Would Hel survive if the Snarl destroys the world?

[Skull the Troll]

I'm sure that a quarter of the black dragon population are comforted by that.

They are with their families and probably dont care as much. The dwarves have it SO much worse. They are condemned for all eternity - They NEVER get out. Their existance is misery and torture until even the after life doesnt exist.

[Squire Doodad]

I think we have an answer for the main question now:
maybe.

[Schroeswald]

I think we have an answer for the main question now:
maybe.

She could, which means at least some people lost.

[LadyEowyn]

I feel like there's a difference between "a happy ending for everyone" and "not addressing the very obvious things I set up to be addressed". Because maybe it's just me, but Mr. Burlew doesn't strike me as the type to go into so much depth with the Bet and how terrible is, and not address it.

Forget how that wouldn't be satisfying for large portions of the audience, he doesn't strike me as the type who'd be satisfied with it himself.

I agree. Between the dwarves’ situation and the goblins’ situation - and with Durkon being the main negotiator with the goblin leadership, and TDO and/or Redcloak being critical to containing the Snarl - I’m entirely expecting that the injustices baked into the structure of the OOTS are going to be resolved by the end.

Rich’s stated views make it pretty clear that he’s not okay with the heroes upholding an unjust status quo, much less making it permanent.

And the Godsmoot made it apparent that the gods’ interests and the heroes’ interests are not entirely aligned.

[Rrmcklin]

I didn't intend it to be loaded, but my bias may have blinded me there. Definitely not skewed wording, though; I only use genocide there because the Giant has referred to it as genocide (typically when saying things like "Geez guys yes that was evil, it was genocide").

The world has evil gods which live alongside with good and neutral gods. Good is not the dominant force in the universe. I dont see any more reason for the bet to change than I see reason for the good gods to overpower the evil gods and become the dominant force. It would be a net posotive, it would lead to a better and happier universe, it would alleviate a lot of suffering and damnation for those who suffer and are damned unfairly, but it won't happen. Greysky city won't stop ripping everyone off, the Western Continent won't stop being a war-torn land where the innocent suffer under the heels of ever-changing boots, and I don't think the dwarves will get out if the Bet just because we saw the inner workings a little bit more than the Westerners or Greysky civilians'.

Of course, to be fair, my track record is 1 to infinity, do the odds are on your side here.

Again, I'm not talking about Good becoming the dominant force in the world. I'm not talking about all of the world's problems being solved. I don't expect this story to end happily for everyone; I highly suspect that Belkar, Redcloak, and Vaarsuivus to not be fully content, and by the end (sort of an understatement, but you get the point). I don't expect the Azurites to ever reclaim their homeland. And other tragedies could happen. But I do expect that, by the end, the world will be better off than it was at the beginning.

And as for why that "better off" will involving the Bet and Goblinoids lot in life instead of the other injustices of the world, well, because those are the one the story has actually put significant focus on. Just how I imagine that will the Western Continent will not be made a Utopia, some semblance of progress will be made with depose Tarquin and his team beyond.

Now, if you don't agree with some of this, that's fair enough, but saying I'm going on about "warm fuzzies" and feel-good happy endings is unnecessarily dismissive and condescending.

[Peelee]

Now, if you don't agree with some of this, that's fair enough, but saying I'm going on about "warm fuzzies" and feel-good happy endings is unnecessarily dismissive and condescending.

That's a fair point, and I apologize for that. I didn't see how that was coming off when I wrote it, and that's totally on me.

I do think revoking the bet would substantially change how Dwarven culture works, though. These are a people who take joy and solace in a comrade charging a monster to save others and gruesomely dying for it. Who cry tears of joy at believing they'll never see home again while they live, because it still means they'll get to go home and be honorably interred. Things like that just don't work without the framework of the Bet, and it's baked into the very foundations of who the dwarves are. I don't believe that a major race will have their entire society realize it needs to collectively reshape itself from the ground up as a postscript to Order stopping Xykon.

[Jasdoif]

I do think revoking the bet would substantially change how Dwarven culture works, though. These are a people who take joy and solace in a comrade charging a monster to save others and gruesomely dying for it. Who cry tears of joy at believing they'll never see home again while they live, because it still means they'll get to go home and be honorably interred. Things like that just don't work without the framework of the Bet, and it's baked into the very foundations of who the dwarves are. I don't believe that a major race will have their entire society realize it needs to collectively reshape itself from the ground up as a postscript to Order stopping Xykon.

It'd work fine; it's got over a thousand years of cultural inertia to support it. Some generations later it'd certainly have adapted; but in the immediate term, dwarves would be living the same lives....and those who die via dishonorable accidents aren't hosed by the timing of their misfortune like they would have been.

[Peelee]

It'd work fine; it's got over a thousand years of cultural inertia to support it. Some generations later it'd certainly have adapted; but in the immediate term, dwarves would be living the same lives....and those who die via dishonorable accidents aren't hosed by the timing of their misfortune like they would have been.

Spoiler

Show

[Quild]

What makes you say that?

Loki saying that he tought Hel losing the bet would "amp up her evil death goddess itch" for next world?
Maybe I'm translating that poorly

Very interesting questions. I expect/hope they'll come up at some point in the future. Just like how the Order still doesn't know about the Goblins lot in life or why they are the way they are, and I expect they'll have to be informed of that eventually, as well.

I don't have the answer to the topic title, but I have the answer to the question I ask in my first post: "So wouldn't she, despite of since how long she's there, be in danger if she does not get Souls on the world's destruction?"

Yes, she would be in danger.
Now that won't happen because the world won't be destroyed.
So the answer is good enough for me.

[Rrmcklin]

Loki saying that he tought Hel losing the bet would "amp up her evil death goddess itch" for next world?
Maybe I'm translating that poorly

I (and I believe others) took that to just mean she'd get more vindictive about things and start spreading diseases and plagues around willy-nilly, not that she wasn't always a death goddess.

[Fat Rooster]

It'd work fine; it's got over a thousand years of cultural inertia to support it. Some generations later it'd certainly have adapted; but in the immediate term, dwarves would be living the same lives....and those who die via dishonorable accidents aren't hosed by the timing of their misfortune like they would have been.

It will certainly be ingrained in the culture, but I think things would change faster than you think. There are 2 main reasons. The first is that religion in D&D is not like reality. They don't need faith that an afterlife exists, because they can check it. They can measure how their behaviour affects the afterlife they go to, and would probably notice pretty quick when things start going funny. Thor would probably be pretty up front about it anyway.

The second is that culture can take a long time to change because it is as much about group behaviour as individual, but the bet affects everyone on an individual level. An individual does not need the rest of the group to change to benefit from adapting their own behaviour to the change.

[RatElemental]

It will certainly be ingrained in the culture, but I think things would change faster than you think. There are 2 main reasons. The first is that religion in D&D is not like reality. They don't need faith that an afterlife exists, because they can check it. They can measure how their behaviour affects the afterlife they go to, and would probably notice pretty quick when things start going funny. Thor would probably be pretty up front about it anyway.

But what about that time two clerics got told directly by their god something that was culturally ingrained in them was false, and they just stood there staring blankly until he caved in and kept going along with the lie?

The second is that culture can take a long time to change because it is as much about group behaviour as individual, but the bet affects everyone on an individual level. An individual does not need the rest of the group to change to benefit from adapting their own behaviour to the change.

Cowardly dwarves will still be cowardly, and some dwarves who hated the concept of honorable deaths will breathe a sigh of relief, but I don't think the majority would throw their hands up in the air and say "Screw this heroism noise, I get a cushy afterlife either way." Because the whole point of heroism and honor is that you live and breathe it for its own sake, and then when the time comes you're more likely to be in the middle of doing something honorable.

[Jasdoif]

It will certainly be ingrained in the culture, but I think things would change faster than you think. There are 2 main reasons. The first is that religion in D&D is not like reality. They don't need faith that an afterlife exists, because they can check it. They can measure how their behaviour affects the afterlife they go to, and would probably notice pretty quick when things start going funny. Thor would probably be pretty up front about it anyway.

The second is that culture can take a long time to change because it is as much about group behaviour as individual, but the bet affects everyone on an individual level. An individual does not need the rest of the group to change to benefit from adapting their own behaviour to the change.

First, I do agree that changes less drastic than the massive upheaval I was talking about, would take less time than the massive upheaval I was talking about.


Second, this isn't an alteration that requires changes on a dwarf's part: Dwarves that die honorable deaths already go to the afterlife that fits with their alignment, the bet only affects the dwarves that don't die honorable deaths. So without the bet, it works the same way for dwarves who continue living as they always have, except without the chance for it all being for naught if death surprises them. And without any need to change how they live/think, the overwhelming majority aren't going to change how they live/think. That's a lot of effort for a mind to go through, after all.

So changes will start among dwarves who want to embrace the changes...which, of course, is far more likely to happen among dwarves who haven't had as many decades/centuries of taking the effects of the bet for granted. Optimistically, we're likely looking at the younger current dwarves with the culture from their parents having "wait, that actually won't risk my (kid's) soul going to Hel" moments in life (over things their parents wouldn't have considered as options long enough to question), and then their children won't really have that as a consideration to begin with...at which point it's a question of how fast/far traditions propagate; The rest of the sapient species of the world already have had the same "deal" all along that the dwarves would now have, and with the "but it's different for dwarves" fact no longer true, who knows how fast change could happen? (Traditions are passed down distinct from their original causes, so it could easily take a lot longer for visible changes to show up)

[KorvinStarmast]

I didn't intend it to be loaded, but my bias may have blinded me there. Definitely not skewed wording, though; I only use genocide there because the Giant has referred to it as genocide (typically when saying things like "Geez guys yes that was evil, it was genocide").

Even though it wasn't and the Giant was, for all that he's a pretty good wordsmith, badly abusing an already abused term .... and he even came up with a far better term in world. (Familicide). I have once again read the old article I had on the origin of that word that was coined to describe a crime that had no name (in the words of a judge at a certain series of trials) but I have to stop there. RL stuff and all that.

[Peelee]

Even though it wasn't and the Giant was, for all that he's a pretty good wordsmith, badly abusing an already abused term

Language evolves. IMO he was correctly using a term that can have more than one connotation that its original literal meaning.

Or, to put another way: have you similarly taken issue with people using the word "decimate" to mean anything other than destruction of 10% of a force?

[Schroeswald]

Language evolves. IMO he was correctly using a term that can have more than one connotation that its original literal meaning.

Or, to put another way: have you similarly taken issue with people using the word "decimate" to mean anything other than destruction of 10% of a force?

I agree V did a genocide, that was the correct analysis.

[Rrmcklin]

V knowingly murdered upwards of 25% of an entire species (plus many others) in a way that would logically have huge repercussions for their society and survival going forward. I fail to see why the term genocide is inappropriate for that. I don't believe genocide has ever had to be total or complete to "count".

[hroþila]

Also, V didn't simply kill 25% of all black dragons - black dragons were specifically targeted. I feel that fits even the most strict definitions of "genocide".

[factotum]

Also, V didn't simply kill 25% of all black dragons - black dragons were specifically targeted.

Well, inasmuch as the spell targeted the relatives of Momma Black Dragon, V thought that meant he was targeting only black dragons--however, as it turned out that wasn't the case! That he accidentally killed a bunch of people who weren't black dragons doesn't make what he did any more or less horrific, of course, it was plenty horrible in the first place.