Serini is a moron

[Hurkyl]

Excuse me? Xykon came a 5-foot step within killing her and stole her information about the Gates. Irrationally scared of him sure, but crazy?

Yes? I'm expressing contempt for what that twist would do to the narrative, so the phrasing with negative connotation is appropriate.

If you're thinking I'd be expressing contempt for her character, I guess I can see how you'd misunderstand since that was what you had been talking about. I thought I had made it clear enough I was referring to the impact on the storytelling, though.

[Hurkyl]

It's not really crazy. Her fear is informing her principled opposition rather than overriding it, and blinding her to the flaws of her own plans.

On these lines, the question boils down to how the conflict is resolved: do the protagonists refute her position by demonstrating better reasons, or does the story dismiss her position by tearing down her character?

[Forum Explorer]

Yes? I'm expressing contempt for what that twist would do to the narrative, so the phrasing with negative connotation is appropriate.

If you're thinking I'd be expressing contempt for her character, I guess I can see how you'd misunderstand since that was what you had been talking about. I thought I had made it clear enough I was referring to the impact on the storytelling, though.

It's hardly a twist. It's an explanation on why she isn't opposing Xykon that makes a lot of sense. Because as this thread has pointed out, her plan to let Xykon just conquer the world doesn't actually make sense and neither does her plan to dose the Order with amnesia potions.


Now if she has an actual plan to fight Xykon, then hey, we can judge that plan. However there isn't really any evidence that there is such a plan.

But we already know her plan to amnesia potion the Order won't work, because if Xykon gets the Gate it is an immediate Game Over for the entire world. Therefore, while we know she's a threat to the Order in the sense of weakening them/distracting them, she won't actually defeat them.

So maybe they'll get an explanation on what her real plan is. Or maybe they'll find out that she doesn't actually have a plan at all. Either or.

On these lines, the question boils down to how the conflict is resolved: do the protagonists refute her position by demonstrating better reasons, or does the story dismiss her position by tearing down her character?

EDIT: Actually this brings up a good question:

What, exactly, is Serini's character? She's only been on screen for like, a dozen comics, and has spent most of those sniping away with only minimal dialogue. So what do you think her character is?

[hungrycrow]

On these lines, the question boils down to how the conflict is resolved: do the protagonists refute her position by demonstrating better reasons, or does the story dismiss her position by tearing down her character?

Serini's position is that the Order can't beat Xykon and will destroy the gate when they realize that. That second part is an incorrect assumption, we know the Order won't do that, and are actually staking everything on a fight to the death with Xykon. The conflict being resolved by Serini learning this would not only be pretty boring, it would be frustrating as it would mean that everything would have been resolved already if Serini had just answered V's sendings.

[Empiar93]

Serini has not talked to Roy yet. But based on what we know, why would it matter?

What would Roy have to say that would matter to her, and why should she give away any of her secrets?

(remember, no extrapolations based on what we think she knows, only defendable facts.)

A discussion with Roy, as well as some gentle persuasion, would reveal to her that the Gods have given up one billion times, and don't care one whit about giving up one billion and one times, which would therefore render her plan(?) pointless or even counterproductive. They might be able to convince her to come up with a proactive plan to stop Xykon from mucking around her gate, rather than coming up with proactive plans to stop anyone who's at least ATTEMPTING to stop Xykon.

I'm not sure they could really convince her that they're trustworthy or that they're able to stop Xykon, but at the very least they might be willing to leave the True Dungeon and try to set up an ambush somewhere in the fake dungeon, since they're both in agreement that the gate's defenses shall not be weakened.

I also get the sense that if Serini mentions her vague hope that "the world will survive a few years of a villain calling the shots before someone topples him", the Order might present the same argument that I have: someone's trying to topple him now and toppling him later is not going to be an option, even if the Gods don't just ragequit. In fact they might be able to solve the gate issue for a very very long time!

Honestly, there's a LOT to be gained from not immediately attacking people, even in fantasy worlds. I know I'm throwing out a lot of mights and maybes here, but it seems apparent to me that there's plenty of relevant points to make, and this is just off the top of my head.

[Hurkyl]

Serini's position is that the Order can't beat Xykon and will destroy the gate when they realize that.

She's talking to the paladins at that point, and Lien outright affirmed one of Serini's main concerns about their frame of mind:

Serini:... are you willing to do whatever it takes to stop [Xykon] from taking control of the Gate?
Lien: Yes, duh, of course!

But ultimately, her explicitly stated position is simply that the protagonists have screwed up four times too many, and she's unwilling to give them the chance to screw up a fifth time.

... no fifth chances on Serini's watch.

If I take you off the board, then there's no more conflict.

No more conflict means no chance of the Gate being destroyed, either accidentally or as some sort of misguided act of sacrifice

As an aside, this makes me wonder how much she actually knows and what she's assuming about the circumstances of the destruction of Lirian's gate.

That second part is an incorrect assumption, we know the Order won't do that, and are actually staking everything on a fight to the death with Xykon.

You describe exactly the frame of mind that Serini was chastising the Paladins for having.

And guess what? The stakes the OotS is offering up for this gamble include one of the gate defenses that has been working extremely very well. (let alone whatever might happen during the course of the fight)

The conflict being resolved by Serini learning this would not only be pretty boring, it would be frustrating as it would mean that everything would have been resolved already if Serini had just answered V's sendings.

Nah, what's frustrating if that somehow resolved the conflict despite none of the criticisms of the protagonists being addressed.

[Liquor Box]

What I said was:
That's a lot more support for wildcard status than just optimism.

None of those things (thinking amount multi-classing etc) add up to a wild card in my opinion, in the sense that you are meaning. Given that this is not central to your argument, I suggest we don't spend too long on it.

No worries, spoilers aren't something that bother me much. My understanding from hearsay is that Team Evil accidentally destroyed the gate while in combat with Lirian's defenders. That's consistent with Serini's desire to prevent combat from occurring near her gate. Regardless, even if she does view Xykon as a threat, that doesn't mean she should allow the Order/paladins to get involved, given that her gate is only in the danger it is in because of the previous failures of the Order and the paladins.

It's consistent with conflict occurring near the gate being dangerous and with Xykon being near the gate being dangerous.

Her gate is not in danger only because of the previous failures. If Xykon had failed at eachof the previous gates, he still would come to Serini's gate. He only needs one gate for his plans.

Xykon being a threat does not, in and of itself, mean she should allow the order to get involved. Instead it means that she should consider whether the threat is greater if Xykon is left unchecked, or greater if the Order takes a shot at him

That's fair, though as I pointed out in the last post, that hypothetical future conflict doesn't necessarily have to happen near the gate, and postponing that conflict also opens the possibility of repairing the other gates before putting this one in danger. Serini might also be hoping for a more qualified party than the Order, and as she told the Paladins, even if nobody shows up to topple Xykon, that's still a better outcome than the unmaking of reality. As she said, some people (monsters) might even be better off under Xykon's rule.

Basically, Serini is opting to deal with immediate threats to the gate right now, and worry about future threats to the gate in the future.

Well, being disregarding future threats is a flaw in her logic in and of itself. Just because something may happen sooner does not mean it is more of a threat.

A future threat does give the possibility of doing something like repairing another gate. But we have no indication whatsoever whether anyone who exists who is capable of doing that, let along there being any plans for it. Since you have allowed for spoilers, Lyrian' gate was destroyed 40 years ago without anything being done to repair it.

Serini does think that nobody showing up is a better outcome than destruction, but she also knows that it is likely someone will show up. As for how powerful they might be - who knows, another roll of the dice by her.

These are all hypothetical futures, while the Order's current incursion is an immediate threat. Again, Serini's approach seems to be to reject any option that involves gambling with the safety of the Gate.

Every single thing we are discussing is a hypothetical future. THe Order attacking Xykon, Xykon getting the gate and ruling for years, the gate getting destoryed - they are all hypothetical futures. What Serini should do, and what we should do in critiquing her, is think about which of those hypothetical futures support her goals, and how she can make those happen.

Every single choice Serini can make, from doing nothing, to attacking the order, to talking to the order nicely etc is a gamble with the safety of the gate. Attacking the order is probably the gamble with the worst odds because she's making it more likely that they fail against Xykon and either destroy the gate to stop him, or he gets control and faces the threat of those future parties.

Sure, in the sense that it makes them less culpable in a moral sense, but knowing the details still doesn't make a convincing case that they are safe to have around. As someone else pointed out, Serini has been the guardian of the gate for a long time, so when some adventurers want her to hand off that responsibility and operate according to their plan instead of hers, the default answer is "no", and she needs a very good reason to do otherwise.

No, not just in sense of moral culpability. It makes the case that the Order are not a threat to the gate more compelling. It may not satisfy Serini completely, as you say - I don;t think I have ever suggested thast she should be certain they were no danger to the gate.

As noted above, there's nothing here which is guaranteed. This is about assessing risks against one another. There is no 'no risk' option here. If Serini is only prepared to let the Order attack Xykon if she completely and absolutely trusts them, she has set her standard too high, and increased the risk to the safety of the gate.

Again "I know we messed up and lost the last three gates we fought over, but this time will be different because we will try extra hard not to mess up" is not a compelling argument.

Nothing I said went remotely clsoe to saying "I know we messed up, but....". Roy made deliberate choice (which might have been the right choice) in one set of circumstances but made it clear he would make a different choice if the circumstances were different (it were the last gate).

I feel like this is ignoring that O'Chul would have destroyed the gate a few moments before Miko did had Xykon not paralyzed him. Miko acted as she did because she saw what O'Chul was trying to do and failed to understand that it was no longer necessary.

O-Chul was paralyzed long before Miko entered the scene, so I don't think she say what he was doing, or that could be said to be a cause of the destruction of the gate. But I agree that O0Chul did try to destroy the gate, which might lead Serini to assess the risk of him destroying this one as being higher.

The latest strip confirmed that she knows the identity of the Order, and that she knows what the Order's intentions are in coming here. That changes the dynamic of their relationship, but it doesn't really change my understanding of Serini's assessment of them.

I didn't ask about what you thought Serini's assessment of them was. I asked whether you still thought that she had been investigating them and essentially knew everything about them that the reader did? To me it seems she does not know that much, because if she did her reaction would not be "I know about you from those few sendings".

it doesn't really matter. I am more than happy to continue this discussion on the basis that Serini knows everything about the Order that we do. In my opinion that knowledge would make Serini's decision seem even les logical than if she jsut knew about their involvement in two gates.

I'm still a little unclear on what you mean by metaknowledge here, but maybe this will help: I'm justifying Serini's actions by saying that she has assessed the Order's character and competence, and found them wanting by her standards. The Order's later actions were't what made Serini's actions reasonable, but they were consistent with her view.

I mean if we use stuff we know but Serini doesn't to justify Serini decisions. As an example of how your reasoning could be used to justify a whole lot of things (mostly not in Serini's favour) I will use the exact paragraph with a few words changed to justify a different conclusion:

I'm justifyingcriticising Serini's actions attack on the orderby saying that she has assessed the Order's character and competence, and found them wanting by her standards beatable. The Order's later actions victory of herwere't what made Serini's actions unreasonable, but they were consistent with her view being wrong.

In my opinion, whether Serini's guesses about the Order ultimately turn out to be correct, is not a particularly good guide as to whether they were reasonable guesses to make at the time based on what she knew. if we do rely on how things ultimately turn out, I think we would see Serini's actions in an even less favourable light.

I will say that the best case the Order has going for them is the conversation in comic 1224. Roy's statements in panels 2 and 3, if Serini could hear them, ought to go a long way towards earning Serini's trust (we might be about to see that in the next page or two of the comic).

If Roy communicates that sentiment to Serini and she still is all "you children have no idea how important this is! Only I must defend the gate!" then I will agree with you that she is being unreasonable and begins to seem to be driven more by pride and stubbornness than by legitimate caution.

I agree that statement is indicative. That's why I was asking if you if you thought Serini saw what was hapenning in that cave. Anyway, i think Roy's comments just before destroying Girard's gate were equally meaningful.

[hungrycrow]

You describe exactly the frame of mind that Serini was chastised the Paladins for having.

And guess what? The stakes the OotS are offering up for this gamble is one of the gate defenses that has been working extremely very well.

The stakes are their lives. Their initial plan was to fight Xykon outside the caves, and they would just die if they lost, without getting near the gate at all. When they do get chased into the caves, Roy chooses not to explore further explicitly so they don't mess up the defenses.

The trap at the entrance of the caves is just a stall tactic; there are a finite number of caves and Xykon will inevitably explore all of them and realize the trick. Since Team Evil is clearing multiple fake dungeons every day, it's likely none of the dungeons are dangerous enough to stop them.
Maybe stalling is crucial to some plan Serini can set up later. But in that case, it would have been a lot better to warn the Order to wait.

[Hurkyl]

The stakes are their lives. Their initial plan was to fight Xykon outside the caves, and they would just die if they lost, without getting near the gate at all. When they do get chased into the caves, Roy chooses not to explore further explicitly so they don't mess up the defenses.

Yes, he does. And contrasting the OotS's intentions against their actions just drives home Serini's point.

The trap at the entrance of the caves is just a stall tactic; there are a finite number of caves and Xykon will inevitably explore all of them and realize the trick. Since Team Evil is clearing multiple fake dungeons every day, it's likely none of the dungeons are dangerous enough to stop them.
Maybe stalling is crucial to some plan Serini can set up later. But in that case, it would have been a lot better to warn the Order to wait.

Ah, so it's a "stall tactic", not a "defense". I bet Serini would beg to differ. See how easy it is to rationalize doing things one claims to have no intention doing?

Whether we call it a "defense" or a "stall tactic" is irrelevant. The OotS is happy to sacrifice it for a brief tactical advantage, despite their intentions not to mess things up.

[Peelee]

I agree with you, but I see the opposite example in this thread. Sorta like:

Serini is so cool so surely she:

A. Has an actual plan to defeat Xykon

B. Hasn't just given up and is willing to let Xykon win

C. Doesn't have deep psychological flaws (like most of the other antagonists) that is causing her to be irrationally.

I haven't seen anyone call her cool.

Almost everyone assumes she has a plan. Many assume the plan is "let the defenses do their thing". I fail to see how assuming the plan is different is somehow wrong.

She has not given up and is willing to let Xykon win. This is demonstrated by the simple fact that she hasn't opened the door and let him in. She obviously still opposes him. The only indication that she might have done this is that she flippantly told the paladins that him winning is better than literally everyone in existence dying.

I haven't seen anyone say she doesn't have deep psychological flaws. I, for one, simply don't assume immediately she is acting irrationally, since from what we have heard, she has very rational reasoning behind what she is doing.

I can only speak for myself, but from what what we know she knows, so far I agree with her that the Order and allies should not be allowed near the Gate.

[Precure]

As we have seen in the most recent strip, she's gone insane due to Vaarsuvius' constant harassment.

[brian 333]

A discussion with Roy, as well as some gentle persuasion, would reveal to her that the Gods have given up one billion times, and don't care one whit about giving up one billion and one times, which would therefore render her plan(?) pointless or even counterproductive. They might be able to convince her to come up with a proactive plan to stop Xykon from mucking around her gate, rather than coming up with proactive plans to stop anyone who's at least ATTEMPTING to stop Xykon.

I'm not sure they could really convince her that they're trustworthy or that they're able to stop Xykon, but at the very least they might be willing to leave the True Dungeon and try to set up an ambush somewhere in the fake dungeon, since they're both in agreement that the gate's defenses shall not be weakened.

I also get the sense that if Serini mentions her vague hope that "the world will survive a few years of a villain calling the shots before someone topples him", the Order might present the same argument that I have: someone's trying to topple him now and toppling him later is not going to be an option, even if the Gods don't just ragequit. In fact they might be able to solve the gate issue for a very very long time!

Honestly, there's a LOT to be gained from not immediately attacking people, even in fantasy worlds. I know I'm throwing out a lot of mights and maybes here, but it seems apparent to me that there's plenty of relevant points to make, and this is just off the top of my head.

Those are things Serini needs to hear.

Those are not reasons she should listen in the first place.

I hope they get a chance to say some of them before the Round 2 bell rings.

[Empiar93]

Those are not reasons she should listen in the first place.

Well, that’s not what you asked. You asked what Roy could have to say, and why Serini should share her secrets. I didn’t even address the latter part because she doesn’t need to and I agree there’s no compelling reason to. The Order is the only party that needs to explain anything, and the explanations are important enough that the conversation could be successful without Serini saying anything new whatsoever.
I do agree and hope that this conversation can take place now, so we can perhaps hear about the Scribblers and continue with the main plot.

[JonahFalcon]

Serini is only operating from things she's seen and assumptions. For example, she thinks Xykon being an Evil Overlord will just elevate humanoids to power and re-balance society, when in reality, Xykon prefers obedient troops and it's easier to kill them and raise them as undead.

[Ionathus]

Do not play this cheap game with me, please.
When you attempt to attribute to a conversation a structure of claim and counter claim, you are doing it wrong.(When conversing with me, anyway).

My dude, we are not in an argument right now. I'm sorry if I gave that impression by communicating poorly, but I was literally just asking a clarifying question out of curiosity.

I am not trying to set you up for some devious rhetorical trick. I was just curious if you were referencing specific 4th-wall-breaking knowledge or behavior that Serini has demonstrated, or if you just meant it in the broader sense of "she's an OotS character, of course she has meta-knowledge."

It's not really crazy. Her fear is informing her principled opposition rather than overriding it, and blinding her to the flaws of her own plans.

Yeah, I can definitely get behind this. "Informing rather than overriding" is a good way to sum up my read on Serini's mental state.

Those are things Serini needs to hear.

Those are not reasons she should listen in the first place.

This is an excellent way to put it. The Order have said all the "right" things from their point of view, but Serini happens to disagree philosophically, in a way that makes their statements ineffective. People are saying "she should just listen to them" but they have not given her sufficient reason to.

she thinks Xykon being an Evil Overlord will just elevate humanoids to power and re-balance society, when in reality, Xykon prefers obedient troops and it's easier to kill them and raise them as undead.

That's not what she said. She said that the world was a big place and it would survive being ruled by Xykon for awhile. "Survive" is not a word you use when you think it'll be a harmless restructuring of society (how's that for an oxymoron?).

She says her job is to protect the world, not the status quo, and then she made an offhand comment about how the status quo isn't as great for every sentient creature as it is for the "civilized" humanoids. Her point wasn't that she expected Xykon to fix inequality for all kobolds or whatever; her point was that humans, dwarves, elves, halflings etc. stand to lose more from Xykon's takeover, and that might be clouding their judgment. Or, in other words, "I'm not going to risk the physical eradication of the entire planet just because you're hung up on how the alternative might disrupt Poker Night." I'm being extra flippant here to make a point, but obviously any takeover would come with tremendous loss of life. It just wouldn't be the loss of ALL lives and potential to ever create more lives in this version of reality.

[hungrycrow]

This is an excellent way to put it. The Order have said all the "right" things from their point of view, but Serini happens to disagree philosophically, in a way that makes their statements ineffective. People are saying "she should just listen to them" but they have not given her sufficient reason to.

The only thing they've said so far is an introduction, we still don't know what they really disagree on.
Also, I don't think "she should just listen to them", I think "she should just talk to them". She should make a case for what she wants before resorting to force.

That's not what she said. She said that the world was a big place and it would survive being ruled by Xykon for awhile. "Survive" is not a word you use when you think it'll be a harmless restructuring of society (how's that for an oxymoron?).

She says her job is to protect the world, not the status quo, and then she made an offhand comment about how the status quo isn't as great for every sentient creature as it is for the "civilized" humanoids. Her point wasn't that she expected Xykon to fix inequality for all kobolds or whatever; her point was that humans, dwarves, elves, halflings etc. stand to lose more from Xykon's takeover, and that might be clouding their judgment. Or, in other words, "I'm not going to risk the physical eradication of the entire planet just because you're hung up on how the alternative might disrupt Poker Night." I'm being extra flippant here to make a point, but obviously any takeover would come with tremendous loss of life. It just wouldn't be the loss of ALL lives and potential to ever create more lives in this version of reality.

The paladins aren't making an assumption about how things will be under Xykon based on privilege, but on how Xykon treats his own minions. The goblins built a ramp out of their own corpses at Azure City. Durkon saw enough to accuse Redcloak of killing more goblins than he did.
I do think they should have asked why goblins would put up with that, but they could reasonably conclude a Xykon regime would be bad for everyone.

All of this doesn't take away from her main point about comparing tyranny to permanent death. But it is a weird hypothetical to throw out there.

[Ionathus]

The only thing they've said so far is an introduction, we still don't know what they really disagree on.
Also, I don't think "she should just listen to them", I think "she should just talk to them". She should make a case for what she wants before resorting to force.

I agree, I think talking to the Order is her best play and I wish she'd chosen that instead. I just also believe that not talking to them isn't an invalid or colossally stupid choice, given their track record.

The paladins aren't making an assumption about how things will be under Xykon based on privilege, but on how Xykon treats his own minions. The goblins built a ramp out of their own corpses at Azure City. Durkon saw enough to accuse Redcloak of killing more goblins than he did.
I do think they should have asked why goblins would put up with that, but they could reasonably conclude a Xykon regime would be bad for everyone.

All of this doesn't take away from her main point about comparing tyranny to permanent death. But it is a weird hypothetical to throw out there.

Agreed, a Xykon regime would be much worse for everyone involved and I think they all understand that. Kobolds and Trolls and others may or may not get a better deal -- remember, she said "who knows?". I think that part of her logic is meant to be flippant, not the core thesis statement.

I think in her eyes, you can't trust a Lawful Good "hero type" to logically distinguish between Civilization and Creation Itself. After all, Roy offered a very similar argument while fighting Xykon on dragonback: that the world might physically survive being ruled by Xykon until he and his friends could train up for a rematch, but that intervening time would "destroy its soul," and he's not willing to let that happen. Serini is willing to let that happen (though she probably doesn't agree that the world's "soul" is that fragile) if the alternative risks permanent oblivion. Current Civilization =/= Physical Existence, and Serini doesn't think the paladins or The Order understand that. That's what her talk about the status quo is addressing.

Is she selling the heroes short? Yes. Is her logic partially biased? Yes -- everyone's is. But I can see how she arrived at her conclusion.

[Empiar93]

This is an excellent way to put it. The Order have said all the "right" things from their point of view, but Serini happens to disagree philosophically, in a way that makes their statements ineffective. People are saying "she should just listen to them" but they have not given her sufficient reason to.

You don't really need a reason to listen to others, or to at least talk to them. On any given topic do you think you have all of the information you could possibly have? When you encounter someone else and that topic comes up, do you assume off-hand that they have zero relevant information that you don't already have, or that they don't have a perspective that could change the way you interpret the information you already have? If you do make that assumption, it might surprise you how often you'd be wrong. I'm sure Serini is aware (or at least believes) that she has information that the Order doesn't.

Of course, the Scribblers each believed that they knew best how to protect the gates and I'm sure they believed that they knew everything they need to know about the gates. It makes sense that this applies to Serini as well, and maybe the "Serini is a moron" crowd should have expected this (I lightly include myself in that group). But narratively it's frustrating to the audience because... I mean for heaven's sake even the Gods don't know everything about the snarl/rift itself! The Order knows something even the gods don't!

Serini has an important job as the gate guardian and these guys are a bunch of screw-ups, I will not deny that. That doesn't mean they can't in some way make themselves useful. Merely listening to them would be of a non-zero amount of use to Serini. To her credit, I'm sure she'd talk with them after kidnapping them and before administering her amnesia potion, just as she did with the paladins. Chances are that conversation wouldn't be happening too late to fix things, either. But Serini's behavior, while rational, still doesn't endear her.

[Peelee]

She should make a case for what she wants before resorting to force.

Why? She stands to gain nothing and only exposes herself by doing so. And she also loses the benefit of knowing for 100% certainty that anyone who turns back won't ever reveal anything about her or the Gate. It's far safer to just memory drug 'em up.

Your proposal gives Serini needless exposure and needless risk for a worse outcome, and that's if it's successful.

[BloodSquirrel]

This is an excellent way to put it. The Order have said all the "right" things from their point of view, but Serini happens to disagree philosophically, in a way that makes their statements ineffective. People are saying "she should just listen to them" but they have not given her sufficient reason to.

I'm going to go ahead and say that, by default, "I'm about to physically assault somebody because I disagree with them" is automatically sufficient reason to try engaging in dialog first. In fact, taking any extreme measure should come with an automatic responsibility to say "Hold on, let me think about the alternatives first." If you're about to hurt somebody or cause serious damage of some kind, the onus is on you to make sure that it's actually necessary. The burden of proof is not on your victim to prove that they weren't a threat to you.

I'll reiterate what I said when this topic first came up: There's no reason to act as if the options are "Ambush Xykon and compromise the security around the gate" and "Walk away and do nothing". Serini knows enough about the defenses around the gate to tell them "Hey, they just entered door #412. Your best bet is to attack them after they've just fought X monster." She and the Order could easily come to a win-win arrangement where she gives them information to improve their chances while telling them nothing about where the gate is or what other security measures are around it. She could even send the two Paladin she has captive out to help them.

Instead, she's chosen to believe that the Order will behave so irrationally and uncompromisingly that the only way to deal with them is start a fight first, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy. She's risked eliminating her own best options by trying to (as far as they know) murder them first. If there were as irrational and unwilling to listen to her as she first assumed, then she's in a far worse position to do anything about it than she was before she ambushed them.

Serini is great as a character. Her irrationality is a well-thought out trait that makes plenty of sense given her position and history. The mistakes she's making right now make for great dramatic fodder. She works very well as a mouthpiece for a point of view that is interesting, even if it is deeply flawed, and she doesn't have to be right about her worldview in order to raise some interesting points. The one about the status quo is a good example: She's wrong, and hilariously so, but it's still a point worth raising and thinking about.

But she is acting irrationally, even given the information she has available to her, and I'm going to make a prediction: She's going to double-down as a first recourse before she has any moment of character growth where she re-thinks her plan. She's going to make things worse before she helps make them better.

[Ionathus]

I agree with you on pretty much your entire post except this part:

You don't really need a reason to listen to others, or to at least talk to them. On any given topic do you think you have all of the information you could possibly have?

I, a real human in the real world, living in a lawfully-structured, cooperative society, agree with you one hundred percent.

Serini, a character living in a lawless wilderness in a fantasy world that contains artifacts that can destroy the entire world if handled improperly, doesn't have that luxury. The world lives or dies based on the way she handles this situation: if she doesn't trust someone, that's the ball game. She's not letting them anyone near it.

[hungrycrow]

Why? She stands to gain nothing and only exposes herself by doing so. And she also loses the benefit of knowing for 100% certainty that anyone who turns back won't ever reveal anything about her or the Gate. It's far safer to just memory drug 'em up.

Your proposal gives Serini needless exposure and needless risk for a worse outcome, and that's if it's successful.

Because it's generally not good to assault people.

As for what she could gain, they might agree with her reasoning and not interfere.

People have pointed to the ambush at the cave entrance as proof that the Order is dangerous to work with. However, they only considered doing that because they assumed Serini was dead and that they were the only active defenders left. Not informing them she was alive gave them more time and reason to interfere while she set up her own ambush.

Another risk she's taking by not contacting them is that her own ambush goes poorly, which it did. The Order could kill Serini and Sunny instead of trying to end the fight nonlethally. Her ambush of the paladins also carried risk: they could have accidently alerted Team Evil while defending themselves.

Edit: Also everything Bloodsquirrel said

[Empiar93]

I'm going to go ahead and say that, by default, "I'm about to physically assault somebody because I disagree with them" is automatically sufficient reason to try engaging in dialog first. In fact, taking any extreme measure should come with an automatic responsibility to say "Hold on, let me think about the alternatives first." If you're about to hurt somebody or cause serious damage of some kind, the onus is on you to make sure that it's actually necessary. The burden of proof is not on your victim to prove that they weren't a threat to you.

I'll agree here.

I'll reiterate what I said when this topic first came up: There's no reason to act as if the options are "Ambush Xykon and compromise the security around the gate" and "Walk away and do nothing". Serini knows enough about the defenses around the gate to tell them "Hey, they just entered door #412. Your best bet is to attack them after they've just fought X monster." She and the Order could easily come to a win-win arrangement where she gives them information to improve their chances while telling them nothing about where the gate is or what other security measures are around it. She could even send the two Paladin she has captive out to help them.

But I'll disagree here. You're right that the options aren't so dichotomous as what these arguments tend to assume, but just because Serini COULD aid the OotS in their ambush does not mean she SHOULD or that it's a good idea. I understand you are making a suggestion, not stating what she should do. Keep in mind, and this is one of the biggest points in Serini's defense in attacking the Order right now: up to this point, the villains seemingly have no idea whatsoever that they aren't entering the real dungeon each of these times, they've been fooled by the very first line of defense, and in fact the Order's accidental retreat is what clued in Redcloak to the nature of the trickery. Roy is trying not to blunder and break things, but it's entirely possible that they already did so by complete accident, the SECOND they entered the dungeon! It's entirely reasonable to try and get the Order out of the way based on this perspective. The heroes' chances of defeating Xykon are not 100%, even with an ambush. I wouldn't want to make the risk that they fail and ruin everything, because if they break into the main dungeon Serini might very well be screwed.

Instead, she's chosen to believe that the Order will behave so irrationally and uncompromisingly that the only way to deal with them is start a fight first, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy. She's risked eliminating her own best options by trying to (as far as they know) murder them first. If there were as irrational and unwilling to listen to her as she first assumed, then she's in a far worse position to do anything about it than she was before she ambushed them.

I'm not 100% on this line of thought but I also don't think you're totally wrong. It seems a mischaracterization to simply say Serini has chosen to believe - she's interpreted their past actions to inform future actions. She doesn't understand the full extent to which destroying the gate isn't an option for the party, and she doesn't have to understand it either.

Serini is great as a character. Her irrationality is a well-thought out trait that makes plenty of sense given her position and history. The mistakes she's making right now make for great dramatic fodder. She works very well as a mouthpiece for a point of view that is interesting, even if it is deeply flawed, and she doesn't have to be right about her worldview in order to raise some interesting points. The one about the status quo is a good example: She's wrong, and hilariously so, but it's still a point worth raising and thinking about.

But she is acting irrationally, even given the information she has available to her, and I'm going to make a prediction: She's going to double-down as a first recourse before she has any moment of character growth where she re-thinks her plan. She's going to make things worse before she helps make them better.

I'm nitpicking here, but she is absolutely not acting irrationally. Acting based on incomplete information is not the same as acting irrationally. And that seems to be a theme of book 7 so far, people acting on missing information or miscommunication. Or people acting from a lack of understanding of their opponents. Rich has actually done a fine job showing that miscommunication does not automatically equal irrational behavior. It can result in close-mindedness and therefore hypocrisy, but the antagonists to this point have laid out thoughtful and consistent arguments. They're missing crucial facts and that makes them wrong, but wrong is not irrational.

[KorvinStarmast]

My dude, we are not in an argument right now. I'm sorry if I gave that impression by communicating poorly, but I was literally just asking a clarifying question out of curiosity.

Rich has been breaking the fourth wall - when ever he feels it fits what he's trying to do - with a wide variety of characters ever since strip 0001. There is no reason to believe he would not do that with Serini, or any other character, major or minor, if he felt like it.
As I said, it's part of his schtick.
I may be mistaken in presuming that everyone in these conversations has read the entire strip, and is up to date, before engaging. I do not assume that all conversation participants have read the supplemental books - it is clear that many have not.
I have them all in pdf form but that's my own choice and my own spending decision.

[Ionathus]

I have no doubt that the resolution of Serini's opposition is going to be some flavor of "teamwork makes the dream work." Maybe even throw in a side of Serini saying "we were wrong to all part ways instead of defending the gates as a unified team." She's been isolated so long that it's probably done a number on her emotional health and willingness to trust others.

I'm just not expecting a grand comeuppance. I think the narrative is going to agree that Serini is wrong...but I don't think it will ultimately judge her as a moron.

[KorvinStarmast]

.but I don't think it will ultimately judge her as a moron.

Particularly since there is no evidence that she is one. That pejorative was applied by the OP in order to troll the forum incite discussion.

[danielxcutter]

Why does Serini have to be logically and philosophically correct except for a bit of information she shouldn't be able to know? People have deeply-seated flaws, especially in fiction, because that's what drives conflict and makes the story interesting.

"Serini did nothing wrong, except for this itty-bitty little thing that she had no way of knowing" strikes me as lame. Even if the post-Godsmoot stuff is what finally tips Serini over, I do not expect her philosophy outside that to remain entirely flawless.

[hungrycrow]

I have no doubt that the resolution of Serini's opposition is going to be some flavor of "teamwork makes the dream work." Maybe even throw in a side of Serini saying "we were wrong to all part ways instead of defending the gates as a unified team." She's been isolated so long that it's probably done a number on her emotional health and willingness to trust others.

I'm just not expecting a grand comeuppance. I think the narrative is going to agree that Serini is wrong...but I don't think it will ultimately judge her as a moron.

My prediction: Serini doesn't get swayed by the Order's arguments, but Sunny does and abandons her to join the Order. Then maybe she gets a Han Solo moment where she jumps into the final battle at the last moment.

Agree that this isn't leading to some grand comeuppance.

[Schroeswald]

I think that often we talk about Serini and how much she knows and assume that no one knows anything too major we the readers don’t know. But there’s at least one thing she knows and we don’t that is definitely major, the exact circumstances of Kraagor’s death and the breakup of the order of the Scribble (we know this is major because the Giant has said he wouldn’t write a prequel about the adventures of the Scribblers outside of fighting Baron Pineapple or something because it would reveal things he’s saving for the main narrative). She probably doesn’t know everything but neither do we, and it’s very likely that some of that has given her a different perspective.

[danielxcutter]

What I don't expect is some grand reveal that means Serini Was Totally Right Except For The Godsmoot Stuff^TM. There's probably something major, though.