Snarl Endgame Theory

[pearl jam]

Regardless, the central plotline is not going to be resolved by a joke character in a way such that the entire plot is irrelevant.

OR IS IT?

DUN DUN DUN!

[brian 333]

OR IS IT?

DUN DUN DUN!

Are you implying that the new quiddity's color will be pastel brown-scale?

[pearl jam]

If I say it out loud it won't happen.

[geekdadsarcade]

I still feel like this is a solid callback, and a good way to resolve the plot when things go sideways using standard action movie rules:

1. Establish conflict
2. Heroes work towards defeating evil by acquiring MacGuffin.
3. Things go horribly wrong, and our heroes look defeated.
4. Heroes get the MacGuffin at the last minute, but it doesn't work or is lost forever.
5. It looks like evil will triumph.
6. Callback to previous plot element provides alternate solution at the last possible second.
7. Heroes triumph and good defeats evil forever.
8. (Or did they?...)

[faustin]

Killing Redcloak is unnecessary. If the Dark One wants Redcloak to be unable to cast 9th level spells, he just needs to order Redcloak to inflict enough negative levels on himself to drop to 16th level.




I'm pretty sure the main reason the gods don't generally go around killing mortals is because doing so would violate the Dumb God Laws. Since the Dark One hasn't signed onto the Dumb God Laws Agreement, the only thing stopping him from killing mortals is the threat of another god retaliating in some way. This obviously wouldn't apply if he killed Redcloak.

Why would The Dark One need to kill his cleric to stop him from casting? The power comes from him, not Redcloak. He can turn off the mojo tap any moment.

[hamishspence]

Not exactly - not unless Redcloak has "grossly violated the code of conduct".

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

What he can do, regardless of absence code violations, at the time each day that Redcloak casts spells, is withhold his "granting of spells" - but that doesn't affect spells that have already been granted.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/di...tm#grantSpells

Grant Spells
A deity automatically grants spells and domain powers to mortal divine spellcasters who pray to it. Most deities can grant spells from the cleric spell list, the ranger spell list, and from three or more domains. Deities with levels in the druid class can grant spells from the druid spell list, and deities with paladin levels can grant spells from the paladin spell list. A deity can withhold spells from any particular mortal as a free action; once a spell has been granted, it remains in the mortal’s mind until expended.

[Fyraltari]

Not exactly - not unless Redcloak has "grossly violated the code of conduct".

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

I don't think that quote is saying that a god can't do this unless a specific code has been broken, but that they may do that and them doing that is the mostl likely result of a Cleric going against their God's philosophy.

[hamishspence]

It's the lack of a "Deprive cleric of all their powers" ability in the basic godly statblock, that suggests that a cleric's loss of powers isn't fully under the control of the deity.

If a deity for one reason or another is annoyed with their cleric, despite their cleric following the Code to the letter, they might "withhold spells" but all the other class abilities, including turning/rebuking Undead, are by default still there.

Only "Grossly violating the code of conduct" loses the cleric all the powers, and it may simply be an automatic thing that the deity does not have control over.

A deity might even want their follower to "grossly violate the Code" in an emergency situation - and they do - and the follower still loses their powers, because that's just the way powers work.

[faustin]

It's the lack of a "Deprive cleric of all their powers" ability in the basic godly statblock, that suggests that a cleric's loss of powers isn't fully under the control of the deity.

If a deity for one reason or another is annoyed with their cleric, despite their cleric following the Code to the letter, they might "withhold spells" but all the other class abilities, including turning/rebuking Undead, are by default still there.

Only "Grossly violating the code of conduct" loses the cleric all the powers, and it may simply be an automatic thing that the deity does not have control over.

A deity might even want their follower to "grossly violate the Code" in an emergency situation - and they do - and the follower still loses their powers, because that's just the way powers work.

According to the rules, Durkon (LG) shouldn't be allowed to serve Thor (CG) as a cleric.
Thor doesn't give a damn. The other deities don't seem to give a damn. Sure, it may bends the rules a little, but who cares? His cleric, his problem.

The Dim One isn't even signatory to the Covenant between deities. Are they gonna do something if he decides to strip Redcloak from his powers? Unlikely.

[Fyraltari]

It's the lack of a "Deprive cleric of all their powers" ability in the basic godly statblock, that suggests that a cleric's loss of powers isn't fully under the control of the deity.

If a deity for one reason or another is annoyed with their cleric, despite their cleric following the Code to the letter, they might "withhold spells" but all the other class abilities, including turning/rebuking Undead, are by default still there.

Only "Grossly violating the code of conduct" loses the cleric all the powers, and it may simply be an automatic thing that the deity does not have control over.

A deity might even want their follower to "grossly violate the Code" in an emergency situation - and they do - and the follower still loses their powers, because that's just the way powers work.

But isn't that precisely that ability? It sounds like an obvious "this is a warning" "and know you've officially taken this too far" set-up.

Like, deities are independent agents, right? Saying that they can't do a thing because the rule says they do it when X happens but never say they can do it otherwise seems to me to be an as overly literal reading of the rules as this.

[Snails]

I still feel like this is a solid callback, and a good way to resolve the plot when things go sideways using standard action movie rules:

1. Establish conflict
2. Heroes work towards defeating evil by acquiring MacGuffin.
3. Things go horribly wrong, and our heroes look defeated.
4. Heroes get the MacGuffin at the last minute, but it doesn't work or is lost forever.
5. It looks like evil will triumph.
6. Callback to previous plot element provides alternate solution at the last possible second.
7. Heroes triumph and good defeats evil forever.
8. (Or did they?...)

That this formula is likely to apply I agree with.
Likely: "It looks like evil will triumph" = "The Snarl is released"

But there are other plot elements that could reappear that would make more sense. A weak imagination is not an argument.

Specifically I would name Kraagor, who was presumed killed, as a result of apparently being trapped within the Snarl's prison. IMO, Kraagor and the Snarl will have become friends, and he has been the happiest dwarf that has ever lived for the last century, moving/creating mountains with help of his more muscular buddy.

And, for the record, I made this call years and years ago, long before anyone even suggested Banjo/Giggles.

Note that the Scribble Tale includes a weird detail: Non-divine being withstand the attacks of the Snarl much better than gods. We have an explanation now via Quidity Physics, but why that Chekov's gun has been put over the mantlepiece has been ignored by most Readers.

There are many other possibilities, if you allow for the Snarl to be a character who can change. I am only naming the most likely, because I can explain odd details that have cropped up, details than Banjo does not help us with.

[Squire Doodad]

Of the scenarios that involve Redcloak dying/no purple Quiddity, Kraagor providing a "focus" for the Snarl or befriending it seems like a reasonably logical plot thread to add in comparison to Banjo being relevant.
Thinking of a scene like...
Redcloak is dead just as the last gate starts cracking in the middle of the last fight, with snarl tendrils suddenly coming out and Snarl-eyed Kraagor peering out, confused. Some sort of scenario with the party talking to him, the Snarl being revealed to be consuming worlds so it can build its own with a big dramatic THE SNARL MUST FEED! line before Durkon gets to put his diplomatifying to good use and tell Kraagor the gods might be willing to make a separate world for it to use if it means the cycle ends. Things like that.
And then, of course, Xykon interrupting and the second half of the final battle begins. The Snarl presumably has already gone back into its gate to await more information on a spare world, so Xykon remains as the final threat.

However, it still has the complications of Redcloak dying and the Purple Quiddity plotline being for nothing. THAT SAID, it also ties into several sub-subplots/questions ("the Snarl isn't doing anything unless provoked/scryed", "Kraagor fell into the portal"), while Banjo is, well, a cheap gag of a character. I'd rather have a twist that makes me say "So that's what all of those lines were about!" instead of one that makes me go "bwudduhuwhaaaaa?"
There is also an argument to be made that, if such an alternative is presented, Redcloak dying and the Purple Quiddity being pointless would make sense as nearly Redcloak's entire character is built on sunk cost fallacies.

TL;DR: I don't think Redcloak is going to die before Purple Quiddity plotlines get resolved. However, if he would, shenanigans involving Kraagor and/or the Snarl are more likely than anything to do with the puppets.

[Psyren]

Why would The Dark One need to kill his cleric to stop him from casting? The power comes from him, not Redcloak. He can turn off the mojo tap any moment.

Not exactly - not unless Redcloak has "grossly violated the code of conduct".

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

What he can do, regardless of absence code violations, at the time each day that Redcloak casts spells, is withhold his "granting of spells" - but that doesn't affect spells that have already been granted.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/di...tm#grantSpells

Grant Spells
A deity automatically grants spells and domain powers to mortal divine spellcasters who pray to it. Most deities can grant spells from the cleric spell list, the ranger spell list, and from three or more domains. Deities with levels in the druid class can grant spells from the druid spell list, and deities with paladin levels can grant spells from the paladin spell list. A deity can withhold spells from any particular mortal as a free action; once a spell has been granted, it remains in the mortal’s mind until expended.

Just to point out - Redcloak specifically mentions that the Dark One can deny/choose not to grant him spells here: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1039.html So the "withholding rule" appears to apply to OotS.

With that said, the most likely reading is that it applies at the moment of preparation/prayer - meaning that once Redcloak has his spell slots filled, the Dark One can't reach down and knock all the spells out of his head. This would allow Redcloak to go against TDO's wishes and help the heroes, provided he does so before he needs to pray for a refill.

The big challenge here is that, per Thor, Redcloak specifically needs to contribute a 9th-level spell slot. The chances of the heroes subduing him before he burns through all of those are pretty slim (but not zero.)

[faustin]

Note that the Scribble Tale includes a weird detail: Non-divine being withstand the attacks of the Snarl much better than gods. We have an explanation now via Quidity Physics, but why that Chekov's gun has been put over the mantlepiece has been ignored by most Readers.

The Scribble Tale, Redcloak Tale, and every example we have seen so far shows the Snarl insta-killing several non-divine characters (like Soon's wife).
Just because the Gods are more vulnerable to It doesn't mean the rest will do much better.

[Exantius]

The Scribble Tale, Redcloak Tale, and every example we have seen so far shows the Snarl insta-killing several non-divine characters (like Soon's wife).
Just because the Gods are more vulnerable to It doesn't mean the rest will do much better.

Yes. The specific quote is "Some have theorised since that the gods were even MORE vulnerable to the Snarl than a mortal of the same level would have been". DnD deities have levels in the 50-70 range. So if a mortal of that ridiculously high level were to exist he might be resistant to the Snarl but that doesn't mean the level 20-something Kraagor would resist it. Personally I wouldn't put much weight on that quote; not every detail is important

As for the original topic, I think it is conceivable, but not likely, that the Banjo/Giggles cult is the resolution to the Snarl. If, for example, the orcs on the island managed to spread Giggles worship to other orc tribes, enough for Giggles to reach sentience and full divinity of a new quiddity (let's say orange since that's Giggle's color), which would then lead to Banjo reaching divinity as well (as the orcs believe in him as well, plus the rival power gain which is canon as we saw with Crystal and Haley). The lack of a 17th level cleric could be resolved by Banjo being present in the "flesh", being able to channel the orange quiddity directly

I don't say that's what will, or should, happen, but it's a fun thought experiment (plus imagine Durkon's reaction; it would be strip #561 times ten)

[brian 333]

Yes. The specific quote is "Some have theorised since that the gods were even MORE vulnerable to the Snarl than a mortal of the same level would have been". DnD deities have levels in the 50-70 range. So if a mortal of that ridiculously high level were to exist he might be resistant to the Snarl but that doesn't mean the level 20-something Kraagor would resist it. Personally I wouldn't put much weight on that quote; not every detail is important

As for the original topic, I think it is conceivable, but not likely, that the Banjo/Giggles cult is the resolution to the Snarl. If, for example, the orcs on the island managed to spread Giggles worship to other orc tribes, enough for Giggles to reach sentience and full divinity of a new quiddity (let's say orange since that's Giggle's color), which would then lead to Banjo reaching divinity as well (as the orcs believe in him as well, plus the rival power gain which is canon as we saw with Crystal and Haley). The lack of a 17th level cleric could be resolved by Banjo being present in the "flesh", being able to channel the orange quiddity directly

I don't say that's what will, or should, happen, but it's a fun thought experiment (plus imagine Durkon's reaction; it would be strip #561 times ten)

Exactly! Now all we need is a level 18 orc cleric of Giggle's faith who can cast a level 9 spell because deities can't exist as deities on the mortal plane.

[Exantius]

Exactly! Now all we need is a level 18 orc cleric of Giggle's faith who can cast a level 9 spell because deities can't exist as deities on the mortal plane.

There are avatars of various deities in DnD, who don't possess the full power of the deity but a portion of it, I'm pretty sure that includes the ability to cast any spells the deity can grant. Maybe the Banjo Elan holds could serve as an avatar of Banjo or Giggles?

A bit far-fetched, yes, the lack of a cleric of sufficient power does hamper this theory. Although it wouldn't necessarily need to be an Orc cleric, any cleric with access to 9th level spells who then converted to Giggles worship, but the only cleric that strong is Redcloak so that doesn't fly either. Damn you, Durkon, for not being level 17! (the cleric level for 9th lvl spells is 17, not 18)

[faustin]

There are avatars of various deities in DnD, who don't possess the full power of the deity but a portion of it, I'm pretty sure that includes the ability to cast any spells the deity can grant. Maybe the Banjo Elan holds could serve as an avatar of Banjo or Giggles?

A bit far-fetched, yes, the lack of a cleric of sufficient power does hamper this theory. Although it wouldn't necessarily need to be an Orc cleric, any cleric with access to 9th level spells who then converted to Giggles worship, but the only cleric that strong is Redcloak so that doesn't fly either. Damn you, Durkon, for not being level 17! (the cleric level for 9th lvl spells is 17, not 18)

Why do they need a cleric? The only reason Thor sent Durkon to parlay with Redcloak, is the Dark One being hostile to the other gods (therefore risk of creating a two colored Snarl).

If the God with the unique color is on board with the plan, there is no need of middle man.

[Exantius]

Why do they need a cleric? The only reason Thor sent Durkon to parlay with Redcloak, is the Dark One being hostile to the other gods (therefore risk of creating a two colored Snarl).

If the God with the unique color is on board with the plan, there is no need of middle man.

In #1143, Thor's plan is to "spot-weld" the rifts, requiring a drop of the Dark One's power in the form of a 9th level spell slot. It's a little ambiguous as to what would have happened if TDO had cooperated, but if OotS-verse deities cannot enter the world and make changes after creation (the reason why they didn't just fix the rifts in the first place) I assumed they would've needed Redcloak to channel TDO's power in any case

[Fyraltari]

OotS-verse deities cannot enter the world and make changes after creation (the reason why they didn't just fix the rifts in the first place)

They are able to enter the world and change it. They are not allowed to, to prevent the formation of a second snarl. A change made to seal the snarl forever would probably be given a pass. The reason they didn't fix the rifts in the first place os because they cannot make the fix last with just three pantheons.

[brian 333]

And for some reason, they had to wait for mortals to discover the rifts and patch them. One would think that if they could have spot-welded them without mortal intervention, they would have done so.

[Fyraltari]

And for some reason, they had to wait for mortals to discover the rifts and patch them. One would think that if they could have spot-welded them without mortal intervention, they would have done so.

I think the idea is that Gates and similar seals were tried before and always failed, so they don't even bother anymore.

[brian 333]

I think the idea is that Gates and similar seals were tried before and always failed, so they don't even bother anymore.

Maybe. I'd look for supporting evidence.

Thor specifically says he needs a 9th level spell from the new quiddity. If he could get what he needs from TDO or another deity with a fourth quiddity, directly (which is what the pro-Banjoists are claiming,) then why would he need Durkon to do anything other than let Redcloak know so that TDO will know what's going on? RC wouldn't have to do anything, or agree to anything, and the gods could do what's needed without mortal mishaps screwing up the plan.

[littlebum2002]

Not exactly - not unless Redcloak has "grossly violated the code of conduct".

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

The best thing about being a Deity is that you and you alone determine what the "code of conduct" is for your followers. If TDO wants to he can just create a new commandment that says "you shall not hang out with Liches named Xykon" and then he can instantly punish Redcloak for violating it

[Peelee]

The best thing about being a Deity is that you and you alone determine what the "code of conduct" is for your followers.

Stickworld seems to operate on different rules than this.

[Fyraltari]

Stickworld seems to operate on different rules than this.

Does it?90

[Peelee]

Does it?

Third yellow hair and Odin's loopiness certainly seem to indicate that gods cannot make instant unilateral changes as their whims see fit.

[Fyraltari]

Third yellow hair and Odin's loopiness certainly seem to indicate that gods cannot make instant unilateral changes as their whims see fit.

But it doesn't seem like they are required to have a set of well defined commands they can never chanhe again.

Like that rule is in the cleric's description, not the god's right? So it seem more like a way of saying "if the player decides to do something that clearly goes against their god's ethos, like a cleric of the goddess of justice murdering a dude for money, the GM should have the god take their powers away, as a way to show displeasure with their actions."

It'd make sense that "the god wants to take the cleric's powers away" is the only factor in whether the god takes the powers away, regardless of whether the cleric has broken a specific commandment.

[Peelee]

But it doesn't seem like they are required to have a set of well defined commands they can never chanhe again.

Like that rule is in the cleric's description, not the god's right? So it seem more like a way of saying "if the player decides to do something that clearly goes against their god's ethos, like a cleric of the goddess of justice murdering a dude for money, the GM should have the god take their powers away, as a way to show displeasure with their actions."

It'd make sense that "the god wants to take the cleric's powers away" is the only factor in whether the god takes the powers away, regardless of whether the cleric has broken a specific commandment.

I don't dispute that at all. But that wasn't what I replied to. A god creating a specific commandment suddenly and then revoking the clerics powers based on that was what I replied to.

[Fyraltari]

I don't dispute that at all. But that wasn't what I replied to. A god creating a specific commandment suddenly and then revoking the clerics powers based on that was what I replied to.

But that's the same with one extra step, isn't it?