OOTS #1256 - The Discussion Thread

[woweedd]

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.

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 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.

I mean, this is a world where actual monsters just exist, so...Wars aren't the only option.

[Pax_Chi]

Hallelujah, there's nothing like previously resolutely obstinate characters finally actually coming around to seeing some genuine sense.

Roy and Durkon should frankly never be in charge of any diplomatic efforts again unless there are no other choices available. Leave that to Belkar, Haley and Elan whenever possible.

I'd say it depends more on who they're talking to. Roy and Durkon were both being completely reasonable, but they're both Lawful Good characters trying to convinced a Chaotic Neutral Serini of something. Belkar, Haley and Elan worked better because they have similar alignments and knew how to frame things in a way Serini could relate to and get her to pull her head out of her rear. Meanwhile Roy and Durkon have worked very well when interacting with other Lawful or Good people.

[Thermophille]

I'd say it depends more on who they're talking to. Roy and Durkon were both being completely reasonable, but they're both Lawful Good characters trying to convinced a Chaotic Neutral Serini of something. Belkar, Haley and Elan worked better because they have similar alignments and knew how to frame things in a way Serini could relate to and get her to pull her head out of her rear. Meanwhile Roy and Durkon have worked very well when interacting with other Lawful or Good people.

Imagine Belkar trying to negotiate with Redcloak.

[Wintermoot]

You know, in BECMI, the "basic" D&D version that predates 2nd Edition, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic were the only three alignments AND they had alignment languages, so that Lawful people could speak "Lawful" to other Lawful people and Chaotic people could speak Chaotic to other Chaotic people and so on.

I imagine this is somewhat emblematic of that. Roy and Durkon understand themselves better than Haley, Belkar and Elan do and vice versa.

So really Serini needed someone to explain it to her in Chaotic to understand it.

I remember as a kid thinking the "alignment languages" were pretty stupid. But I'd say Rich has illustrated the purpose and thought behind them pretty clearly.

[urbanwolf]

I mean, this is a world where actual monsters just exist, so...Wars aren't the only option.

Not only that but dwarves live 4 times as long as humans. 252 to 450 years 100 years of peace is doable for most dwarves.

[KorvinStarmast]

You know, in BECMI, the "basic" D&D version that predates 2nd Edition, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic were the only three alignments AND they had alignment languages, so that Lawful people could speak "Lawful" to other Lawful people and Chaotic people could speak Chaotic to other Chaotic people and so on.

And to make it even more confusing, from the Strategic Review article in 1976 that tried to explain alignment, he said that there were five, not three, alignments.

... words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:
LAW

Spoiler: the words

Show

Reliability
Propriety
Principled
Righteous
Regularity
Regulation
Methodical
Uniform
Predictable
Prescribed Rules
Order

CHAOS

Spoiler: the words

Show

Unruly
Confusion
Turmoil
Unrestrained
Random
Irregular
Unmethodical
Unpredictable
Disordered
Lawless
Anarchy

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. (Note, there were no boxes)

Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:
GOOD

Spoiler: words

Show

Harmless
Friendly
Honest
Sincere
Helpful
Beneficial
Pure
Kind

EVIL

Spoiler: words

Show

Unfit
Mischievous
Dishonest
Bad
Injurious
Wicked
Corrupt
Unpleasant

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure,
for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely:

LAWFUL/GOOD, LAWFUL/EVIL, CHAOTIC/GOOD, CHAOTIC/EVIL, NEUTRAL {all caps is original}

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification of various creatures is shown on Illustration II

That illustration had none of that 9 boxes stuff - it had two axes and about 50 creatures spread out all over the plane in various grades of each alignment combo with a few in each corner and the following in the middle where neutral was there was a (neutral) field with:
Pixies, Centaurs, Giants, (just above the L-C axis) Elementals, Druids, (on the L-C axis) Zombies, Thieves (just below the L-C axis)

If only they'd stuck to that.
(Heck, I'd have been happy to see the L/N/C be what they stuck to, but if wishes were beers I'd be having one now)

[tanonx]

Is it just me, or is this argument being won by virtue of Belkar making an emotional appeal to Serini's kneejerk contrarian impulses? Sure, we might've spent ages discussing the complexity of the situation at hand... but have you considered that gods are people in charge, and people in charge are bad?

That, and sharing a race and alignment tendencies. Which kind of undercuts the whole grudge against people mistreating "monsters" and "evil-aligned" civilizations.

There's a lot of time and care put into this whole argument, and it's won for some of the wrong reasons. I wonder how that'll pan out...

[Precure]

I still believe that the whole "gods gonna destroy everything if Xykon took control of the gate" is a claim unsupported by the text itself.

[Thermophille]

I still believe that the whole "gods gonna destroy everything if Xykon took control of the gate" is a claim unsupported by the text itself.

Perhaps, but it requires almost zero extrapolation. We've been explicitly told that a god's vote is considered null if their cleric is killed, and a god could certainly instruct their cleric to commit suicide.

If any of the gods or demigods who voted no have their cleric commit suicide, the vote would be overturned and the world would be destroyed. I'll rank the gods based on 'no', 'maybe', or 'probably' based on what we know that they'd do so.

Odin. No.
Thor. No.
Sif. Maybe.
Baldur. Maybe.
Freya. Maybe.
Freyr. Maybe.
Frigg. Maybe.
Mani. Probably.
Loki. No.
Bragi. Maybe.
Iounn. Maybe.
Hermod. Maybe.

The vast majority are debatable, and while I doubt all of them would flip the moment Xykon got the gate, it'd be an uphill battle to claim that none of them would, especially when Mani was motivated by laziness.

And maybe none of them would flip immediately, but how long would it take? A day into the ritual? A week? How long before survival motivates even a single god to change their mind?

[hungrycrow]

I still believe that the whole "gods gonna destroy everything if Xykon took control of the gate" is a claim unsupported by the text itself.

The text supports that claim by having Durkon, Roy and Belkar believe it to be the case.

[LadyEowyn]

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.

Yes, the world being destroyed by the Snarl would be worse in many ways (though not for the dwarves) than the world being destroyed by the gods.

But the gods giving the Dark One what he wants and removing the threat has a solid shot at being better than either of those two terrible options, and for the most part the gods aren’t showing much interest in that. Even Thor doesn’t offer Durkon any meaningful concessions to take back to Redcloak.

[tanonx]

But the gods giving the Dark One what he wants and removing the threat has a solid shot at being better than either of those two terrible options, and for the most part the gods aren’t showing much interest in that. Even Thor doesn’t offer Durkon any meaningful concessions to take back to Redcloak.

I do want to note, the conversation between Thor and Durkon got cut off right when Durkon was starting to ask about getting some, which was immediately after Durkon explained what Redcloak's stance was to begin with. There hasn't really been a chance to brainstorm and get those concessions, and this whole situation is time-sensitive, to say the least.

Even if they did have the time, Thor noted that the gods are "intentionally locked out" of making widespread changes in the world, which implies it's not just a ruling they could go back on. There's a plausible reason to keep it that way, too - playing fast and loose with creation got the world into this mess to begin with.

It looks like the mortals have to pull their weight where the immediate threat is concerned. Which makes sense - as the whole situation with Gobbotopia illustrates, there's no inherent reason for anyone to stay where the gods plunked them down, so mortals still had a hand in kicking that whole cycle off.

Thor has also explained that the Dark One's response to emissaries is melting them, anointing his legions with them, and so on. Forcing the issue in person, it's said, would lead to disagreements, which would lead to a two-color Snarl, which could well wipe out both parties. Hence approaching his high priest, instead - the proxy meeting is safer, as well as easier.

[Saint-Just]

Even if they did have the time, Thor noted that the gods are "intentionally locked out" of making widespread changes in the world, which implies it's not just a ruling they could go back on. There's a plausible reason to keep it that way, too - playing fast and loose with creation got the world into this mess to begin with.

I even got the impression that it is not merely a matter of a previous agreement, but that it is to a degree baked in the world itself.

[Mike Havran]

The text supports that claim by having Durkon, Roy and Belkar believe it to be the case.

That is a very shaky support at best. For quite a while, the entire Order (sans Belkar, who didn't care) believed that Girard will help them against Xykon.

[KorvinStarmast]

but have you considered that gods are people in charge, and people in charge are bad?

That's a rather blinkered view.

playing fast and loose with creation got the world into this mess to begin with.

Worlds, plural, as in millions of them.

It looks like the mortals have to pull their weight where the immediate threat is concerned.

Correct, the story is built on the adventures and exploits of the Order of the Stick, not "Gods versus Snarl", in its scope. Resolving the extant Snarl threat is an element of tension built into the overarching plot.

And on top of that, both V and Roy had, on screen, pointed out that "We really don't know what's going on" and Belkar pointed out that "everyone's chain is being yanked". While some of what they don't know has been revealed, there are still some reveals to be presented to clear up some of what they don't know. The element of discovery is also part of the various story arcs that the Order experiences/slogs through.

IFCC's next move is but one of the course changes that we can expect to see.

[ScreamingGod]

I love it when "boots on the ground" have it right (even when they're bootless, or shoeless).

Thanks, Giant.

[tanonx]

That's a rather blinkered view.

This is indeed the case. But it seems to be what worked best in the argument. Belkar isn't the first to bring up that the gods are ready to destroy the world, he's just the first to filter it through the lens of Ian Starshine grade paranoia.

As for the gods not being what the story's about... well, the IFCC has already pegged the "good gods" as a target. Redcloak has them all in his sights, and that Godsmoot is still going. If we're talking about revelations to come, the gods aren't off the hook just yet. But they may wish they had someone to pray to.

[arimareiji]

I love it when "boots on the ground" have it right (even when they're bootless, or shoeless).

Thanks, Giant.

Indeed, bootless speculation is rarely fruitful. *drum sting*

[Precure]

If any of the gods or demigods who voted no have their cleric commit suicide, the vote would be overturned and the world would be destroyed.

Pretty sure that would be cheating, due to "not backsies" rule, etc.

[Thermophille]

Pretty sure that would be cheating, due to "not backsies" rule, etc.

If it was, wouldn't someone have told Roy when he was trying to kill his cleric and invalidate Hel's vote?

[Dragonus45]

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.

It certainly already is. At least certainly for all the good gods, most of the neutral, and I could even imagine a couple of the Evil ones if they skew Lawful enough.

[arimareiji]

It certainly already is. At least certainly for all the good gods, most of the neutral, and I could even imagine a couple of the Evil ones if they skew Lawful enough.

In the sense of "Is it true that killing people for looking different and being inconvenient to you is bad?", it absolutely already is.

But not so much in the sense of "And all the good gods have made this crystal-clear to their followers."

[Dragonus45]

In the sense of "Is it true that killing people for looking different and being inconvenient to you is bad?", it absolutely already is.

But not so much in the sense of "And all the good gods have made this crystal-clear to their followers."

Probably as clear as they make anything, the tricky part about free will is that it's hard to just make people do things from the gods perspectives.

[KorvinStarmast]

they may wish they had someone to pray to.

I doubt that very much. Others pray to them, they don't pray to anybody.

They are working without a net, and have known that since the green pantheon got consumed way back when. Per the exposition between Thor and Durkon/Minrah, the gods all keep tinkering and trying something different, and they are immortal so time is not a problem for them.

Millions and millions of worlds later, they are still stuck in the rut of make a world and see how long it will last. This, as I see it, puts the gods of the OoTSverse in very good company with a guy called Sisyphus.

That exposition also reveals where Thor is being quite the progressive in wanting to break all of creation/existence out of the rut that the gods have been in for millions and millions of years. He's involved in some out of the box thinking (credit to Loki here, I think, also) while most of the other gods are just arguing about "end this world now or later" with a lot of them choosing to end it now (or sooner, not later) as a practical matter of survival.

[JonahFalcon]

What I like is the three Lawful characters (LG, to be precise) unable to get through to Serini, but the two Chaotic characters get her to understand quickly.

[Ruck]

The text supports that claim by having Durkon, Roy and Belkar believe it to be the case.

I think even more relevant is that the god who made the case at the godsmoot for not destroying the world yet included in the argument that they could still pull the plug quickly if the last gate falls.

[hungrycrow]

I think even more relevant is that the god who made the case at the godsmoot for not destroying the world yet included in the argument that they could still pull the plug quickly if the last gate falls.

Loki used the important qualifier "if we all agree on that course of action today." That leaves open what the Gods could do if Xykon captures but doesn't destroy the last Gate, having not made any decision at the Godsmoot.

Durkon has Durkula's memories concerning the Gods' rules and how the decision to destroy the world gets made. He's also the one that came up with the plan to stall the vote indefinitely. Yet he's still certain that the Gods could change their minds if Xykon wins. It's possible that he's wrong, but he's better equipped to make that assessment than we are.

[Shoelessgdowar]

I did not think it would be so easy to make an [eye-creature-trademarked] look so... well, adorable. Kudos.

There are other examples, you just have to look.

[Katasi]

Of course the Chaotic types would bound over distrusting the highest possible authority. Gotta love Lien's attempts to defend her gods' good standing though. I also wish we could see Durkon's face when Roy says his opinion of the gods is getting lower and lower.

One thing I love about this comic is that it really shows off all the facets good and bad that come into play with Paladins, showing off several different takes on them rather than just the standard knight in shining armor or lawful stupid bully (not that we didn't see those as well)

I dunno, I'm not a fan of "this character conveniently forgot this important piece of information they know." Then again it's not exactly clear how speculative the Scribblers' understanding of the gods' intention was. Did they even know about the Godsmoot?

To me the impression seems that up until Durkon, anyone who knew about the snarl at all believed the current world to be the second. The concept of just undoing the world and remaking the prison doesn't seem to have existed.

[arimareiji]

What I like is the three Lawful characters (LG, to be precise) unable to get through to Serini, but the two Chaotic characters get her to understand quickly.

It probably didn't help that her intro to the subject (through Lien and O-Chul) were primarily variations on "You should trust us because we're Lawful."

But more importantly, good luck ever convincing someone whose perspective you don't understand. If you're Lawful, the best argument (and thus where you come from) is likely to hinge on trust that Authority and Order will keep their word and are best able to work things out. And between that or the converse, that's the direction Roy and Durkon's argumentation leans in 1256.

But how well are such arguments going to play with someone whose life experience has led them to conclude neither are inherently trustworthy? Belkar, with a big assist from Haley, reframes the points Roy and Durkon were making in 1255, and makes it clear that Serini has argued herself into a circle - now it's actually her own position that hinges on trusting Law and Authority to act the way she would.