Serini is a moron

[TRH]

Honestly, I'm feeling a bit of displacement from Serini here. A big part, possibly the main part of her reasoning is that the Order and the Guard simply don't deserve another chance at saving the world because they've failed so many times. That would explain why she wouldn't consider trying to persuade the Order to just fight Xykon in the canyon away from the Gate, where they would probably just die without having the chance to destroy the final Gate or even to see it. She wants them out of the picture because they are failures and do not belong here. A reflection of her own guilt for how she and the Scribblers weren't up for the task either, maybe.

Actually, typing this out, I think this is the crux of the argument. There may or may not be another party of adventurers to challenge Xykon later, who may or may not do a better job, but that new party would not be tainted by the mistakes of the past, so Serini is willing to take a chance on them that she simply won't give to the Order or the paladins.

[Liquor Box]

I think people focus too much on the literal "few years" thing Serini said and too little on her underlying point that some hope of Xykon being defeated down the line is preferable to global oblivion. Sure, she's being flippant about it, but I think even if you got her to concede that the chances of Xykon being defeated later on are slim and that his rule may well go on for centuries if not millennia, that wouldn't make her change her mind because her reasoning doesn't actually hinge on his actually being toppled eventually.

Sure, but that point doesn't really follow. If it takes centuries for a group of adventurers to come along and successfully defeat Xykon, you'd have to expect that lots and lots of groups would try unsuccessfully in the meantime. Each one of those unsuccessful attempts would be just as likely as the Order/Paladins to destroy the gate after falling short of defeating Xykon. Actually they'd be more likely because as Xykon grows more powerful with the passing years the prospects of defeating him will diminish.

Serini's actions here are increasing, not decreasing, the chances of the destruction of the gate - based on the information she knows, or the information we know. 'Moronic' might be to take it too far, but it certainly seems like flawed logic.

It does. He's a villain. A hero will eventually topple the villain. That's storycrafting 101. She may not be as genre savvy as Tarquin or Elan, but she's completely right about that. We know for a fact that this universe operates under laws of drama.she is unequivocally correct that a hero will beat the villain. She's just mistaken about which hero(s).

If we are assigning genre-savvyness to Serini, then she should be aware that this group of heroes will prevail. After all, we all know it (even the least genre savvy among us). Such is the rules of drama - the party who have been protagonists for 20 odd years will prevail.

[TRH]

Sure, but that point doesn't really follow. If it takes centuries for a group of adventurers to come along and successfully defeat Xykon, you'd have to expect that lots and lots of groups would try unsuccessfully in the meantime. Each one of those unsuccessful attempts would be just as likely as the Order/Paladins to destroy the gate after falling short of defeating Xykon. Actually they'd be more likely because as Xykon grows more powerful with the passing years the prospects of defeating him will diminish.

Serini's actions here are increasing, not decreasing, the chances of the destruction of the gate - based on the information she knows, or the information we know. 'Moronic' might be to take it too far, but it certainly seems like flawed logic.

I think the key here is that this is personal. Hypothetical future groups of heroes aren't guaranteed to succeed, or to not destroy the Gate themselves, but at least they aren't this specific merry band of idiots, who in her mind are absolutely guaranteed to fail and doom the world. Because that is all they have ever done, as far as she's concerned.

[Peelee]

If we are assigning gene-savvyness to Serini, then she should be aware that this group of heroes will prevail.

I'm not saying that we assign full and absolute knowledge of the entire story to Serini. I merely suggest that it's easily possible for Serini to know enough about how her own world works, as an elderly epic level character, to know that generic, overall themes such as "a hero will always eventually defeat a world-threatening villain" hold true.

Serini need not be equated to ultra-Tarquin.

[TRH]

I'm not saying that we assign full and absolute knowledge of the entire story to Serini. I merely suggest that it's easily possible for Serini to know enough about how her own world works, as an elderly epic level character, to know that generic, overall themes such as "a hero will always eventually defeat a world-threatening villain" hold true.

Serini need not be equated to ultra-Tarquin.

But why is that any more likely to be true than "the world will always be saved from apocalypse in the end?"

The more I think about her logic, the more I'm convinced personal contempt is the main thing holding the assumptions together. It would be so much easier to convince or coerce the Order into combat with Xykon away from the Gate than it would be to do the thing she's doing now. But if the Order's involvement guarantees the end of the Gate no matter what, then getting rid of them is the only way forward.

[Peelee]

But why is that any more likely to be true than "the world will always be saved from apocalypse in the end?"

She's the agent saving the world from the apocalypse of the OotS.

Just because she's wrong doesn't mean she's not consistent.

[TRH]

She's the agent saving the world from the apocalypse of the OotS.

Just because she's wrong doesn't mean she's not consistent.

To be consistent, someone else would have to be able to step up and save everyone even if she didn't, though.

[RatElemental]

To be consistent, someone else would have to be able to step up and save everyone even if she didn't, though.

I dunno, deus ex machina like that need to be at least foreshadowed. Unless the gods are just terrible at setting up narrativium run worlds.

[TRH]

I dunno, deus ex machina like that need to be at least foreshadowed. Unless the gods are just terrible at setting up narrativium run worlds.

Well, that's the thing: "the world will be saved" is a lot easier to just happen than "a hero will defeat the villain" because pretty much anything can lead to that outcome, including dumb luck or the apocalpyse in question not being as bad as advertised. You don't necessarily need a new character to make it work.

[Peelee]

To be consistent, someone else would have to be able to step up and save everyone even if she didn't, though.

At some point, yes. It is not necessarily before she dies. Again, she herself said probably a couple of centuries before it would happen. As she sees it, she's saving the world from destruction now, and someone else will save the world from Xykon later. I fail to see how this is inconsistent. It's just not happening on the time line that you would apparently expect.

[TRH]

At some point, yes. It is not necessarily before she dies. Again, she herself said probably a couple of centuries before it would happen. As she sees it, she's saving the world from destruction now, and someone else will save the world from Xykon later. I fail to see how this is inconsistent. It's just not happening on the time line that you would apparently expect.

You may have misunderstood. I meant that it would not be necessary for her to stop the Order, because the world cannot be destroyed by them in a universe where story tropes like "the world will aways survive" holds sway. Something else would intervene, or, wonder of wonders, she might have actually misjudged them.

[georgie_leech]

You may have misunderstood. I meant that it would not be necessary for her to stop the Order, because the world cannot be destroyed by them in a universe where story tropes like "the world will aways survive" holds sway. Something else would intervene, or, wonder of wonders, she might have actually misjudged them.

Much like Julio's airship, narrativium-based solutions generally require, you know, a good faith effort at heroism.

And whether some other bumbling group of adventurers will come along to unseat Xykon in the future, I suspect they will have been directly involved with fewer than 3 Gates being destroyed and personally responsible for less than 2 of them going kablooey.

[TRH]

And whether some other bumbling group of adventurers will come along to unseat Xykon in the future, I suspect they will have been directly involved with fewer than 3 Gates being destroyed and personally responsible for less than 2 of them going ablooey.

That's the point I'm driving at. This is personal for Serini. Despite her protestations, she is just as paranoid as Girard, just in a different direction. He thought the Paladins would try to conquer the world and could not be convinced otherwise. She thinks the Order will destroy the world to spite Xykon and cannot be convinced otherwise. Trying her luck with anyone else or even nobody in particular is preferable, because the Order are just as villainous as Xykon in their way.

[georgie_leech]

That's the point I'm driving at. This is personal for Serini. Despite her protestations, she is just as paranoid as Girard, just in a different direction. He thought the Paladins would try to conquer the world and could not be convinced otherwise. She thinks the Order will destroy the world to spite Xykon and cannot be convinced otherwise. Trying her luck with anyone else or even nobody in particular is preferable, because the Order are just as villainous as Xykon in their way.

What I'll say is that "this group of infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins will break their word" has significantly less supporting evidence than "the OotS will destroy a Gate," thus requiring her good-faith effort at stopping them.

[TRH]

What I'll say is that "this group of infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins will break their word" has significantly less supporting evidence than "the OotS will destroy a Gate," thus requiring her good-faith effort at stopping them.

She effectively believes both of those things, given there was nothing the paladins could say to convince her they would not destroy her Gate either.

[georgie_leech]

She effectively believes both of those things, given there was nothing the paladins could say to convince her they would not destroy her Gate either.

Being directly responsible for the other Gate going kablooie does kind of put a damper on her ability to trust them. But she doesn't think they're going to break their word; rather, she thinks that their honourable-ness will convince them they'll have to take drastic action to stop Xykon. You know, like the last time when they were willing to take drastic action to stop Xykon. Hell, O-chul is even the Paladin that initially tried to make the Gate go kablooie.

[TRH]

Being directly responsible for the other Gate going kablooie does kind of put a damper on her ability to trust them. But she doesn't think they're going to break their word; rather, she thinks that their honourable-ness will convince them they'll have to take drastic action to stop Xykon. You know, like the last time when they were willing to take drastic action to stop Xykon. Hell, O-chul is even the Paladin that initially tried to make the Gate go kablooie.

And there is no promise they can make now that she would believe. Ergo, she has concluded that they would break any promise they made to her in the present.

[georgie_leech]

And there is no promise they can make now that she would believe. Ergo, she has concluded that they would break any promise they made to her in the present.

Right, because the evidence presented to her wasn't "this group of infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins will break their word," but specifically "this group of infamously dedicated-to-a-higher-calling Paladins has already acted to bring the world closer to destruction in pursuit of said higher calling." Paranoia is unfounded; "they will do this thing again" is generally not paranoid, as they've explicitly shown the capacity to do the thing. Where she differs from Girard is that she believes they'd try to keep their word, rather than treat it as worthless. What worth it has though is less than she's willing to gamble the world on. Because again, they did the thing she accuses them of doing. Despite their oath to guard the Gate (which they literally sacrificed their lives for), in the end they broke it, because their Higher Calling to Good-ness led them to believe that a destroyed gate and broken Oath was preferable to the gate being in Xykon's hands.

[TRH]

Right, because the evidence presented to her wasn't "this group of infamously honourable-to-a-fault Paladins will break their word," but specifically "this group of infamously dedicated-to-a-higher-calling Paladins has already acted to bring the world closer to destruction in pursuit of said higher calling." Paranoia is unfounded; "they will do this thing again" is generally not paranoid, as they've explicitly shown the capacity to do the thing. Where she differs from Girard is that she believes they'd try to keep their word, rather than treat it as worthless. What worth it has though is less than she's willing to gamble the world on. Because again, they did the thing she accuses them of doing. Despite their oath to guard the Gate (which they literally sacrificed their lives for), in the end they broke it, because their Higher Calling to Good-ness led them to believe that a destroyed gate and broken Oath was preferable to the gate being in Xykon's hands.

You know, it's only people on this forum who are making a big deal out of the Sapphire Guard's oath supposedly forbidding them from destroying the Gate. Serini didn't say or imply anything that indicates she thinks they finessed their oaths in that specific way. And honestly, if such a specific provision was even implied in their oath, I can't help but feel like they'd have angsted about it a bit more than they did.

[georgie_leech]

You know, it's only people on this forum who are making a big deal out of the Sapphire Guard's oath supposedly forbidding them from destroying the Gate. Serini didn't say or imply anything that indicates she thinks they finessed their oaths in that specific way. And honestly, if such a specific provision was even implied in their oath, I can't help but feel like they'd have angsted about it a bit more than they did.

I dunno, I feel like a group called "The Sapphire Guard" probably has rules based around, you know, guarding said sapphire and not breaking it instead.

[TRH]

I dunno, I feel like a group called "The Sapphire Guard" probably has rules based around, you know, guarding said sapphire and not breaking it instead.

You probably assumed an organization of paladins would be led by one as well, though, right?

[georgie_leech]

You probably assumed an organization of paladins would be led by one as well, though, right?

You're right, I can't imagine where I got the idea that The Sapphire Guard's primary duty was guarding a sapphire.

Hang on. Are you now arguing that Soon didn't intend for his order of Paladins that he named the Sapphire Guard to guard the sapphire? Because at this point, I'm confused as to who was thinking the Paladins were being duplicitous.

[TRH]

You're right, I can't imagine where I got the idea that The Sapphire Guard's primary duty was guarding a sapphire.

Hang on. Are you now arguing that Soon didn't intend for his order of Paladins that he named the Sapphire Guard to guard the sapphire? Because at this point, I'm confused as to who was thinking the Paladins were being duplicitous.

You define guarding the sapphire in a very specific way, is the issue. The paladins in practice decided that keeping it out of the wrong hands was more important than keeping it intact. Their founder himself called the act an adequate fulfillment of their duties. And here you are telling all of them them they were doing it wrong and obviously violating a section of their oath that was never discussed or even mentioned. And I'm the one making things up?!

Pull the other one, seriously.

[Peelee]

That's the point I'm driving at. This is personal for Serini.

And this is the point I'm driving at:

Much like Julio's airship, narrativium-based solutions generally require, you know, a good faith effort at heroism.

Sure, it's personal for Serini. She was part of the group that built the Gates holding reality together, and she personally took charge of one of them. That doesn't make her paranoid any more than Roy's personal stake in destroying Xykon makes him paranoid. Roy has a personal stake but also recognizes that the world must be saved for the betterment of all regardless. Serini has a personal state but also recognizes that reality must be held together for the betterment of all regardless.

And it's hardly paranoia to believe that a group which destroyed two of the five Gates - intentionally, I might add - might want to destroy one more.

[TRH]

And it's hardly paranoia to believe that a group which destroyed two of the five Gates - intentionally, I might add - might want to destroy one more.

But to believe that so firmly that literally nothing they say or do can ever convince you otherwise is, at the least, Ian-level mistrustful.

And that's the thing: you guys keep saying she only thinks this might happen if the Order is allowed to continue. No, she is certain. Absolutely, fanatically certain that they are guaranteed to destroy the world if left within 5 miles of the Gate for more than a day. 500 foot tall flaming letters proclaiming the contrary wouldn't even faze her.

[TRH]

Also, predicting this now: it will take much, much longer for Serini to give up the ghost here than the folks defending her assume. I wouldn't be surprised to see her die before admitting error, if I'm honest. Scribblers don't seem to have been sticklers for thinking they're wrong.

[Peelee]

But to believe that so firmly that literally nothing they say or do can ever convince you otherwise is, at the least, Ian-level mistrustful.

You keep saying that, yet I have yet to see any evidence of it. Two paladins, one of whom literally tried to destroy one of the Gates and only did not succeed due to being paralyzed by Xykon at the last second, could not convince her otherwise in like 20 seconds of debate that largely consisted of leading questions by Serini. I fail to see how that somehow equates to "literally nothing that anyone can say or do, ever".

[TRH]

You keep saying that, yet I have yet to see any evidence of it. Two paladins, one of whom literally tried to destroy one of the Gates and only did not succeed due to being paralyzed by Xykon at the last second, could not convince her otherwise in like 20 seconds of debate that largely consisted of leading questions by Serini. I fail to see how that somehow equates to "literally nothing that anyone can say or do, ever".

Well, she's very clearly shown negative interest in any of their justifications for past actions or assurances they'll do anything different, the important information the Order has about the situation she's not aware of has been shown to be nearly useless in persuading a skeptical party in the recent exchange with Redcloak because they have no evidence to support any of its veracity. And I don't see a ton they can do at the moment that would convince her she's wrong, so at the least, nothing they say and nothing they can feasibly do will convince her.

And the Scribblers before her have all died from their convictions, more or less, so I don't see this going much differently.

[Peelee]

Well, she's very clearly shown negative interest in any of their justifications for past actions or assurances they'll do anything different, the important information the Order has about the situation she's not aware of has been shown to be nearly useless in persuading a skeptical party in the recent exchange with Redcloak because they have no evidence to support any of its veracity. And I don't see a ton they can do at the moment that would convince her she's wrong, so at the least, nothing they say and nothing they can feasibly do will convince her.

And the Scribblers before her have all died from their convictions, more or less, so I don't see this going much differently.

If I saw video footage of Bob, with a rifle, aiming at the head of a polka-dotted rabbit (a species which has only five members in existence) and only didn't shoot because the gun jammed, and Bob later showed up to my house where I keep a polka-dotted rabbit - and, I should point out, all four other polka-dotted rabbits have been killed - then yes, I would be clearly distrustful of Bob. This would not be paranoia. This would be common sense. Further, I have to note yet again that they had a very brief conversation that consisted almost entirely of Serini asking leading questions, which O-Chul was incredibly reticent to answer. It should not be surprising that Serini was not swayed by O-Chul's silver-tongued milquetoast stammerings.

Also, how exactly did Soon die from his convictions? Or Girard? Three fifths have not died from their convictions, so claiming "all of them" did is quite the leap.

[TRH]

Yes, leading questions are a favorite from reasonable people who can be swayed by a logical argument. Incidentally, have you stopped beating your wife?