OOTS #1256 - The Discussion Thread

[Ruck]

Don't look at me, I'm not the author.

Strawmanning aside, I don't think we've been made terribly clear on the exact ascension process. Is it possible to oust a god? Does character level help in this endeavor? Does targeting a dying god make it easier? Does making a deal with the gods not to mess up their plans help? We don't know.

We don't know any of this, which is why any theory that it might happen also has to come up with an idea of how it would work. If you have an idea for the story but you can't make it make sense, how do you expect other people to?

And all the story around the Greenhill sword being broken, then reforged in starmetal, culminating in becoming a Weapon of Legacy, along with the spellsplinter maneuver, all amount to absolutely nothing? Along with Eugene's prediction that Roy, as a fighter, would be unable to defeat Xykon (not withstanding elevating him to godhood, which somehow is a thing Roy is able to do now), ultimately being proved correct?

That's certainly a bold prediction, I'll give you that.

While the godhood thing is well off the rails as I see them, I do still believe Eugene is not exactly going to get what he wants after Roy defeats Xykon.

[Saint-Just]

I imagine "stop letting your mortal worshipers killing goblins for no real reason" would be relatively doable.

I may have mixed something up but I was under impression that there were economical grievances to be settled.

Plus, half of the Evil gods have no issues with killing whomever for no real reason. And as we've seen in Empire of Blood evil societies can wield significant influence.

[danielxcutter]

I may have mixed something up but I was under impression that there were economical grievances to be settled.

Plus, half of the Evil gods have no issues with killing whomever for no real reason. And as we've seen in Empire of Blood evil societies can wield significant influence.

Perhaps, but at the least making it clear that yes, killing sentient, free-willed mortals for no real reason is Bad^TM wouldn't exactly hurt.

[Saint-Just]

Perhaps, but at the least making it clear that yes, killing sentient, free-willed mortals for no real reason is Bad^TM wouldn't exactly hurt.

Can we please discuss what we know from the comic or what we can reasonably conclude? Specifically conclude about TDO's demands or conditions, not how you would solve the problems of monstrous humanoids.

[Liquor Box]

I imagine "stop letting your mortal worshipers killing goblins for no real reason" would be relatively doable.

The gods don't usually control their mortal worshippers do they? How would they stop them?

[Rikmach]

The gods don't usually control their mortal worshippers do they? How would they stop them?

Depends on what you mean by "Control". The Gods don't order their rank and file followers around, no, but they can and do communicate with their priests, who can create new doctrines in their faith, and spread the word of their god's new position on matters. Yes, it's an indirect, unreliable, slow sort of control, but it does exist.

[TuringTest]

Also, score one for Belkar realizing what sort of arguments would sway a bitter old halfling rogue. Which had the advantage of being true. The gods really do more or less view mortals as a food source.

This is how I was expecting Serini to listen and get convinced: not by lining up all the details in a logical theory, but by starting with a mostly emotional appeal from an angle that resonates with her. It's fitting that Belkar would be the one who pulls it off, and it has been in the works since they began their relationship. Chaotic characters just don't think the same way as lawful characters with all their logic and legalese.

Double plus that the law guys look all pissed up :-D I LOLed at Lien realizing she should shut up rather than complaining. Rich certainly understand the Chaotic and Lawful alignments and know how to write them.

[Thermophille]

We don't know any of this, which is why any theory that it might happen also has to come up with an idea of how it would work. If you have an idea for the story but you can't make it make sense, how do you expect other people to?

I was wildly speculating, not theorizing. I don't have to meet the standards of a theory if I'm not shooting for it.

[faustin]

I know the comic's art style made Sunny seem as adorable as possible, but I wonder about the "realistic" look of a Beholder making a puppy crying face.

[Vikenlugaid]

Eh, her "good guys love that line" chuckle here pushed me a long way into "she's Neutral"

Pretty sure she us not meaning good as an aligment there, more like people who thinks they are doing the greater good, or even just "not monster races".
Maybe she is neutral, I don't know, but this comic has taught us that alignments aren't all, I mean, Miko was lawful good... And almost every good aligned adventurer in this world would kill Sunny on sight.

[Doug Lampert]

My final prediction is V will lose their magic spellcasting. Probably by destroying the red cloak with a Disintegrate spell (I am not too familiar with D&D rules, but saw something in a thread once about destroying artifacts having a chance to remove all spellcasting powers).

Disintegrate won't do it. It's a specific rule in Disjunction that causes loss of spellcasting.
SRD

Spoiler

Show

Mage’s Disjunction
Abjuration
Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area: All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft.-radius burst
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: No
All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher.

You also have a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.

Even artifacts are subject to disjunction, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. Additionally, if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities. (These abilities cannot be recovered by mortal magic, not even miracle or wish.)

Note: Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95% likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device.

So this is an unlikely but possible thing. If V reaches level 17 and takes disjunction for V's one non-evocation (a fair choice), then V has a 17% chance of taking out the cloak, and if so, then V has a base will save of about +10 (by the order's level this should be improved by items or spells, but the order is very unoptimized), so he'll fail the save up to about 70% of the time.

Cumulative chance is up to 11.9%, which is plenty high enough to be plausible.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Seems like the chaotic characters got the motivations of the gods quite easily. On that subject, it took the lawful characters a while to wrap their minds around the idea that the literal law-bringers of the universe might use their most powerful (if chaotic) option whenever it is most convenient for them.

Rules are for us little people to follow. Celestial or Earthly dictators don't care about the rules unless they are forcing them on others. They willingly break whatever rules they want all the time. See: any tinpot dictatorship in the real world.

Laws are for those ruled, not for those who rule. At least, in their minds.

Chaotic types note the hypocrisy in lawbringers breaking their own rules whenever they want, and they too break the rules when it makes sense to them.

Lawful types wish to uphold and enforce the law and naturally expect their leaders to do the same. Then they get surprised more often when the rules don't apply to their superiors.

Often when it is too late for the ruled to object.

[Thermophille]

Ironically, I think that the whole 'killing everyone on the planet' is the smallest concern for the gods, to the point where it's really just a footnote. TDO and the gates are way more important, and is the real thing the gods were arguing about, and the potential destruction of millions of tasty souls is also more important than the lives of the mortals.

[Aaron L]

.

O Chul is hilarious when he wants to be.

Also, score one for Belkar realizing what sort of arguments would sway a bitter old halfling rogue. Which had the advantage of being true. The gods really do more or less view mortals as a food source.

Well to be fair, as far as the Gods understand the situation, The Snarl is not only capable of deicide, but it would also destroy the souls of all the mortals on the world. So having them all "simply" die and pass on to their respective afterlives, rather than being obliterated at the metaphysical level, does seem like the best option for both the divinities and mortals. Thor and Odin, certainly (and even Loki, in his own warped way) do seem to genuinely care.

(In fact, Thor really seems like a wonderful, textbook example of a Lawful Good figure, wanting "whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest," as the Alignment is defined in the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide. And even being personable, considerate, and personally kind on top of it. Thor seems like a really great person/Power/whatever.)

I really want to find out what the actual situation is with The Snarl and that mysterious apparently hidden world, as it's become clear that not even the Gods actually understand what's really going on with everything; The Snarl seems to be somewhat beyond their understanding, and there is more to it than they comprehend.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ironically, I think that the whole 'killing everyone on the planet' is the smallest concern for the gods, to the point where it's really just a footnote.

Yep, they can make a new one.

[Peelee]

(In fact, Thor really seems like a wonderful, textbook example of a Lawful Good figure, wanting "whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest," as the Alignment is defined in the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide. And even being personable, considerate, and personally kind on top of it. Thor seems like a really great person/Power/whatever.)

I've never played, but everything I hear about AD&D basically sounds like Lawful equated to Good and Chaotic equated to Bad.

[hamishspence]

I've never played, but everything I hear about AD&D basically sounds like Lawful equated to Good and Chaotic equated to Bad.

That was more BECMI D&D. Even that had a few exceptions - creatures portrayed as both Chaotic and Good, or Lawful and Evil - but it did seem that the default was Chaotic-Evil, Lawful-Good.

[Vikenlugaid]

Considering how the comic tends to treat its villains, I don't imagine Xykon to get an even remotely satisfying conclusion at the end of this story.

Well then him becoming a god fits perfectly, cause as a god he can't kill indiscrimiminately anymore, he needs to obey rules, he needs to "work"... I don't think he would be satisfyed at all with that, I imagine that being similar to Jafar becoming a genie, seems great til he understand is not so great.

Man, now I can't imagine a better ending for him, is hilarious.


Anyway, Roy has already killed Xykon using spellsplinter and has prove that fighters don't suck and that... In the ilusion. Yes, it wasn't real in his life, but we readers have already seen exactly that, the end should be different, and not different just in details, different for real.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've never played, but everything I hear about AD&D basically sounds like Lawful equated to Good and Chaotic equated to Bad.

Since AD&D had the two axis model, you may be thinking of Original D&D that had C/N/L with no evil and no good.

It was a lot more flexible than the two-axis-turned-into-9-stupid-boxes approach, but yes, Lawful was roughly good (forces of order and civilization) and chaotic was roughly bad (forces of entropy / disorder / not civilization).

But there was a lot of room in between.

It is worth your time, I think, to read the original Strategic Review article that introduced the two axis model. It didn't make a nine box presentation.

[Throknor]

So I've been getting the stick-up-the-rear-paladin vibes from Lien and a couple of things stand out. First, she hasn't reached the 'kill all evil' level yet but she definitely seems ready to ignore why Serini kidnapped her and O'chul and would love to just lock her up somewhere. Second she has yet to hear the 'Thor would like us to negotiate with Redcloak to save the planet' message yet. Something tells me that's going to be a hard sell as she's only barely going along with working with Serini and might take a bit to be convinced the 12 gods would even consider willfully destroying the world.

I mean, she may have been told that the gods would destroy the world. But that doesn't mean she believes it of her gods.

[Thermophille]

So I've been getting the stick-up-the-rear-paladin vibes from Lien and a couple of things stand out. First, she hasn't reached the 'kill all evil' level yet but she definitely seems ready to ignore why Serini kidnapped her and O'chul and would love to just lock her up somewhere. Second she has yet to hear the 'Thor would like us to negotiate with Redcloak to save the planet' message yet. Something tells me that's going to be a hard sell as she's only barely going along with working with Serini and might take a bit to be convinced the 12 gods would even consider willfully destroying the world.

I mean, she may have been told that the gods would destroy the world. But that doesn't mean she believes it of her gods.

I got the impression that Lien is more annoyed about the whole situation than anything. She hasn't expressed disbelief about the Order's findings, and she's willing to shut up even while her gods are being slandered because Serini's actually on their side now.

At this point, I feel she'd be on board with anything that doesn't blow up the planet.

[danielxcutter]

Considering that Serini poisoned and kidnapped her and O-Chul, and attempted to do the same with the Order, and was vocally willing to let Xykon win at first I don't exactly blame her for being a bit salty about this. Besides it's not like she's trying to sabotage them or anything.

[Carl]

a bit salty

I see what you did there.

[Saint-Just]

Seems like the chaotic characters got the motivations of the gods quite easily. On that subject, it took the lawful characters a while to wrap their minds around the idea that the literal law-bringers of the universe might use their most powerful (if chaotic) option whenever it is most convenient for them.

Rules are for us little people to follow. Celestial or Earthly dictators don't care about the rules unless they are forcing them on others. They willingly break whatever rules they want all the time. See: any tinpot dictatorship in the real world.

Laws are for those ruled, not for those who rule. At least, in their minds.

Chaotic types note the hypocrisy in lawbringers breaking their own rules whenever they want, and they too break the rules when it makes sense to them.

Lawful types wish to uphold and enforce the law and naturally expect their leaders to do the same. Then they get surprised more often when the rules don't apply to their superiors.

Often when it is too late for the ruled to object.

I am definitely under impression that Belkar's diatribe was not intended to be factual-if-emotional description of the situation.

Unless we are to believe that Thor and Odin are still lying to Durkon and Minrah then however much you blame the old gods for allowing this situation to exist in the first place they did not have any direct option to "let the new guy get a piece of action" for decades, long before they voted on whether to "burn the heap". Even ignoring the difficulties of achieving consensus in the first place you cannot negotiate with someone who straight up does not take your calls.

[Vikenlugaid]

I am definitely under impression that Belkar's diatribe was not intended to be factual-if-emotional description of the situation.

Unless we are to believe that Thor and Odin are still lying to Durkon and Minrah then however much you blame the old gods for allowing this situation to exist in the first place they did not have any direct option to "let the new guy get a piece of action" for decades, long before they voted on whether to "burn the heap". Even ignoring the difficulties of achieving consensus in the first place you cannot negotiate with someone who straight up does not take your calls.

As far as we know, only Thor, Odin and Loki are really trying to solve the thing this way, and only because this way can lead to end the Snarl problem, Thor wasn't going to negociate a crap with TDO before Loki told him about the purple quiddity. So yes, Belkar description is like 90% accurate or more.

[danielxcutter]

I see what you did there.

That actually wasn't intended, lol.

As far as we know, only Thor, Odin and Loki are really trying to solve the thing this way, and only because this way can lead to end the Snarl problem, Thor wasn't going to negociate a crap with TDO before Loki told him about the purple quiddity. So yes, Belkar description is like 90% accurate or more.

I mean, TDO was a warlord who killed a lot of his(probably Good-aligned) worshipers and I believe is canonically Evil. Working with TDO is worth it if it makes the world better, but otherwise...

[Saint-Just]

As far as we know, only Thor, Odin and Loki are really trying to solve the thing this way, and only because this way can lead to end the Snarl problem, Thor wasn't going to negociate a crap with TDO before Loki told him about the purple quiddity. So yes, Belkar description is like 90% accurate or more.

At the stage when they weren't going to negotiate they also had zero intention of risking "the heap". Belkar's denunciation was not that the existing gods did not allow TDO something that is due, but that they would rather "destroy than share", and I maintain that any question of possible destruction arose after the option to share was de-facto rejected by the other party.

You can even broadly compare the mindset of the initial rejection of TDO because the old gods had no need to settle for something less than what they already had and the current TDO's behaviour where he thinks he has no need to settle for anything less than dictating the conditions unilaterally. In both cases the possibility of loosing the "heap" is not accounted for.

[Vikenlugaid]

That actually wasn't intended, lol.



I mean, TDO was a warlord who killed a lot of his(probably Good-aligned) worshipers and I believe is canonically Evil. Working with TDO is worth it if it makes the world better, but otherwise...

There haven't been wars in this world between dwarves, or humans? I mean, being a warlord who kill enemies doesn't mean being a monster. And those wars vs TDO surely made high lvls souls for Thor.

The thing is Belkar is saying that the gods will destroy the world rather than give anything to Xykon or Redcloak, and that's absolutely likely true for most of the gods, even Durkon "a god defender" is asuming that id Xykon gets the gate the gods destroy the world as a certainty. And the only ones who are maybe thinking in give anything are Odin, Loki and Thor, and only because the purple quiddity thing, if not for that, they would be in "destroy the world once team evil gets the gate, or even sooner" team.

[Quizatzhaderac]

There haven't been wars in this world between dwarves, or humans?

If we accept that most dwarves die in actual battle, and not secondary war deaths like hunger and disease, dwarves are in a fantastic number of wars (as is, literally too many to be possible outside of a fantasy setting). About ten times the rate of violence of the Iraq war as the average level of violence.

I mean, being a warlord who kill enemies doesn't mean being a monster. And those wars vs TDO surely made high lvls souls for Thor.

That's a lot of objectivity to ask of a person. I think the way OotS gods work is that they have supernaturally less objectivity, not more.

And the only ones who are maybe thinking in give anything are Odin, Loki and Thor, and only because the purple quiddity thing, if not for that, they would be in "destroy the world once team evil gets the gate, or even sooner" team.

And Rat and Tiamat. I suspect the story with the 12 gods might have details not shown in comic (maybe Rich decided showing the votes of 27 gods was enough).

And as I see it, Odin, Loki, and Thor and more of an organized faction than the whole list of gods that can be persuaded. For example Heimdall might believe that destroying the world immediately is safest, but if that's off the table then working towards a permanent seal is worth sacrifices. The evil gods don't care much about goblins one way or another, and so are probably persuadable to vote yes on the goblin enhancement package.

[bunsen_h]

One possible reason for Haley's expression in the last panel is that naive Elan is leaving the party to wander in a dungeon with a creature who, while friendly and powerful, is also very naive. How safe is this? How many D&D monsters could reasonably be described as "bugs" but are extremely dangerous even when apparently dead? And Sunny is currently partly handicapped by having his anti-anti-magic contact lens in. I'm guessing that it would take him a couple of rounds to take it out.

Am I the only one that actually counted them to see if it was in fact 11?

I did.