OOTS #1249 - The Discussion Thread

[Peelee]

If the betting pool is more than 2 people, odds are high that Serini's not the winner, just by virtue of probability. It's a safe assumption to make that Serini isn't a winner, because it's A: Highly probable, B: Immaterial to the larger point that Girard's group would need to go into cities anyway in order to get resupply, and C: Irrelevant because they're outright stating that this isn't a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination and they're doing it because it's literally the only plan they've got left.

And, with all due respect, please stop speaking so authoritatively about the phrasing involved here, especially when Haley outright states "A pool probably means more than two people", since there's only two people they were talking about before.

It would be in keeping of Girard and Serini's characters for her to be involved in the betting pool, and the comic doesn't explicitly state that she's not, and all I'm saying is that the comic is ambiguous on the subject, as well as pointing out why it might be interesting if the comic does have her involved in the pool. It might never come up, I might be wrong, but can't you just shrug and go "eh maybe" given all of that?

They don't consider even the possibility that Serini won. They are 100% invested in the idea that one of Girard's confederates has a 10,000 gold windfall they want to spend in the biggest city in the desert. They are entirely discounting any chance that Serini won, which could only be the case if they did not consider that Serini was involved in the pool.

Also, what about Serini's character would be consistent with her betting in the pool? There's no reason at all to think she had any ill will towards Soon, and she has no expectation that the two paladins we've seen her deal with, Lien or O-Chul, will break their oaths. She's even ope ly distanced herself from Girard. Any assumption that "her character is consistent with betting in the pool" would be is made up of whole cloth and not from anything in the comic.

[dancrilis]

That's fair, but that also furthers the point that feigning insanity was not the only option Shojo had, and it was extremely callous of him to make his nephew believe his beloved uncle was losing his mind.

That is also fair - it could perhaps have a justification made up to explain it but none has been given from an authoritative source that I know of at the moment.

They are entirely discounting any chance that Serini won, which could only be the case if they did not consider that Serini was involved in the pool.

I could see either side - she might be included she might not.
I would be inclinded to think not but as they as going to try and contact her anyway with every spell that they have (panel 17) her being involved with the pool and potentially winning it is not relevant to them as they are trying to contact her via different means.

[Peelee]

I could see either side - she might be included she might not.
I would be inclinded to think not but as they as going to try and contact her anyway with every spell that they have (panel 17) her being involved with the pool and potentially winning it is not relevant to them as they are trying to contact her via different means.

That's fair. But I do stand by my position that nothing whatsoever indicates that they thought she was involved in the pool.

[Bacon Elemental]

What? That's pretty much the Order explicitly assuming that the betting pool didn't include Serini. They're assuming that whoever won is involved with Girard's Gate, is somewhere in the desert, and will be visiting the nearest desert city. None of which apply to Serini, who is presumably in the North Pole. I have no clue whatsoever how you're getting that the Order is assuming she's part of the pool there.

Haley seemingly assuming that by default Serini is in the betting pool as part of the order working out the existence of Girard's allies (his own family) is I believe what is being referred to here.

Draketooth's illusion said that it would "notify both her and us", with "her" presumably the halfling.

If there is an "us" to notify rather than a "me", then presumably he is referring to a group of which the halfling is not a member. His own confederates, perhaps.

He did mention a betting pool. That implies more than two people.

[BloodSquirrel]

Keep in mind that a major reason why he pretended to be insane for the last 6 or so years (Mr Scruffy is 6 and it makes sense that he bought Mr Scruffy specifically for the "talks to his cat" form of feigning insanity) is to avoid being assassinated.

That doesn't mean it was the only, or the most effective, solution. Or the one least likely to have major consequences later on.

[hamishspence]

True, but it does suggest that "going behind the backs of the Sapphire Guard" was not the main reason for the masquerade, but a side benefit.

[Liquor Box]

Debatable.
The agreement was 'No interference in the other four gates' then there were tags about what interference was 'checking in visits, spying'.

There is no indication that Lirian and Dorukan's relationship involved any interaction on gate protection, nor that Girard or Soon interferenced with anothers gate.
Serini might have spied or might have heard the details from Vaarsuvius's many sendings or overheard the details when spying on Redcloak and Xykon ... we don't know.

We don't know those things, but we also don't know that Serini isn't an agent of Xykon trying to foil the Order for Xykon's purposes. But we can infer from what is going on that this is exceedingly unlikely.

I think you are holding the forum to high of a standard in terms of what evidence is required to draw conclusions. If actually knowing for sure is needed. then 90% of the discussion is invalid. I suggest that instead it reasonable to inferences.

In this case we know that sendings are limited by number of words, and we know that the opening to each sending took most of those up, so it would seem exceedingly unlikely that the Order would then detail whose weapon was used in the gates destruction. I suggest it is also highly unlikely that Xykon and Redcloak were discussing those sorts of details.

One of the things that Soon seemingly did was destroy all records he could find regarding the Gates likely on the knowledge that if none knew about the gates or could read about the gates that secrecy was the best protection for his own - this seemed to work well, had he encountered Xykon's library he perhaps wouldn't have had a problem.

Indeed, if only other members of the Scribble were as careful with information.

Shojo undermined that by telling an adventuring party about them, which lead to an evil adventuring party finding out about them which lead to fiends finding out about them etc - he delibrately undermined the best protection that the gates had (that nobody knew about them), and did so as part of what his oath called active interference namely to setup a 'checking in visit' regarding the Serini's and Girard's Gate.

His choice to break his oath to cause interference is his fault so the negative consequences of that choice rest with him - that includes the Fiends finding out about the Gates (which leads to the killing of the Draketooths - unforeseeable though that might be), and it includes The Order breaking Girard's Gate.

Is your point that, because Shojo broke the oath, he is responsible for negative consequences flowing from him breaking the oath, whether they were foreseeable or not?

If so, would you agree that if it does turn out that Serini broke her oath, she is also responsible for consequences of that (foreseeable or not).

Or, would you agree that positive outcomes from Shojo breaking his oath are also attributable to him (whether foreseeable or not)? Such that if the story turns out that the Order's involvement is a net positive (because they do save the world) we can praise Shojo.

[dancrilis]

We don't know those things

I believe that is what I said.

Indeed, if only other members of the Scribble were as careful with information.

We don't know they weren't.

Is your point that, because Shojo broke the oath, he is responsible for negative consequences flowing from him breaking the oath, whether they were foreseeable or not?

Effectively.

If so, would you agree that if it does turn out that Serini broke her oath, she is also responsible for consequences of that (foreseeable or not).

There is no clear evidence that Serini broke her oath - but sure if she did then she would be responsible.

Or, would you agree that positive outcomes from Shojo breaking his oath are also attributable to him (whether foreseeable or not)?

This is not an 'Or' situation - Shojo is responsible for the outcomes of breaking his oath whether positive of negative.

Such that if the story turns out that the Order's involvement is a net positive (because they do save the world) we can praise Shojo.

Only if his breaking his oath is directly related to the final success (indirect doesn't count at that point).

[Hurkyl]

Or, would you agree that positive outcomes from Shojo breaking his oath are also attributable to him (whether foreseeable or not)? Such that if the story turns out that the Order's involvement is a net positive (because they do save the world) we can praise Shojo.

This is more a "despite" than a "because of" relationship.

[Peelee]

Only if his breaking his oath is directly related to the final success (indirect doesn't count at that point).

This is more a "despite" than a "because of" relationship.

I don't know how comfortably I am with the position of "negative unforeseeable repercussions are attributable to a person but positive unforeseeable repercussions are not". What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

[Hurkyl]

I don't know how comfortably I am with the position of "negative unforeseeable repercussions are attributable to a person but positive unforeseeable repercussions are not". What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

This isn't being suggested generally: only in the context of committing some other violation. "You shouldn't have been doing that in the first place" is an aggravating factor.

[Liquor Box]

I believe that is what I said.

Indeed, I was agreeing with you before going on to point out that absolute knowledge was not necessary standard for drawing conclusions on this forum.

We don't know they weren't.

On the contrary, we do know that Serini did not destroy written knowledge on the gate before it was taken from her.

Effectively.

Good call.

There is no clear evidence that Serini broke her oath - but sure if she did then she would be responsible.

I know you don't accept it, which is why I said "if it turns out...". Glad we agree.

This is not an 'Or' situation - Shojo is responsible for the outcomes of breaking his oath whether positive of negative.

Yeah, the 'or' was misplaced.

Only if his breaking his oath is directly related to the final success (indirect doesn't count at that point).

What do you mean direct? The Order weren't planning on having anything more to do with the gates before Shojo's intervention. So if the Order does end up saving the world, Shojo would have had a hand in causing that, at least as much as he's had hand in causing any of the negative consequences you've mentioned.

This is more a "despite" than a "because of" relationship.

How do you figure? They had no intent to have anything more to do with the gates, Shojo set them on a course to intervene, and their intervention is likely to (applying meta knowledge and all that) save the world.

By what reasoning to you conclude that Shojo's intervention is a cause of all the bad stuff you said, and would not be a cause if the Order saves the world at Kraagor's gate?

[Emanick]

Only if his breaking his oath is directly related to the final success (indirect doesn't count at that point).

Since we all probably expect that the Order will defeat Xykon and save the world, and this likely would have been impossible if Shojo hadn't broken his oath and shared the Secret Lore with them, expressly in the hope that they would defeat the Gate-hunting lich, I think that "Shojo breaking his oath will be directly related to the final success" has to be regarded as the most likely scenario here. (That is, from a Doylist point of view.) So I'm not sure why you're talking about it like it's some afterthought.

[RatElemental]

Why are we regarding the oath as a good thing, again? I haven't been keeping up with the thread the last few pages, but the oath wasn't some important thing put in place to help bolster the gates. It, if anything, weakened them significantly. It was 100% about the infighting between the members of the order of the scribble. If they had worked together, which has been a massive overarching theme for the entire series, then things probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere near this bad in the first place.

Shojo breaking the oath was the first step towards fixing the mistakes of the scribblers, and in fact the oath was one of those.

[Hurkyl]

You assume they would have been able to work together; the Scribblers had already drawn weapons on each other and probably rolled for initiative at the point when Serini broke them up.

It's probably worth noting that Soon's and Girard's legacies seem to be the sorts of organizations that would have a very difficult time even tolerating one another in any substantial way.

[danielxcutter]

The fact that their relationship ended that poorly to the point of founding separate, diametrically opposed organizations is probably a point towards "the Scribblers ultimately failed because they didn't work together".

[Liquor Box]

Why are we regarding the oath as a good thing, again? I haven't been keeping up with the thread the last few pages, but the oath wasn't some important thing put in place to help bolster the gates. It, if anything, weakened them significantly. It was 100% about the infighting between the members of the order of the scribble. If they had worked together, which has been a massive overarching theme for the entire series, then things probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere near this bad in the first place.

Shojo breaking the oath was the first step towards fixing the mistakes of the scribblers, and in fact the oath was one of those.

The fact that their relationship ended that poorly to the point of founding separate, diametrically opposed organizations is probably a point towards "the Scribblers ultimately failed because they didn't work together".

My theory is that the Serini storyline will lead to Serini realising the reason the Order has a shot against Xykon despite him beating her higher level companions is because they worked together as a team (despite disliking each other often) where her companions split up. This is being repeated in her own insistence that she work by herself. Her redemption will come as learning to play well with others.

If I'm right, this implies the moment where each decided to defend their own gate was a mistake rather than a great idea.

[Hurkyl]

The fact that their relationship ended that poorly to the point of founding separate, diametrically opposed organizations is probably a point towards "the Scribblers ultimately failed because they didn't work together".

The previous poster was arguing that "work separately" was a bad idea because it wasn't the solution "work together". My comment argues that it's wholly implausible that "work together" would be the result of doing something different from "work separately". I can't figure out how your comment fits in.

[Peelee]

My theory is that the Serini storyline will lead to Serini realising the reason the Order has a shot against Xykon despite him beating her higher level companions is because they worked together as a team (despite disliking each other often) where her companions split up. This is being repeated in her own insistence that she work by herself. Her redemption will come as learning to play well with others.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

If I'm right, this implies the moment where each decided to defend their own gate was a mistake rather than a great idea.

I could not disagree more with this. It was absolutely not a mistake. The mistake would he if they stayed together, which would probably have ended in Girard trying to murder Soon, among other possibilities. They clearly had irreconcilable differences, and staying together for the kids is almost always a terrible idea.

I'm not saying that the Gates were stronger defended alone than they were defended together. I'm saying it was not a mistake to split up. Things can be bad decisions without being mistakes. They made a bad decision (split up) over a worse decision (keep working together). They were playing a bad hand.

[Vikenlugaid]

By what reasoning to you conclude that Shojo's intervention is a cause of all the bad stuff you said, and would not be a cause if the Order saves the world at Kraagor's gate?

That's true... But Shojo breaking his oath did lead to Soon's gate being destroyid and saving Xykon from Ghost Soon, so even if the Order save the world AKA "solve that huge fail" at the end, the world wouldn't have needed to be saved in the first place if Shojo wouldn't have broken his oath.

[pyrefiend]

That's true... But Shojo breaking his oath did lead to Soon's gate being destroyid and saving Xykon from Ghost Soon

What, how do you figure? Because Miko found out that he broke his oath and flipped out and destroyed the gate? It's unreasonable to expect Shojo to have foreseen that.

[Fyraltari]

I could not disagree more with this. It was absolutely not a mistake. The mistake would he if they stayed together, which would probably have ended in Girard trying to murder Soon, among other possibilities. They clearly had irreconcilable differences, and staying together for the kids is almost always a terrible idea.

Would you agree to the sentiment that their failure was their inability to work as a team?

[Vikenlugaid]

What, how do you figure? Because Miko found out that he broke his oath and flipped out and destroyed the gate? It's unreasonable to expect Shojo to have foreseen that.

Foreseeable or not, that led to that.

[dancrilis]

I don't know how comfortably I am with the position of "negative unforeseeable repercussions are attributable to a person but positive unforeseeable repercussions are not". What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Hurkyl has somewhat already covered this, but I will try to elaborate.

If you do [thing A] which you have promised not to do and foreseeable items that you planned for occur then positive or negative you can claim credit, however for unforeseeable items you hold the blame but don't get the credit.

For instance, you stab someone on the street and steal their money.
a) They die (foreseeable and negative - you hold the blame).
b) You pay for your childrens mars bars (foreseeable and positive - you get the credit).
c) They survive and the horror of the attack causes them to go into politics to 'clean up this town' and by clean up they mean killing and by 'this town' they mean everyone who looks like you (unforeseeable and negative - you hold the blame (at least some of it)).
c) They survive and the horror of the attack causes them to go into medicine and come up with innovative and revolutionary treatments for many injuries saving countless lives (unforeseeable and positive - you get no credit).

Or to put it in Order of the Stick if Redcloak eventually helps save the world neither The Dark One or The Sapphire Guard gets credit for their roles in starting the whole thing (unless it was The Dark One's plan all along), but if they end the world then both The Dark One and The Sapphire Guard hold some of the blame.

[Vikenlugaid]

If I'm right, this implies the moment where each decided to defend their own gate was a mistake rather than a great idea.

That wasn't a mistake, that was "the lesser evil". The alternative was probably half of the scribblers dead and the 5 gates being defended by only 2 or 3 of them, or worse.

[Liquor Box]

I could not disagree more with this. It was absolutely not a mistake. The mistake would he if they stayed together, which would probably have ended in Girard trying to murder Soon, among other possibilities. They clearly had irreconcilable differences, and staying together for the kids is almost always a terrible idea.

I'm not saying that the Gates were stronger defended alone than they were defended together. I'm saying it was not a mistake to split up. Things can be bad decisions without being mistakes. They made a bad decision (split up) over a worse decision (keep working together). They were playing a bad hand.

That wasn't a mistake, that was "the lesser evil". The alternative was probably half of the scribblers dead and the 5 gates being defended by only 2 or 3 of them, or worse.

Maybe, I guess it depends on whether the Scribble would have been able to work with each other had they continued to try. The Order also has several members with differing perspectives, who have almost come to blows on occasion, so they may be a model of what the Scribble could have become. This is all speculative though.

That's true... But Shojo breaking his oath did lead to Soon's gate being destroyid and saving Xykon from Ghost Soon, so even if the Order save the world AKA "solve that huge fail" at the end, the world wouldn't have needed to be saved in the first place if Shojo wouldn't have broken his oath.

Why do you think Soon breaking the oath caused Miko to destroy the gate? She might still have tried to destroy it if she had not fallen. O-Chul was not fallen and he would have destroyed that gate had he the chance.

Hurkyl has somewhat already covered this, but I will try to elaborate.

If you do [thing A] which you have promised not to do and foreseeable items that you planned for occur then positive or negative you can claim credit, however for unforeseeable items you hold the blame but don't get the credit.

For instance, you stab someone on the street and steal their money.
a) They die (foreseeable and negative - you hold the blame).
b) You pay for your childrens mars bars (foreseeable and positive - you get the credit).
c) They survive and the horror of the attack causes them to go into politics to 'clean up this town' and by clean up they mean killing and by 'this town' they mean everyone who looks like you (unforeseeable and negative - you hold the blame (at least some of it)).
c) They survive and the horror of the attack causes them to go into medicine and come up with innovative and revolutionary treatments for many injuries saving countless lives (unforeseeable and positive - you get no credit).

Or to put it in Order of the Stick if Redcloak eventually helps save the world neither The Dark One or The Sapphire Guard gets credit for their roles in starting the whole thing (unless it was The Dark One's plan all along), but if they end the world then both The Dark One and The Sapphire Guard hold some of the blame.

So your theory is that he gets blamed for unforeseeable consequences of his intervention, but not does not get credit for the good consequences. Doubtful, given the oath is only an agreement between a group of people and does not have any sort of moral importance except as between that group.

But it doesn't matter anyway. The Order intervening by destroying Xykon, thus saving the world is entirely foreseeable. It waskind of what he hoped would happen.

[danielxcutter]

I would say the Scribblers becoming so opposed to each other that they had to disband or end up attacking each other is a result of their failure rather than the reason.

[Vikenlugaid]

Why do you think Soon breaking the oath caused Miko to destroy the gate? She might still have tried to destroy it if she had not fallen. O-Chul was not fallen and he would have destroyed that gate had he the chance.

We don't know what would have happened, we only know what really have happened, and that is the fact.

[hamishspence]

We know that O-Chul was stopped from destroying the gate by Xykon.

[danielxcutter]

Yes, because it was that or let Xykon get the Gate and then the world would have blown up one way or another.