OOTS #1249 - The Discussion Thread

[BloodSquirrel]

It's hard to tell exactly how things were in the moment, because we've only got crayons to go on, but it really does look like in that moment, they were heated enough to fight with the intention of killing. It's not just heat-of-the-moment either, it's what's been boiling up for years and they knew it.

I'm not saying they actively planned to kill each other (though, as mentioned, desert bomb...), but that if they tried to work together, they'd always be paranoid that the others would be planning to kill them. The trust is broken.

Again, there's a massive gap between "I don't trust you anymore to have my back in combat" and "I don't trust you not to pull out a knife and stab me in the back while we're walking down the street". You're jumping way too far here.

[danielxcutter]

The SG has its faults, but the problem is that Girard has completely misidentified them. For whatever else you can say about them, they aren't cowards, and they don't take their oaths lightly. Also, Girard, of all people, shouldn't be balking at the idea of maintaining secrecy.

Yeah, the irony springs from that he completely missed the potentially legitimate criticisms because of his own paranoid, hypocritical delusions.

[Frozenstep]

Again, there's a massive gap between "I don't trust you anymore to have my back in combat" and "I don't trust you not to pull out a knife and stab me in the back while we're walking down the street". You're jumping way too far here.

I'm just putting myself in their shoes. If I were ever in a situation where I worked alongside someone who I didn't get along with, and it got so bad that in a heated moment they pulled a weapon and were about to try to kill me, I'd never be able to sleep soundly around them again. I'd never willingly work or go near them again.

[hamishspence]

I was talking about Girard calling Soon a coward.

There are other forms of "cowardice" beyond "running away from a fight in fear".

[danielxcutter]

There are other forms of "cowardice" beyond "running away from a fight in fear".

And fear effects aren’t just making someone run away either, so I don’t see what this proves.

[Fyraltari]

Not to mention that his whole claim that Soon just wants to avenge his wife is nonsense- they're sealing the rifts, not killing the Snarl. It's the kind of non-sequitur that a bad internet debater resorts to when they don't have a serious counter-argument and try to pull the "NO, U!" card where it doesn't make any sense.

Sealing the Snarl forevermore inside his plane-prison* could be understood as taking revenge.

*Assuming that's what the Scribblers thought they were doing.

[Peelee]

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).

Agreed. No problems here.

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)).

A bridge too far for me. Intent follows the bullet, but that's too windy a path for the this metaphorical bullet to take.

"Staying together for the kids" is absolutely the right choice when "the kids" is "the entire world" and "staying together" is "not murdering or sabotaging each other."

Staying together for the kids is usually bad because it messes up the kids. People who hate each other determining to still do everything together is not a plan that typically ends in good things happening for those involved. That's the point - its doing more damage by trying to prevent the damage.

Am I the only one who suspects the worst Scribbler was Girard?

Not at all, he totally was.

Another point in their defavour is that it seems that the root cause of their disagreement was intense pride in their chosen field to the point of scorning the other's.

Aye. Soon first and foremost, interestingly enough.

Only if Soon had violated his oath first. It was a (paranoid and misguided) defensive measure, not an opportunistic or aggressive attempt to assassinate him.

... And? Does that warrant a death sentence?

[BloodSquirrel]

... And? Does that warrant a death sentence?

A death sentence is a punitive measure. This was a defensive one. According to Girard's expectation, if Soon was there, it meant he was looking for Girard's gate, which meant that he was actively attempting to interfere, and wasn't going to stop just because he didn't find it in the first place he looked.

[danielxcutter]

Girard bet that Soon wouldn’t last six weeks; that was for the express purpose of killing him, or at least softening him up for the sorcerer hit team to ‘port in and finish the job.

[Peelee]

A death sentence is a punitive measure. This was a defensive one. According to Girard's expectation, if Soon was there, it meant he was looking for Girard's gate, which meant that he was actively attempting to interfere, and wasn't going to stop just because he didn't find it in the first place he looked.

No, that was entirely punitive. Girard already gave Soon wrong coordinates as a defensive measure. Having Soon be in the middle of nowhere with no clue on how to find the Gate is perfectly defensive. Telling Soon exactly what happened and then trying to kill him is not. That's pure punitive.

[RatElemental]

Staying together for the kids is usually bad because it messes up the kids. People who hate each other determining to still do everything together is not a plan that typically ends in good things happening for those involved. That's the point - its doing more damage by trying to prevent the damage.

The reason it messes up the kids is that kids are intelligent social creatures who can pick up on the underlying hostility their parents feel towards each other, and the loud arguments and emotional manipulation of being pitted against one or the other don't help either.

But as long as 5 supposedly rational adults, though really just 3, could keep their tempers in check enough to not blow up or sabotage one of the 5 pillars holding reality itself together, the gates won't care how much they scream at each other.

[Hurkyl]

The SG has its faults, but the problem is that Girard has completely misidentified them. For whatever else you can say about them, they aren't cowards, and they don't take their oaths lightly. Also, Girard, of all people, shouldn't be balking at the idea of maintaining secrecy.

However, "Fascist paladin lackeys" is pretty apt, isn't? At least when they're at their worst.

And in that rant, he didn't accuse Soon of breaking his oath, just of breaking the agreement. It's not that hard to imagine finding a way around the letter of an oath if one feels the cause is just, is it not? Or even breaking it outright in pursuit of the "greater good"? "Honor and a silver piece will get you a hunk of cheese" and all that.

[Peelee]

The reason it messes up the kids is that kids are intelligent social creatures who can pick up on the underlying hostility their parents feel towards each other, and the loud arguments and emotional manipulation of being pitted against one or the other don't help either.

But as long as 5 supposedly rational adults, though really just 3, could keep their tempers in check enough to not blow up or sabotage one of the 5 pillars holding reality itself together, the gates won't care how much they scream at each other.

Sure, if we torture the metaphor enough it'll break at some point. But you're assuming completely ideal circumstances: that five rational adults with disagreements will be able to put aside those disagreements. There is no reason whatsoever to think that is the case here. The disagreement between at least two of them was strong enough to be murderous. Continuing to forcibly work together is not a viable strategy here. The dissolution of the Order is the end result, not the root cause.

[RatElemental]

Sure, if we torture the metaphor enough it'll break at some point. But you're assuming completely ideal circumstances: that five rational adults with disagreements will be able to put aside those disagreements. There is no reason whatsoever to think that is the case here. The disagreement between at least two of them was strong enough to be murderous. Continuing to forcibly work together is not a viable strategy here. The dissolution of the Order is the end result, not the root cause.

Well, sure. But their inability to put those differences aside is an indictment of them, not an excuse. And as has been pointed out multiple times, kill each other or never speak again and bind your successors to never speak again aren't the only options.

They don't have to like or even interact much with each other for Dorukan to pop overvand put a sigil on their gate. And in fact, the beef seemed to entirely be between Soon and Girard+Dorukan. They collectively took the nuclear option when just cutting ties with Soon would have, although still not ideal, been better than none of the collaborating at all.

[Emanick]

However, "Fascist paladin lackeys" is pretty apt, isn't? At least when they're at their worst.

Sure, when they’re at their worst. But only then, so it’s generally not accurate. Describing human beings as a bunch of genocidal sadists isn’t particularly accurate, even if it does describe us at our worst.

[Peelee]

Well, sure. But their inability to put those differences aside is an indictment of them, not an excuse. And as has been pointed out multiple times, kill each other or never speak again and bind your successors to never speak again aren't the only options.

They don't have to like or even interact much with each other for Dorukan to pop overvand put a sigil on their gate. And in fact, the beef seemed to entirely be between Soon and Girard+Dorukan. They collectively took the nuclear option when just cutting ties with Soon would have, although still not ideal, been better than none of the collaborating at all.

Cutting ties with the person who was, in all likelihood, a high ranking noble in the city which houses one of the rifts/Gates, and had a personal connection such that he was unlikely to give up on it (and who founded the party to begin with)?

It's easy for a mouse to claim they can just simply bell the cat, the tricky part is when someone asks who will try it.

[Frozenstep]

Well, sure. But their inability to put those differences aside is an indictment of them, not an excuse. And as has been pointed out multiple times, kill each other or never speak again and bind your successors to never speak again aren't the only options.

They don't have to like or even interact much with each other for Dorukan to pop overvand put a sigil on their gate. And in fact, the beef seemed to entirely be between Soon and Girard+Dorukan. They collectively took the nuclear option when just cutting ties with Soon would have, although still not ideal, been better than none of the collaborating at all.

Yeah, it's pretty bad option, but unfortunately the scribble just weren't made up of the best and most understanding kinds out there.

As for Dorukan putting up a sigil...could Soon really have trusted it to not be spying on them, or give Dorukan some kind of control over something? There's a lot of danger in letting a wizard who was totally willing to kill you put a sigil up anywhere near where you live/work/defend. You might even end up creating defenses on the sigil just to protect against whatever that wizard is trying, which wastes resources. Once people's relationships break down to attempted murder, trust is nearly impossible.

But also...a lot of this comes off of crayon drawings, which are simplifications. We don't know exactly where the lines were, if Soon was the only problem or if Girard also wasn't a fan of Dorukan. But we also know that Dorukan and Lirian still met up after they split up. Maybe there was some collaboration and it's only Soon who was cut out of it. Who knows if the setup of the monster hollow with the teleportation trap might be something Dorukan set up?

[danielxcutter]

Soon screwed the pooch with his leadership I presume, which Roy has managed to avoid, but considering the other guys were Girard Draketooth, the spiteful, hypocritical paranoiac, and Dorkuan, the guy who left a hole potentially large enough to accommodate a Tarrasque in his uberspell just to bump uglies with his girlfriend despite the oath I'm going to reserve judgement until after Serini calms down and actually starts talking with the Order(as opposed to only talking at them).

[Peelee]

Soon screwed the pooch with his leadership I presume, which Roy has managed to avoid, but considering the other guys were Girard Draketooth, the spiteful, hypocritical paranoiac, and Dorkuan, the guy who left a hole potentially large enough to accommodate a Tarrasque in his uberspell just to bump uglies with his girlfriend despite the oath I'm going to reserve judgement until after Serini calms down and actually starts talking with the Order(as opposed to only talking at them).

Not that I think Girard was really bristling with good qualities, but don't me, what made him hypocritical?

[TooSoon]

Crazy prediction:

- Hel is famished, perhaps starving to death (we literally saw her briefly fading away on-panel), and someday there may need to be a new (Northern) god of death.
- Presumably, most of the gods certainly would not want Hel to become all-powerful should her plans for a massive influx of dwarven soul food succeed.
- Xykon wants to do anything to avoid the Big Fire Below. And he very may well be the single most powerful entity on the planet.
- Eugene's such a jerk that I feel like Xykon won't actually be defeated by "normal" means; he'll somehow be "contained" instead.

Based on all this, I can almost see a bargain where Xykon is somehow elevated to the new Northern god of death. He won't be "defeated once and for all," because he'll be a literal god and Eugene wanders the clouds, forever.

Would Xykon rather merely rule the world until the Snarl blows it up... or would he prefer to become a literal god? Now that's ambition, and in SOD he did mention something along the lines of

Spoiler

Show

that he was looking for a much "bigger" evil scheme than his usual MO. Sure, he thought it was the Gate(s), but he's been doing this for literally decades... would that appetite have not grown with his power?

From what we've seen Xykon is not even close to the most powerful being on this planet. He lost to Soon, lost to a Silver Dragon, lost to a 9th level fighter, and as we have discussed in numerous threads would almost assuredly have lost to the Ancient Black Dragon based on demonstrated abilities. Given how many dragons there seem to be on this world, and that black is one of the weaker colours, it'd be shocking if there weren't many dragons able to beat him, along with various other monsters who could.

Serini may think Xykon is unbeatable, but she's wrong, as he's shown himself to be highly beatable. In fact if Serini and the order trapped him in the way Serini just trapped the Order he would be toast. Even Durkon and Roy fighting him with his back to a wall, while Durkon casts AMF, is a certain loss for Xykon based on what abilities he has actually shown.

[Peelee]

From what we've seen Xykon is not even close to the most powerful being on this planet. He lost to.... a 9th level fighter

Apropos of nothing, but given that we can safely say that an epic level lich is more powerful than a 9th level fighter, I would posit that just because one may defeat another does not necessarily mean that one is more powerful than the other.

[danielxcutter]

Not that I think Girard was really bristling with good qualities, but don't me, what made him hypocritical?

I think TvTropes put it best:

Hates Paladins for trying to justify their morally questionable actions by appealing to a Greater Good, but then goes off and encourages his clan to seduce random strangers, knock them up and then both rob them and kidnap the baby to be reared by what amounts to a cult that protects the world from total destruction, i.e. for the greater good. The only way this isn't hypocritical is if he's a straight-up Jerkass who thinks that such behavior isn't wrong in the first place (then it's a Double Standard). Also, his professed distrust for authority figures would seem to clash with the cult of personality he built around himself (the statue on his tomb and how his image on the family tree is given a halo). As he himself ironically said, "Give a man enough power, and he's bound to abuse it, no matter how noble he thinks he is."

[Peelee]

I think TvTropes put it best:

I don't see that as hypocritical. He's not claiming that paladins aren't good and that he is. He's claimng that he can't trust paladins (or, more largely, the concept of "honor"). This is perfectly in line with his thinking that he can only trust blood family.

[danielxcutter]

He literally did at least two big things he accused paladins of doing, so that seems fairly hypocritical to me.

[Peelee]

He literally did at least two big things he accused paladins of doing, so that seems fairly hypocritical to me.

"Two big things" is pretty vague.

[Skull the Troll]

... And? Does that warrant a death sentence?

Maybe. Imagine a scenario where you and 5 other lab techs accidentally invent a super virus that will kill everyone in, say 28 minutes, from the time its released. You barely understand this virus. It's way to dangerous to give to any government, and just trying to destroy it might release it. One of the 5 techs (one whos pulled a gun on you before and also made the call in containing it that lead to the death of the 6th tech) has broken their promise to protect the vial by never going near it again. You find him in the freezer room getting ready to access the vial. You're the only one around, and the fate of the world is at stake. You have no idea if you'll catch him red handed next time, but you have the drop on him right now....

[Frozenstep]

Maybe. Imagine a scenario where you and 5 other lab techs accidentally invent a super virus that will kill everyone in, say 28 minutes, from the time its released. You barley understand this virus. It's way to dangerous to give to any government, and just trying to destroy it might release it. One of the 5 techs (one whos pulled a gun on you before and also made the call in containing it that lead to the death of the 6th tech) has broken their promise to protect the vial by never going near it again. You find him in the freezer room getting ready to access the vial. You're the only one around, and the fate of the world is at stake.

If you found him in the freezer room, that'd be one thing, but setting a booby trap is another, because you don't know who or what will spring that booby trap. Could be that the place is under siege and they're trying to get the vial away from the compromised location, your trap won't be able to tell.

It'd be stupid to set up that booby trap, but perhaps not malicious.

Setting it so that booby trap will likely only spring on that other lab tech or anyone working with them..now that, I'll say, is malicious.

[hungrycrow]

If you found him in the freezer room, that'd be one thing, but setting a booby trap is another, because you don't know who or what will spring that booby trap. Could be that the place is under siege and they're trying to get the vial away from the compromised location, your trap won't be able to tell.

It'd be stupid to set up that booby trap, but perhaps not malicious.

Setting it so that booby trap will likely only spring on that other lab tech or anyone working with them..now that, I'll say, is malicious.

Also, the booby trap isn't set in the freezer, but in a fake entrance. Which increases the chances that the 'intruder' doesn't have ill intent.

[Peelee]

Let's just drop the analogy. The coordinate last to the modly of the desert, far from anything (including the Gate). The defense is an illusionist, with a small army of other illusionist helping. You have approximately zero chance of finding the Gate. To the best of your knowledge, you're relatively near it but you have no idea how "relatively" that is.

Rhe booby trap and murder attempt do nothing but openly tell any possible survivors that they are definitely looking in the wrong place. It's the single worst thing to do with the false coordinates. Not to mention the further information of the betting pool, which gave pretty big hints on how to find a Draketooth. It's tactically a horrible idea. Unless you care about spite and petty revenge more than being tactically sound or making good decisions.

It was not done to help protect the Gate. It was done because Girard hated Soon. That's it. Pretty simple.

[BloodSquirrel]

I'd like to note that the original point here was not that the booby trap was justified (the very fact that it almost killed an unintended set of victims demonstrates otherwise) but that it was qualitatively different than sending assassins to Sapphire City to murder Soon.