OOTS #1212 - The Discussion Thread

[Jason]

I don’t think those are that easy to separate - it is true that what he does is not necessarily good for goblinoids in the long run and that him being Evil is not grounds to condemn the entire race of course, but why he does what he does is extremely relevant to how goblinoids have been treated for literal millennia in the first place and goblins were persecuted for far less.

They aren't easier to separate because Red Cloak is using his past, the state of goblinkind, and The Plan as the justifications for his poor choices. But when it comes down to it, it's all a con, and the biggest mark of the con is Red Cloak himself. Minrah had it right - he doesnt really care about goblin welfare. He cares about making it look like he cares, to himself as much as to anyone else.

[Krakius]

In Panel 9, Redcloak realizes that he and the Dark One might not have thought this plan through as well as they thought they had.

[understatement]

I'd think mechanically Redcloak will in the future assist the Order ( or at least stand aside) mainly because there is pretty much zero chance the Order could defeat Xykon and Redcloak together.

[Oxenstierna]

The 'rules' of Harry Potter? Don't get me started on the rules of Harry Potter. There's the whimsical, imaginative ways of magical transportation. Until she decides everyone can just teleport. The mysterious and deadly unblockable curse with Harry as the only known survivor. Until, yeah, that's the killing curse, everyone can just fire it off like a Nerf gun. The complex curse and counter-curse of wizard dueling. Until, sure, why bother? In a real fight they'd just fire off that unblockable killing curse. Let's have them all do that now. The other 'unforgivable' curses. Mind control? Totally forgivable if you're committing bank robbery. Crucifixion pain? A-okay, to deal out, provided you're just really angry. Then there's Quidditch. Don't get me started on Quidditch...

[bunsen_h]

The 'rules' of Harry Potter? Don't get me started on the rules of Harry Potter. There's the whimsical, imaginative ways of magical transportation. Until she decides everyone can just teleport. The mysterious and deadly unblockable curse with Harry as the only known survivor. Until, yeah, that's the killing curse, everyone can just fire it off like a Nerf gun. The complex curse and counter-curse of wizard dueling. Until, sure, why bother? In a real fight they'd just fire off that unblockable killing curse. Let's have them all do that now. The other 'unforgivable' curses. Mind control? Totally forgivable if you're committing bank robbery. Crucifixion pain? A-okay, to deal out, provided you're just really angry. Then there's Quidditch. Don't get me started on Quidditch...

A lot of stuff in Harry Potter is whimsical and imaginative but doesn't make a great deal of sense. But it's reasonable to think that some people aren't able to teleport -- under-age, didn't master the skill, lost their license (teleporting under the influence? Tsk.) -- and would need alternate transport. Many people can cast that curse, but don't, as it's "unforgiveable". Many wizard fights/duels wouldn't go as far as being lethal; in real-world terms, perhaps "first blood" rather than "to the death".

Part of the problem is that by authorial fiat, the "good guys" get away with doing a lot of stuff that they shouldn't. Potter should have been prosecuted for his use of the mind-control spell. Of course, he only used it on one of the really bad guys and on a Goblin, so who cares?

I agree that a lot of stuff in the Potterverse doesn't seem to exist until Harry and his friends learn about it. And that Rowling is not very good at sticking with constraints established by earlier books.

I wouldn't dream of trying to defend Quidditch. I entirely agree with Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality's Harry on that one:

“That’s not interactive, there’s no back-and-forth with the other player and how much fun is it to watch someone incredibly good at moving their eyes? And then whichever Seeker gets lucky swoops in and grabs the Snitch and makes everyone else’s work moot. It’s like someone took a real game and grafted on this pointless extra position so that you could be the Most Important Player without needing to really get involved or learn the rest of it. Who was the first Seeker, the King’s idiot son who wanted to play Quidditch but couldn’t understand the rules?”

[Metastachydium]

Leave the gods out of it for now. "An' then 'e can talk ta tha rest."

Not actually sure if this affects your point, but you keep saying this and I wanted to make sure we were clear on it.

I'm aware that „he can talk to the rest” is there, but the thing is, Durkon's comment in the same panel (Thor would be pleased to sign on their deal) makes it clear that the proposal does not come from Thor and does not have his approbation either. Durkon basically says „forget about the gods, let's solve this without them, and then my god will talk to the rest, and they will perhaps get off your collective back” (in some way Durkon does not specify) with a none too convincing face on, to boot. The fact that Durkon keeps pointing out that the gods don't tend to agree on much anything unless forced is not helping him, either.
So, to sum it up, yes, I keep giving you a somewhat simplified version of it, but only because the details wouldn't change much (the offer comes from Durkon, not Thor and he's the only god he actually hopes he can get on board).

[Goblin_Priest]

Has it been mentionned that Oona may now know more about The Plan than Xykon does?

[dancrilis]

Has it been mentionned that Oona may now know more about The Plan than Xykon does?

It has - it is also inaccurate Xykon knows everything laid out so far in the conversation.

[Squire Doodad]

“That’s not interactive, there’s no back-and-forth with the other player and how much fun is it to watch someone incredibly good at moving their eyes? And then whichever Seeker gets lucky swoops in and grabs the Snitch and makes everyone else’s work moot. It’s like someone took a real game and grafted on this pointless extra position so that you could be the Most Important Player without needing to really get involved or learn the rest of it..."

Apparently that's literally the case. It was an actual game until someone decided to give throw in the Snidget.

From what I can tell Quidditch used to not have a Seeker, until a hundred years or so later people started to get in the habit of releasing a golden bird called a Snidget; the first time the winner got 150 Galleons, while from then on the catcher's team got 150 points to mirror it. Eventually the Snidgets nearly went extinct and the Golden Snitch was devised as a mechanical counterpart. Naturally, because they couldn't be bothered to change the point system, this makes the Seeker ludicrously valuable.

Note that this is from Quidditch Through the Ages, one of the companion books that came out well after the series ended, so I doubt Rowling had that in mind when she first designed it. The Seeker is, for all intents and purposes, a role that exists so Harry can be amazing.

[Goblin_Priest]

He very literally says that their main goal is conquering the world and those eight nations are eight parts of that world so conquering them is achieving part of their main objective .

For the sake of clarity, he says:

"Can't we just conquer them?"
"Redcloak, we're literally out to conquer le world here. In what way is conquering eight parts of that world not worth our time?"

Let's clarify the context, though. They are out seeking GATES. Gates to gain dominion over the world. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall Xykon ever mentioning a plan to military conquer the world. This army was a means to secure a GATE. Military conquest of these "parts of the world" was being discussed as means to acquire GATES. As a side note, this is also the first time they ever had a significant military force, but great as it may be, it probably is far from sufficient to conquer the world.

The exchange seems far more like Xykon asking Redcloak why they'd let these 8 nations prevent them from getting a Gate, rather than why conquer the rest of the world save those 8 nations. And indeed, they then both happily agree to an alternative where they only conquer a single nation. If military conquest was the goal, why settle Gobbotopia and keep the army put? They could have marched that army onto the neighbors next, securing all of the territory between the two gates.

It has - it is also inaccurate Xykon knows everything laid out so far in the conversation.

We don't know how much Oona has listened to. But Redcloak has specifically said he wanted to give TDO "maximum leverage". Xykon believes he's the one going to hold that leverage, unless he's been fooling Redcloak since day 1.

[dancrilis]

But Redcloak has specifically said he wanted to give TDO "maximum leverage". Xykon believes he's the one going to hold that leverage, unless he's been fooling Redcloak since day 1.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

Redcloak: The Gate could be made to serve the Dark One's bidding.

Xykon knows that Redcloak serves his god and knows Redcloak is trying to help the goblin race - assuming that he hasn't figured out anything since then (or that he wasn't bluffing at the time) then he simply believes that himself and Redcloak will control it rather then The Dark One and that Redcloak will want to use it in The Dark One's interests.

Nothing Redcloak has said at the table (or afterwards) goes against that.

[tomandtish]

They aren't easier to separate because Red Cloak is using his past, the state of goblinkind, and The Plan as the justifications for his poor choices. But when it comes down to it, it's all a con, and the biggest mark of the con is Red Cloak himself. Minrah had it right - he doesnt really care about goblin welfare. He cares about making it look like he cares, to himself as much as to anyone else.

I'm not sure it's that he doesn't care, but he's gotten stuck in his path. He's gone so far now that he can't admit to himself that he might have chosen another option. because if he does, then everything he's done up til now has been pointless. It's denying the central focus of his life. To him, the plan will just make things better for goblins, either in this world or the next. It just will. And it seems that at least now he's not capable of turning away from that.

And it's made worse by the fact that we (the readers) actually don't KNOW all that much about what is actually true. We know there are rifts/gates, and thanks to one particular comic we know there's something nasty behind it. But everything else we know is second hand. Told to us by those who may not understand what is happening or may have hidden motives.

[Anitar]

Part of the problem is that by authorial fiat, the "good guys" get away with doing a lot of stuff that they shouldn't. Potter should have been prosecuted for his use of the mind-control spell. Of course, he only used it on one of the really bad guys and on a Goblin, so who cares?

Congratulations, you've managed to turn this off-topic topic all the way back around to recent events in the comic. Well played.

[Yirggzmb]

Note that this is from Quidditch Through the Ages, one of the companion books that came out well after the series ended, so I doubt Rowling had that in mind when she first designed it. The Seeker is, for all intents and purposes, a role that exists so Harry can be amazing.

I don't disagree that at least some of this was definitely made up after inventing the position to make Harry the most important player.

But I will note that Quidditch Through the Ages was released as part of a charity box set (along with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them) fairly early in the series run. I remember getting the set pretty young and well before the series had concluded. Google is giving me '01 as a date on that. And then the set was rereleased after the whole series was finished.

But again, other than that point, I mostly agree with you.

[Worldsong]

It's hard to deny that the Snitch and the Seeker only exist to give the protagonist something to do.

In Harry Potter and the Methods Of Rationality Harry is seen criticizing the game as a nerd who has no interest in sport but realistically speaking a sports fan would jump on the issue just as quick or even quicker because unless they've grown up with the game and learned not to question it they'd quickly see how it throws the entire game off balance.

[Metastachydium]

For the sake of clarity, he says:

"Can't we just conquer them?"
"Redcloak, we're literally out to conquer le world here. In what way is conquering eight parts of that world not worth our time?"

Let's clarify the context, though. They are out seeking GATES. Gates to gain dominion over the world. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall Xykon ever mentioning a plan to military conquer the world. This army was a means to secure a GATE. Military conquest of these "parts of the world" was being discussed as means to acquire GATES. As a side note, this is also the first time they ever had a significant military force, but great as it may be, it probably is far from sufficient to conquer the world.

Yes, he says „In what way is conquering eight parts of that world not worth our time?” [Emphases mine.]
Yes, a corps-sized force would not be enough to conquer the whole world, let alone hold it for any length of time.
Yes, Xykon would rather do it quick and easy (that's why he agrees that they should choose Soon's Gate over Kraagor's).
That being said, what he expressly points out is that his goal is conquering the whole world, and conquering parts of that same world through any means at his disposal does not conflict with this goal. Also, in theory, time is on Xykon's side. He's not going to become any older or weaker than he now is. If he cannot do it quick, that's a pity and he can still try the slow way, especially since he very obviously doesn't have anything against military conquest.

[Jason]

I'm not sure it's that he doesn't care, but he's gotten stuck in his path. He's gone so far now that he can't admit to himself that he might have chosen another option. because if he does, then everything he's done up til now has been pointless. It's denying the central focus of his life. To him, the plan will just make things better for goblins, either in this world or the next. It just will. And it seems that at least now he's not capable of turning away from that.

And it's made worse by the fact that we (the readers) actually don't KNOW all that much about what is actually true. We know there are rifts/gates, and thanks to one particular comic we know there's something nasty behind it. But everything else we know is second hand. Told to us by those who may not understand what is happening or may have hidden motives.

He may care somewhat about goblin welfare, but he certainly cares more about being personally justified.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Seeker is, for all intents and purposes, a role that exists so Harry can be amazing.

It need not be any more complicated than that (and for my money, it isn't).
When I first read that book with my son (we'd alternate reading chapters to each other, IIRC he was in 2d or 3d grade) it was rather obvious that the Dickensian opening Rowling offered - child treated horribly by his kin after the tragic death of his parents - was to be overcome by a variety of wish fulfillment events. He gets to be "one of the cool kids" through Quidditch. Artless writing, at best, but it sold by the truckload. (I tip my cap to her for figuring out who her audience was and writing to them. It worked very well).

[Quizatzhaderac]

I checked a few dictionaries, just to be certain, and guess what? The primary definition of animate is still `living, alive`basically everywhere.

I'll cede you are correct about the prescriptive definition of the word.

Disagreed. In this case they could and should just lump ”plant creatures”, ”animals” and ”magical beasts” together. Some of the distinctions seem somewhat arbitrary between the latter two anyway, why the former mostly consists of weird blood-sucking monstrosities anyway.

Combining them all would be consistent. As would abandoning any pretense of involving real life science. I only take umbrage with two categories of low mobility non-animal creatures.

Cladistics is no less objective and no more arbitrary than, say, genealogy. It is basically a quantitative hard sience.

Cladistics is a science, but it is not the same thing as taxonomy, or even taxonomy of living things. It is one system taxonomy of living things that biologists have made the subjective choice to use prominently. When you ask why biologists use this system, you get answers that are only true in the context of modern biology.

[Jaziggy]

...a hundred years or so later people started to get in the habit of releasing a golden bird called a Snidget; the first time the winner got 150 Galleons, while from then on the catcher's team got 150 points to mirror it. Eventually the Snidgets nearly went extinct and the Golden Snitch was devised as a mechanical counterpart. Naturally, because they couldn't be bothered to change the point system, this makes the Seeker ludicrously valuable.

That checks out, coming from the culture that developed

16ths inch > 12 inches > 5280 feet > 1 mile
and
4 farthings > 12 pence > 20 shillings > 1 pound

[Metastachydium]

Combining them all would be consistent. As would abandoning any pretense of involving real life science. I only take umbrage with two categories of low mobility non-animal creatures.

They mostly just abandon any pretense of taking real life science and its stance on how things actually work into consideration, and that is all too natural: once magic gets involved or (to give one instance of non-magical issues) you need creatures with oral cavities (and such) of vastly different shapes to be able to communicate via producing the same kinds of sounds that sort of thing will happen because not having magic or having creatures that cannot speak the same language could undermine your whole premise. I do not even necessarily mind that. Heck, arbitrary as it is from much any perspective I can think of, I could let the whole mixing-up-low-mobility-non-animals thing slide.
What I do mind is declaring (against common sense and science) that basically a whole (taxonomical) kingdom of the living is a bunch of inanimate objects unless they can run around and attack stuff. It's creepy. it's wrong. It's way too similar with such reasonings as the distinction between superior humans and the inferior sphere of the non-human or as „yeah, plants are basically like animals, just vastly inferior in any and every respesct.”

Cladistics is a science, but it is not the same thing as taxonomy, or even taxonomy of living things. It is one system taxonomy of living things that biologists have made the subjective choice to use prominently. When you ask why biologists use this system, you get answers that are only true in the context of modern biology.

Please. When we are talking about the phylogenetic classification of living beings, the fact that taxonomy as a term or method is used outside the field of biology is a tad bit irrlevant. Also, preferring cladistics to morphological, behaviour-based etc. taxonomies is not some arbitrary choice. Stating that „[w]hen you ask why biologists use this system, you get answers that are only true in the context of modern biology” is like stating that genetical proximity only exists because this is the subjective perception of modern science. „Not accessible” and „not true” are not quite the same thing. People were no less related to their biological parents in the late 14th century just because this could not be neatly proven in a laboratory back then, and evolution was a thing even before we realized it's a thing.
(Not that making a good case for fungi being plants or plants and fungi being less alive than sessile animals is all that easy based on behaviour or morphology: the latter is basically impossible, while the former is so difficult that Linné, the father of the morphological method, basically just ended up lumping fungi together with algae and ferns for lack of a better idea.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That checks out, coming from the culture that developed

16ths inch > 12 inches > 5280 feet > 1 mile
and
4 farthings > 12 pence > 20 shillings > 1 pound

It's not canon, but my headcanon is that they boosted the other scoring to 10 a piece, on the knowledge that a point difference of about 10-ish goals was not uncommon, and this allowed the game to continue to be exciting when that was the case, by giving the currently loosing team something to fall back on - i.e. that adding the sudden death mechanic actually made the game better, since a team 8-12 points behind before had no real way of climbing back up of the hole, and thus this kept the game a lot more interesting for a longer time.

(Quidditch needs a bit of headcanon, but it is not as ridiculous as sometimes claimed. The seeker need not be more important than a RL quarterback, for example, but lends itself to the same storytelling slot/tropes as it; in the sense that in reality it would not be nearly as crucial to a win, but the situations in which it is are easily manufactured for the story)

Grey Wolf

[Doug Lampert]

It's not canon, but my headcanon is that they boosted the other scoring to 10 a piece, on the knowledge that a point difference of about 10-ish goals was not uncommon, and this allowed the game to continue to be exciting when that was the case, by giving the currently loosing team something to fall back on - i.e. that adding the sudden death mechanic actually made the game better, since a team 8-12 points behind before had no real way of climbing back up of the hole, and thus this kept the game a lot more interesting for a longer time.

(Quidditch needs a bit of headcanon, but it is not as ridiculous as sometimes claimed. The seeker need not be more important than a RL quarterback, for example, but lends itself to the same storytelling slot/tropes as it; in the sense that in reality it would not be nearly as crucial to a win, but the situations in which it is are easily manufactured for the story)

Grey Wolf

Thing is, there's no rules requirement that I know of that the Seeker is the only one who can go for the snitch, or that the beaters can't attack the other team's seeker rather than going for the other players.

The game SHOULD be dynamic, with a seeker who happens to be in position to go for the quaffle doing so; beaters taking a shot at the other team's seeker at every opportunity, and a team that's ahead by a substantial margin should be detaching 1-3 chasers to also look for the snitch. A team behind by 150 or more should have it's seeker completely stop looking for the snitch and shift entirely to acting as an additional chaser till they catch up to a margin such that the snitch would be a win.

None of this is observed to happen. Instead, a team that's behind in the world cup finals has its seeker looking for the snitch, and it's considered shocking that he actually catches it when doing so loses the game, but NO ONE IS SHOCKED that he's still looking! It's considered normal for him to be engaged in an activity which will be futile at best, or lose the match if he "succeeds". Why isn't he helping make up the 15+ score deficit and THEN shifting to looking for the snitch.

Hockey teams have the sense to take out the goalie when they reach the point that stopping the other team from scoring does not noticeably improve their odds of winning. Quidditch teams don't seem to substitute that way, but they should shift roles to account for the game score.

The rules might make for an interesting game, but that's not the game they're playing.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Thing is, there's no rules requirement that I know of that the Seeker is the only one who can go for the snitch, or that the beaters can't attack the other team's seeker rather than going for the other players.

There is. Only a seeker can legally capture the snitch. And it is definitely canon that not only the beaters but everyone in a team tend to prioritize taking out the opposing seeker over other players, but as I will argue below, it is counterproductive. Also, IIRC, the seeker isn't allowed to handle the quaffle.

The game SHOULD be dynamic, with a seeker who happens to be in position to go for the quaffle doing so; beaters taking a shot at the other team's seeker at every opportunity, and a team that's ahead by a substantial margin should be detaching 1-3 chasers to also look for the snitch. A team behind by 150 or more should have it's seeker completely stop looking for the snitch and shift entirely to acting as an additional chaser till they catch up to a margin such that the snitch would be a win.

None of this is observed to happen.

You are judging a sport by how 11-16 year olds play it. It's like looking at a bunch of 14 year olds playing basketball, and complaining that they only seem to score a handful of points. We do see how the game is played professionally once and it is dynamic, and far more centered in the quaffle game than in the sudden death mechanic. Detaching any players to try to target the seeker - the fastest and most adept player at avoiding getting hit - is a recipe for disaster, by weakening your defensive line to the point where the other time might very well run up the score to the point where you can't win.

Instead, a team that's behind in the world cup finals has its seeker looking for the snitch, and it's considered shocking that he actually catches it when doing so loses the game, but NO ONE IS SHOCKED that he's still looking! It's considered normal for him to be engaged in an activity which will be futile at best, or lose the match if he "succeeds". Why isn't he helping make up the 15+ score deficit and THEN shifting to looking for the snitch.

Looking for the snitch is defensive in nature - if you are not looking for it, then if the other seeker does see it, you are at a disadvantage. The seekers are in competition with one another, spending most of the game blocking each other's attempts, and that can only be done if they are both on the snitch hunt at all times. We literally see this happen when Harry suspends his search to try to assist - gave the other seeker the space to go for the snitch without interference.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

What I’d like to know is why the score is incremented by tens rather than ones? Have the snitch be worth 15 points and the « goals » 1 since there isn’t any other way to score points.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What I’d like to know is why the score is incrémenter by tens rather than ones? Have the snitch be worth 15 points and the « goals » 1 since there isn’t any other way to score points.

It's 150 because that was the reward offered for the original Snitch. And like I said above, my headcanon is that they increased the scoring value of regular goals to 10 each so that they could keep the 150 points for the snitch without breaking the game.

incrémenter

(Your accent is showing)

GW

[Jason]

What I’d like to know is why the score is incrémenter by tens rather than ones? Have the snitch be worth 15 points and the « goals » 1 since there isn’t any other way to score points.

You probably think scoring in tennis would more sense if they just used single-digit points too, instead of all that "Love-15-30-40-Game" with "Advantage" and "30-All" and "Deuce" business.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You probably think scoring in tennis would more sense if they just used single-digit points too, instead of all that "Love-15-30-40-Game" with "Advantage" and "30-All" and "Deuce" business.

Heck, if anything, that's the unrealistic thing about quidditch: all those nice multiples of ten in a British game? Completely unbelievable. It should've been 7 for the middle hoop, pi for the left one and 4 and 7/8ths for the right one, except between 25 past and 48 past the hour in alternate games, when it's the other way around.

Grey Wolf

[Rogar Demonblud]

Not British enough, but it's a start. Now, what are the rules for Tea Intervals?

[Peelee]

You forgot that they called it Leg Ball, brought it over to the Americas, and then complained when the US called it "Leg Ball" when it's clearly called Quidditch now.