OOTS #1297 - The Discussion Thread

[brian 333]

I don't believe that the "possessed unwillingly by a demon" trope and the "I've signed an ill-advised contract with The Devil" trope tend to show up in the same stories. Nonetheless, if the Fiends were allowed to put souls in any mortal's body without permission, they likely wouldn't be screwing around with this contract stuff. They'd be doing that instead; it'd be way easier.

In the meantime, the Fiends' specific consideration in that contract is quite explicit: they each get to hold onto V's soul for a specific period of time. They may have mislead V about when they'd lay claim, but laying claim to V's soul for the specified time periods is, ultimately, the only thing they legally get out of that contract. They don't get to tack on additional riders after the fact.

I do not disagree with this. I was disagreeing with the absolutism of

... Fiends are not allowed to put different souls in a mortal's body without that mortal's permission,...

Lee is obligated to honor the letter of the contract. Cedrik could do whatever he wanted if
A: he thinks he can get away with it,
B: he thinks he will benefit from it,
C: he feels like it,
D: and/or uncounted other reasons which may or may not make sense to us.

I don't think it is probable, given what he has to lose, but that is seldom a major consideration from a Chaotic PoV.

[Mic_128]

Lee is obligated to honor the letter of the contract. Cedrik could do whatever he wanted

And Nero keeps the trio united and working together. No doubt that would include stopping the chaotic one from messing up plans and breaking contracts they don't want broken.

[Liquor Box]

I mean yeah, that's why they've put up Mass Resist Fire and gotten healing. That second one is going to be doing a lot less damage, due to Durkon having a high enough caster level for Mass Resist Fire to reduce fire damage by 30. Serini also probably has a pretty deep health pool due to sheer amount of levels even with age penalties to Constitution. In contrast, Polar Ray is doing cold damage, which V wouldn't have protected against, and also is a ray spell that doesn't allow a saving throw to reduce damage.

Even with mass resist fire of 30, the average damage would be more than the polar ray. It may be that he is a mature adult dragon (or younger) and his breath weapon is less (although then his CR may be too low for the Order).

[danielxcutter]

Or Mimi's been making her saves and Serini has Improved Evasion or something.

[H_H_F_F]

I just assume the simplest version of things barring more advanced things being stated as the case.

I don’t think Calder is anything more than a Dragon of advanced age.

Off the top of my head, I can't think on how a dragon of advanced age would achieve this with only feats. Shedu crown bound to an opened crown chakra? That'd have a visual effect that we're not seeing. Same for soulspeaker circlet.

I empathize with assuming the simplest version - but the simplest version has to explain the evidence. "Roy's sword isn't magical" is a very simple explanation, until it isn't.

[Ruck]

Yeah, no fiend would lie.

I mean, at some point, the author has to have some way to give information to the reader. The only purpose for that line, so far as I can see, is to rule out the possibility that they will control V's body. Sure, it could be a lie, but then why have them say it at all?

I know these are days old, but this was the way to introduce my thoughts on the IFCC/V discussion that's been taking place.

I believe Peelee is referring to the Giant's comment here:

at a certain point you have to understand that the only way for me to communicate non-visual information to you in the strip is through dialogue.

And I tend to agree with him in his interpretation. Which is to say, it's certainly conceivable the IFCC would lie, but I more find myself thinking, how else would Rich let the readers know what exactly the terms of use on V's deal with the IFCC are if not through the IFCC?

[Precure]

Still, they somehow protected and moved V's body from underground to the surface. This involve some sort of control, even if they didn't personally put a soul in them

[danielxcutter]

I think the explosion just yeeted their body there.

[Kish]

I know these are days old, but this was the way to introduce my thoughts on the IFCC/V discussion that's been taking place.

I believe Peelee is referring to the Giant's comment here:



And I tend to agree with him in his interpretation. Which is to say, it's certainly conceivable the IFCC would lie, but I more find myself thinking, how else would Rich let the readers know what exactly the terms of use on V's deal with the IFCC are if not through the IFCC?

"If not through the IFCC" is the wrong question.

"If not through having a member of the IFCC make that claim to Vaarsuvius, the person they've previously lied to repeatedly, but this time the people treating that as 'Rich said it' are right, how?" is, and the answer is, "The same way he did with the lies 'You just happened to come along when we wanted a proof of concept,' and 'This elaborate scheme involving Aarindarius and suicide would save your family': interactions with Qarr. Or Sabine would work. Or anyone they don't have an incentive to lie to and haven't lied to repeatedly in the past."

[danielxcutter]

I don't exactly think that the moral of the story is going to be "V's very existence in the party after taking the deal was a net negative and it would have been better if they'd killed themselves immediately," for what it's worth.

[Kish]

I hope the route Rich takes to get there doesn't wind up being, "That 'If the elf dies here, this whole thing was a huge waste of time' line doesn't make any sense in retrospect as the fiends had no reason to want Vaarsuvius alive."

[danielxcutter]

I mean, if Vaarsuvius had to be alive until then so they could have one of their fiends possess them and take control over the Gate or whatever or otherwise do something so horrible that it decisively overshadows all the good they've ever done or will ever do, that would still be in line with that statement. I don't think that'll be what happens, though.

[Kish]

Yes, exactly. That is one example of something that would be in line with that statement.

"Vaarsuvius just isn't there at the final battle, because the fiends yank them down to the Abyss" is something that would not be in line with that statement.

If Rich can come up with a way that being able to yank Vaarsuvius out actively helps the fiends, rather than being the same for them as if Vaarsuvius was permanently out because Xykon had crushed their windpipe, well and good. I'm just concerned about the story leaving it at: all they ever needed was Vaarsuvius' absence, and they should not have said that line because in end-of-comic retrospect it was the opposite of true.

[danielxcutter]

Which is fair enough, and I also hope that the story doesn't go with "Vaarsuvius should have actually never done anything important again". I have faith in Rich not doing that, though.

[Blue Dragon]

Possession does not have to be voluntary. Demons have a whole thing with that, unless movies like The Exorcist have lead me astray.

They didn't, possession is involuntary more often then not. Well, [REDACTED] notwithstanding, of course.

Regarding V’s soul, the key question is: how does Rich keep it narratively interesting? Everyone (not just us the readers, but characters like Roy) are already expecting V to be taken out of the action again. Rich tends to avoid doing something that plays out in the obvious and predictable way. So what’s the twist? I tend to agree that it won’t be putting another soul in V’s body, but it also won’t be just the same thing we saw before. Is there something else they can do with V’s soul while they have possession of it?

I don't thing there is a twist, they'll probably just take Vaarsavius of the action when his action can affect the balance of the fight.

Yeah I’m willing to cut Serini some slack given how it was entirely unintended and Calder being the Evil bastard he is, but even so that’s still a horrible fate to inflict on anyone, even by accident and even on someone like Calder.

Then I think it's better that you avoid reading JoJo's Bizarre Adventure.

[Provengreil]

Yes, exactly. That is one example of something that would be in line with that statement.

"Vaarsuvius just isn't there at the final battle, because the fiends yank them down to the Abyss" is something that would not be in line with that statement.

If Rich can come up with a way that being able to yank Vaarsuvius out actively helps the fiends, rather than being the same for them as if Vaarsuvius was permanently out because Xykon had crushed their windpipe, well and good. I'm just concerned about the story leaving it at: all they ever needed was Vaarsuvius' absence, and they should not have said that line because in end-of-comic retrospect it was the opposite of true.

V being suddenly gone is a LOT harder for the Order to plan for than simply never having them present, to say nothing of the risk that, sans V, the Order could have made the effort and successfully found a caster not bound to the IFCC at all. There's likely to be a specific set of actions or knowledge that no other character would reasonably be able to do or have, and they need to make sure that the Order thinks that base is covered, until it isn't.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the IFCC was hoping V wouldn't tell anyone about the deal, and I am making this statement with that assumption in mind.

I think the explosion just yeeted their body there.

I'm pretty sure the past tense is "yote".

[Kardwill]

I threw out a theory on that several pages ago, but I'll kick it up again here too: because otherwise V wouldn't stay with the party.

The terms of the deal specified nothing about who was allowed to do what with V's body while it was un-ensouled, but if V thought it could be puppeted against their friends they might not stay with the party because they'd be too much of a risk. If V thought the only risk was their absence, then they'll stay with the party because worst case - no harm would be done, just no help.

So if the fiends want V to stay with the party, they need to convince the elf of it whether or not it's true.

I'm aware of the theory you advanced, and I was in fact responding to it with my answer to that question. I do not think your theory is correct; the deal said nothing about what could be done to V's body, and because Vaarsuvius did not agree to let the Fiends have their body for any length of time, then the Fiends don't get it. I think it's pretty reasonable to argue that, in this context where they can only intervene where technically invited to do so, Fiends are not allowed to put different souls in a mortal's body without that mortal's permission, and in order to take advantage of any hypothetical 'third party' loophole, a third party who possesses V's body is going to have to actually be a third party who are not working at the instigation of the IFCC.

I think we can trust the Fiends when they say that, no, they genuinely aren't allowed to use V's body for anything, because that was not one of the terms of the agreement. And I think we can trust them when they say that, partly because, again, lying about the terms of your verbal agreement to the other party means you don't meaningfully have a verbal agreement, and partly because I think it makes perfect sense for them to pretend they're being perfectly reasonable good-faith actors, since that is 1) their characterization so far, and 2) an excellent way to twist the knife while dealing with Vaarsuvius.

Why not both?

The fiends cannot use the contract to possess V

AND they're making it absolutely clear so that V will stay with the order, allowing the fiends to mess with the order in the future

AND they twist the knife by insisting that they are only doing what he explicitely allowed them to do, because, although cruelty is its own reward, it is sooooo much sweeter when it's for an objectively useful purpose.


Shutting down V's train of thought also has the advantage that he does not think too long about what other loopholes might be hiding yet in the contract.

[Kardwill]

Yes, exactly. That is one example of something that would be in line with that statement.

"Vaarsuvius just isn't there at the final battle, because the fiends yank them down to the Abyss" is something that would not be in line with that statement.

If Rich can come up with a way that being able to yank Vaarsuvius out actively helps the fiends, rather than being the same for them as if Vaarsuvius was permanently out because Xykon had crushed their windpipe, well and good. I'm just concerned about the story leaving it at: all they ever needed was Vaarsuvius' absence, and they should not have said that line because in end-of-comic retrospect it was the opposite of true.

They needed the Order to destroy the gate. The Order with V was far more likely to get to the gate, and the order without V was far more likely to destroy it because they couldn't hold it against Xykon/Nale/Tarquin. So they came up with a way to "curate" the order's efficiency (and knowledge) by removing their only Arcane specialist/flamethrower whenever they want.

If V died, then Xykon would probably have beaten the Order in the race for the fourth gate, and secured it against intrusion. That would go against the fiends manifest interest (lots of conflict around the gate, apparently)

What's their plan for the fifth Gate? I don't know. But I suspect they share Serini's earlier assessment that the Order fighting Xykon here endangers the last gate. So they allow them to have their wizard. For now.

[Ruck]

"If not through the IFCC" is the wrong question.

"If not through having a member of the IFCC make that claim to Vaarsuvius, the person they've previously lied to repeatedly, but this time the people treating that as 'Rich said it' are right, how?" is, and the answer is, "The same way he did with the lies 'You just happened to come along when we wanted a proof of concept,' and 'This elaborate scheme involving Aarindarius and suicide would save your family': interactions with Qarr. Or Sabine would work. Or anyone they don't have an incentive to lie to and haven't lied to repeatedly in the past."

Yeah, I follow that, though in both of those last two cases the truth was revealed to us pretty quickly. I suppose there could be good dramatic reasons in this situation not to until/if it actually happens, but we're also lacking any other information on the subject (other than that nobody did, in fact, possess V's body during the first soul period).

Like I said, it's sure plausible that they would lie. But I also think this was how Rich wanted to communicate that information to us, so he wants us to think that's how the contract works, whether he later plans to confirm or subvert our expectations.

the deal said nothing about what could be done to V's body, and because Vaarsuvius did not agree to let the Fiends have their body for any length of time, then the Fiends don't get it. I think it's pretty reasonable to argue that, in this context where they can only intervene where technically invited to do so, Fiends are not allowed to put different souls in a mortal's body without that mortal's permission, and in order to take advantage of any hypothetical 'third party' loophole, a third party who possesses V's body is going to have to actually be a third party who are not working at the instigation of the IFCC.

I think we can trust the Fiends when they say that, no, they genuinely aren't allowed to use V's body for anything, because that was not one of the terms of the agreement. And I think we can trust them when they say that, partly because, again, lying about the terms of your verbal agreement to the other party means you don't meaningfully have a verbal agreement, and partly because I think it makes perfect sense for them to pretend they're being perfectly reasonable good-faith actors, since that is 1) their characterization so far, and 2) an excellent way to twist the knife while dealing with Vaarsuvius.

And, well... At a certain point, we have to accept that the characters in a story know what they're talking about when they say stuff. Even when it's devils talking- after all, devils being unable or unwilling to say things that are outright not true is a very common trope throughout fiction and folklore, and I see no evidence that OOTS is bucking that particular trope.

I think these are pretty good points too.

[Unoriginal]

I don't believe that the "possessed unwillingly by a demon" trope and the "I've signed an ill-advised contract with The Devil" trope tend to show up in the same stories.

On the contrary, having both in the same story and/or setting is very frequent.

To name a few from the top of my head: Dungeons & Dragons, Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel, Charmed, both DC and Marvel, Futurama (if you count "digital ghost of a robot empowered by Robot Devil" as close enough to a demon), Helluva Boss, and The Witcher 3.

[Daisho]

Look, I don't mind how this goes for the most part, but if Mimi doesn't come out of this intact I shall be quite put out.

[BloodSquirrel]

Lee is obligated to honor the letter of the contract. Cedrik could do whatever he wanted if
A: he thinks he can get away with it,
B: he thinks he will benefit from it,
C: he feels like it,
D: and/or uncounted other reasons which may or may not make sense to us.

You forgot the most important one: he can do whatever he wants if it isn't metaphysically impossible.

As I already stated a few pages back, if fiends can possess people without their consent, and the contract doesn't expressly forbid it (which, as somebody else pointed out, it doesn't, because it was a verbal contract and so there can't be any clauses we were unaware of), then possessing V's body wouldn't be a violation of their contract. If they can't possess people without their consent, then getting a third party is useless.

As I also stated a few pages back, while it's true that the author can reveal a clever hidden or twisted meaning behind what he's told us, an author who out-and-out lies to his reader will simply dilute their ability to understand the story. In order for "The fiends actually can posses V's body" to be an interesting twist we'd need to have the mechanics of the situation explained to us well enough that it doesn't just seem random.

They needed the Order to destroy the gate. The Order with V was far more likely to get to the gate, and the order without V was far more likely to destroy it because they couldn't hold it against Xykon/Nale/Tarquin. So they came up with a way to "curate" the order's efficiency (and knowledge) by removing their only Arcane specialist/flamethrower whenever they want.

If V died, then Xykon would probably have beaten the Order in the race for the fourth gate, and secured it against intrusion. That would go against the fiends manifest interest (lots of conflict around the gate, apparently)

What's their plan for the fifth Gate? I don't know. But I suspect they share Serini's earlier assessment that the Order fighting Xykon here endangers the last gate. So they allow them to have their wizard. For now.

I think that the "if V is a liability, why doesn't the order ditch them" versus "if V isn't a liability, why didn't the fiends let V die" conundrum does go away a bit if you consider that it's a balancing act between two parties to keep them in conflict, rather than an attempt to aid or impede one party specifically. It also helps if you don't assume that the fiends are all-knowing, and are having to hedge their bets as much as everyone else.

TE would obviously be better off if V was just dead and gone, but the fiends don't want TE getting a clean win. The Order don't want TE getting a clean win either, so they'll take even a compromised V at the risk of a messier outcome.

[Peelee]

I know these are days old, but this was the way to introduce my thoughts on the IFCC/V discussion that's been taking place.

I believe Peelee is referring to the Giant's comment here:

And I tend to agree with him in his interpretation. Which is to say, it's certainly conceivable the IFCC would lie, but I more find myself thinking, how else would Rich let the readers know what exactly the terms of use on V's deal with the IFCC are if not through the IFCC?

That was not what i was referencing, i was just making that point entirely separately because i forgot he'd said that. But that works.

But another way to put my objection to Kish's insistence is that a lie is a primary (arguably the primary) defining facet of the deal with a devil trope, but they are subtly deceptive and they never directly lie about the specific terms. If Kish is correct, then why bother to believe any of it? Why believe they are restricted to getting V's soul for a certain amount of time only when it could be infinite uses for an infinite amount of time, because they just lied about it? Why believe anything at all about their restrictions?

There's a difference between trickery and just straight up declaring the opposite of what is actually the case. Faustian deals have trickery. They do not have the fiend saying "psych, the terms are actually the exact opposite of what i claimed".

[danielxcutter]

Also a sudden twist has already been done, so I think doing that a second time would be a lot less impactful.

[BloodSquirrel]

That was not what i was referencing, i waa just making that point entirely separately because i forgot he'd said that. But that works.

But another way to put my objection to Kish's insistence is that a lie is a primary (arguably the primary) defining facet of the deal with a devil trope, but they are deceptive but they never directly lie about the specific terms. If Kish is correct, then why bother to believe any of it? Why believe they are restricted to getting V's soul for a certain amount of time only when it could be infinite uses for an infinite amount of time, because they just lied about it. Why believe anything at all?

There's a difference between tricky and just straight up declaring the opposite of what is actually the case. Faustian deals have trickery. They do not have the fiend saying "psych, the terms are actually the exact opposite of what i claimed".

Sluggy Freelance had a genie that actually did that once. I forget how the rest of the story played out, but it's something you have to be very specifically building a subversion around if you want to pull it off.

[brian 333]

Vaarsivius may die, but I'm looking at the overall theme of the comic.

Overcome the prejudices and preconceptions that limit your potential.

V will have to realize and challenge his basic worldview. This process has already begun with the divorce and the humiliation at the hands of Xykon, but there is still a long way to go.

If the IFCC interferes with this process, V will be denied the opportunity to prove, (or fail to prove,) worthiness for redemption.

This is a part of every character's personal arc. Roy, Elan, and Haley proving themselves worthy regardless of family expectations, Redcloak trying to prove he was right all along, Xykon 'proving' that power matters most, V rejecting that premise.

Every character in the story has to grow beyond preconceived notions or die trying in order to 'win' their personal battle. I do not think that The Author will stop V by some trick by the IFCC.

[Unoriginal]

It's also entirely possible for Varsuuvius to die and be brought back. Next morning, even.

Considering that Team Evil was estimated to take two days to clear the pre-Final Dungeon gauntlet with their current method, a several-hours-to-half-a-day skip wouldn't be outlandish.

And Varsuuvius seeing the kind of afterlife their actions so far have landed them in would contribute to their character arc.

Personal guess is that if they die during this battle (which I don't think is likely, but still possible), they would wake up in Hades.

[bunsen_h]

There's a difference between trickery and just straight up declaring the opposite of what is actually the case. Faustian deals have trickery. They do not have the fiend saying "psych, the terms are actually the exact opposite of what i claimed".

There was one outright lie: the claim that they chose V for the deal merely because it was the "next request to come down the line". But that wasn't one of the terms of the deal. It was also part of the deal that V would retain control of their actions. A couple of pages later, this was reiterated, though with a warning that there might be "some feedback. You know, alignment-wise." Later, it was stated that any implication that the spliced souls would affect V's thoughts or actions was untrue.

[Peelee]

There was one outright lie: the claim that they chose V for the deal merely because it was the "next request to come down the line". But that wasn't one of the terms of the deal. It was also part of the deal that V would retain control of their actions. A couple of pages later, this was reiterated, though with a warning that there might be "some feedback. You know, alignment-wise." Later, it was stated that any implication that the spliced souls would affect V's thoughts or actions was untrue.

For the first part, yeah, i was specifically talking about the terms of the deal. For the second, same, but i also wouldn't have a problem considering the urgings of three Evil souls that are bound to mine to be referred to as "feedback". As they said, V's in control of their actions. Getting drunk with power to the point that they are willing to listen to said feedback is 100% on V.

[Errorname]

There's a difference between trickery and just straight up declaring the opposite of what is actually the case. Faustian deals have trickery. They do not have the fiend saying "psych, the terms are actually the exact opposite of what i claimed".

The mark of a good Faustian benefactor is that they can lie to you without saying anything technically untrue.