the Stickverse. Philosophy in the Stickverse is an entirely different thing than for us. Good and Evil are more like Yankees and Red Sox than they are comparable to what we think of as good and evil. Good is whatever the "Good" gods support and Evil is whatever the "Evil" gods support, and I guess Neutral is whatever is in the middle. If Thor says "Murder is fine" and the other Good gods don't talk him out of it, then Murder is officially Good, because its whatever they say it is. Its not good, but it is Good.

[Shadowknight12]

I am confused when this thread turned in such a nihilistic direction as "Since the worlds the gods create have conflict and strife, it would be better to stop existing at all."

People asked my opinion, didn't like it, and just did not want to let that subject go.

Agreeing to disagreeing is okay folks!

[Crusher]

People asked my opinion, didn't like it, and just did not want to let that subject go.

Agreeing to disagreeing is okay folks!

NO! Its not ok to agree to disagree, and I'll fight you forever on that!

I kid!

[Telenil]

Gods don't really eat you though, do they? Souls get into their respective heavens and are free to stay and do whatever they want there. I got the impression the gods were empowered by just receiving the souls, not doing anything to them. The real d*ckishness is that since high-level souls are more valuable, they are inevitably going to breed conflict to get more.

In what way is intentionally starving the gods to death not murder?

If you want to be super pedantic, murder is unlawful premeditated killing. A hair-splitter would argue that getting rid of their oppressor is justified killing. A bit like it's a liberation if rebels overthrow the government, and treason if they fail.