Did Hel's gloat cost her victory?

[Quild]

Hel and her High Priest sure share some traits. Gloating may be the first to come in mind.

Hel gloated in front of the Gods once all votes were made. She was aware of the "No backsie" rule, so the timing seemed to be okay.
Heimdall, who caried the "Yes" argument, can't change his vote and no cleric is going to commit suicide of some kind or leave the room.

But, Hermod clearly changed his vote.

Now I'm not sure why that.
It seems that Hermod agreed on something with Hel, but thinking there wasn't any cost to that. What was it?
I don't get how Hermod could have think that he could get something without having to cast his actual vote (or he though there would be a tie among gods but that most demigods would vote no?).
The fact that Hel is not mad at Iounn seems to show that Iounn refused Hel even before hearing Hel's gloat. But Hermod had agreed.

Sooo, either Hermod agreed to give a support as long as he couldn't give it which is quite weird giving the circumstances (because there's no protest vote if you can't vote), either he agreed for world 3.0 without thinking Hel would have that much power. Maybe he was going like:
"I'll protest against world 2.0 and how we're outcast in it even if deep inside I know that world 3.0 will be the same thing and do not share Hel's conviction that it will be different.".

Now that Hel has proven that things will be different, the "how different" they will be start to be a problem.

So what's your call? Would Hermod's vote have been the same if Hel hadn't gloat?
I'm not even sure demigods heared that.

[Roland Itiative]

Well, from what Hermod says, it seems like he thought he would vote "yes", but wouldn't actually win. So, he probably thought the main gods would tie, and the demigods would favour "no".

Also, notice how nothing in the conversation implies Hel actually offered anything to Hermod, they just agreed to follow the same cause, with Hermod thinking it was just a protest (for what? That, we don't know) and Hel knowing that it would be the vote that would give her victory.

So yeah, I don't think Hel's gloat had anything to do with the change of heart, the number of votes for "yes" was the real reason. If Hermod had been the first demigod to vote, the world would be undone.

[Jornophelanthas]

Hermod's vote was intended as a protest: "If you gods don't give us demigods more voting rights, I'll vote for destroying the world!"

Hermod then revealed this to be a bluff; he does not want to end the world at all. All he was willing to do was to vote YES for destroying the world as long as the NO-side would win the vote.

Probably the only reason Hermod went along with Hel's overtures in the first place was the long odds of any number of gods/demigods actually being in favor of ending the world. The existence of the Snarl as a danger to the existence of the gods themselves is probably no common knowledge among mere demigods.

---
Also, regarding the "no backsies" rule:
A god's vote cannot be changed once it has been cast. However, Hermod's high priest had not yet cast the vote when she (or her god) had a change of heart. All that was likely broken was a promise to Hel, but the Godsmoot apparently has no rules about breaking promises (especially those made prior to the Godsmoot).

[obaryb]

It occurred to me, that Hermod's vote would be final only if it was "yes". If I were Hermod I would wait until all-but-mine votes are cast, just because my vote would not be important and my refusal would not enrage the future Queen of the Pantheon. From this point of view it is clear, that Hermod thinks that the last vote will be "No".

[Jornophelanthas]

It occurred to me, that Hermod's vote would be final only if it was "yes". If I were Hermod I would wait until all-but-mine votes are cast, just because my vote would not be important and my refusal would not enrage the future Queen of the Pantheon. From this point of view it is clear, that Hermod thinks that the last vote will be "No".

Or at least not a YES. I actually expect the final demigod to abstain. Which would send the entire pantheon scrambling to find one other divine representative (whether of their own pantheon or not) to break the tie. Like the Creed of the Stone, or The Dark One, or even Banjo the Clown.

[Quild]

Hermod then revealed this to be a bluff; he does not want to end the world at all. All he was willing to do was to vote YES for destroying the world as long as the NO-side would win the vote.

Which is kind of a stupid bluff.

• If the NO-side wins, no one cares that Hermod voted YES and he doesn't get anything. Because world remain the same.
• Such vote can only be cast if there's a tie in a first place among the Northern Pantheon while Southern and Western one negates themselves. At this point, Hermod's is sure that his vote will be important because there aren't many Demigods and even less usually present. And Hermod is not certain at all to vote last. He doesn't even try that => So if Hermod does not want the world to be destroyed, the promise to vote YES was one he was sure to break if his vote was asked for (except if he can vote YES without changing the outcome).
• Hermod has probably reasons to be willing to vote YES. Gontor wanted to discuss with Hel about having more importance and that's probably what Hel talked about with Demigods. Voting in favor of keeping or destroying the world have nothing to do with being Good or Evil... Except the part where the pantheon fall under Hel's reign.

Also, regarding the "no backsies" rule:
A god's vote cannot be changed once it has been cast. However, Hermod's high priest had not yet cast the vote when she (or her god) had a change of heart. All that was likely broken was a promise to Hel, but the Godsmoot apparently has no rules about breaking promises (especially those made prior to the Godsmoot).

To be clear, I got that. But Hel (specifically?) waited for the Gods to have cast their votes before gloating, so they can't change their mind vote. It's obvious that such scheme can change some gods' mind. Why not some demigods?

Hermod could like Heimdall have been in favor for world's destruction but would rather take a risk with the last gate than having Hel as leader of his pantheon.

I don't really see otherwise would he would agree on voting YES.

[Jornophelanthas]

Which is kind of a stupid bluff.

Nobody ever said Hermod was smart. All he really wanted was to get to vote on something important, like all the big boys, girls and monsters. And make a statement doing so.

My strong impression is that the "deal" between Hermod and Hel went something like this:

HEL: Do you hate that Godsmoot voting system too? I have no physical representatives, so I don't get a vote.
HERMOD: Yes! We demigods don't get to vote on anything! Except in case of a tie, but there has never been one.
HEL: So wait. If I could create a tie, and you get to vote, will you vote YES for me?
HERMOD: Sure! It's not like it's going to be the end of the world if you get one extra vote. Yay! I get to vote!
...
HEL: (sucker!)

[Dr.Zero]

It occurred to me, that Hermod's vote would be final only if it was "yes". If I were Hermod I would wait until all-but-mine votes are cast, just because my vote would not be important and my refusal would not enrage the future Queen of the Pantheon. From this point of view it is clear, that Hermod thinks that the last vote will be "No".

I agree that the vote will be "no", but not for this reason.

As far as we know they could vote in some precise order for some reason.
Based on power? On believers? On the day they ascended to demi-god status?
I wouldn't be surprised.

To be honest, what has always tickled me in the wrong way was the opposite: that Durkula could come at the end, without being announced, and join the vote.

But, anyway, if the author wants, he can create a divine rule to justify both the episodes.

[Heksefatter]

It's hard to say, really. I can see an argument on both sides. Hermod was unsure until the end, so if the arguments against destroying the world were just a tad weaker, it might have made Hermod vote yes anyway. Even if that's not part of the reason he gives to Hel.

Iounn mentions Hel's speech being a reason for her voting no. It is at least possible that if Hel hadn't gloated, it would have made her change her mind.

On the other hand, Iounn seems to me as someone who would have voted no anyway. And as already pointed out, Hermod doesn't mention Hel's gloat as being part of the reason he voted no.

Personally, I just like the idea of Hel's premature villain gloat having cost her the vote. Loki knows what he talks about regarding such gloats.

[Kurald Galain]

But, Hermod clearly changed his vote.

No, he didn't.

Hermod promised to vote "yes", and then he didn't. He broke his promise to Hel, sure, but there Ain't No Rule against that. Although politically speaking, the consequence is that nobody is likely to trust him for at least a century.

[AceOfFools]

Which is kind of a stupid bluff.

The entire point of the move was to say "If you continue to ignore my voice, next time my vote can ruin your plans."

Casting a deciding vote on an issue this close actually makes the same point. The exchange with Hel only reinforces the need to take demigods opinions into account when moving forward.

[Macros]

I'd even go as far as saying this was perhaps the ideal situation for Hermod. His vote comes at a moment of high tension, where he can seal the fate of the world with one word, so he basically has all the big boys who voted no sweating (and perhaps some of those who voted yes, only to realize they played right into Hel's hand), and, at a decisive time, he pretty much saves the day*. "See guys? I can be responsible too, despite Hel trying to twist my arm!".

*of course, the day has yet to be saved entirely, but at least he gave our heroes a fighting chance

[Dr.Zero]

No, he didn't.

Hermod promised to vote "yes", and then he didn't. He broke his promise to Hel, sure, but there Ain't No Rule against that. Although politically speaking, the consequence is that nobody is likely to trust him for at least a century.

I agree on all, but the "nobody is likely to trust him".
Another manipulative deity that would like to spread destruction for his/her own personal gain? No, s/he will not trust Hermod.

A deity that puts good before everything else? Of course it will trust Hermod, because he has just proved to be willing to do the same: he screwed with Hel, potentially Queen in world3.0 -because, let's remember, even if she fails now, theoretically the gods could need to destroy the world anyway- just because it was the right (=good) thing to do.

Edit: And I was ninj'ed by Macros. :)

[Quild]

Iounn mentions Hel's speech being a reason for her voting no.

Well, we're not sure about that. Iounn could be refering at stuff Hel said some time before the Godsmoot while trying to convince her.

No, he didn't.

Hermod promised to vote "yes", and then he didn't. He broke his promise to Hel, sure, but there Ain't No Rule against that.

How is promising to do a thing and then do something else, not a change?
I never said that Hermod did a backsie. Hermod could change the vote "announced" to Hel, because such vote wasn't made yet.

Now if you're willing to illustrate this, please try that with someone else.

[Nightcanon]

Which is kind of a stupid bluff.

That is kind of what a protest vote is, though: In order to draw attention to the fact that you are not offered the choice to vote for something that you do want to vote for (in this case, potentially disenfranchised Demigods wanting to increase their influence and prepared to follow Hel's argument when she presents herself as disenfranchised- as indeed the Creed of Stone felt that Hel might sympathise with their position), you vote disruptively against what you expect to be the majority (in this case Odin and Thor's cosy club where they always have their way and Loki is only interested in mischief for the fun of it), to demonstrate that you are being taken for granted.

[Peelee]

How is promising to do a thing and then do something else, not a change?
I never said that Hermod did a backsie. Hermod could change the vote "announced" to Hel, because such vote wasn't made yet.

Eh, he's right without SMBCing it. We don't know if Hermod ever honestly was going to vote yes. If he was never going to vote yes, he lied (even if unknowingly). He only changed his vote before it was cast if he honestly was planning to vote yes, then deliberately decided against it.

[Kurald Galain]

A deity that puts good before everything else? Of course it will trust Hermod, because he has just proved to be willing to do the same: he screwed with Hel, potentially Queen in world3.0 -because, let's remember, even if she fails now, theoretically the gods could need to destroy the world anyway- just because it was the right (=good) thing to do.

Don't be so sure...

[Wildroses]

Responding purely to the opening statement I don't think Hels gloating cost her victory. My reading of the situation was Hermod, when faced with the reality of destroying the world, decided it was not worth anger and revenge over lack of representation. He would have known that votes were tied when the demigods were called in and would have been counting their votes when his moment arrived. I think he would have voted against destroying the world even if Hel had stayed silent.

I wouldn't be surprised to discover her motivation in gloating was purely to get a rise out of her watching Daddy.

[Dr.Zero]

Don't be so sure...

Haha, yeah, in real life works like that.
But are very few -and I'm using an euphemism when I say "very few"- the real life kings and warlords who put the good before everything else. ;)
Most of them -another euphemism- are and were anyway in the "manipulative" field. :)

[SirKazum]

Haha, yeah, in real life works like that.
But are very few -and I'm using an euphemism when I say "very few"- the real life kings and warlords who put the good before everything else. ;)
Most of them -another euphemism- are and were anyway in the "manipulative" field. :)

Well, the point made in several of the entries there is that it's not about "good" or ethics - it's all about kings not being too fond of this whole "people get to kill kings when convenient" idea, even if the victim was an enemy who they wanted dead anyway. Because they might be next, of course.

[Gnoman]

As the situation is now, the demigods have to sit at the kids table and play with toys while the full gods have all the power and importance. Note that the number of demigods in the pantheon wasn't worth the high priests' time to know.

Hermeod's plan was to show just how bad ignoring the demigods could be - vote yes and lose by one or two votes, then proceed to point out just how much influence Hel got by bothering with the little people, thus forcing the gods to include the demigods in their plans so that they no longer risk that imbalance.

[Dr.Zero]

Well, the point made in several of the entries there is that it's not about "good" or ethics - it's all about kings not being too fond of this whole "people get to kill kings when convenient" idea, even if the victim was an enemy who they wanted dead anyway. Because they might be next, of course.

Exactly my point. :)
In real life they don't care for ethic, good or evil (not so much anyway), but that they could be the next. They do manipulate things to avoid that.
But OOTS' deities have strict alignments: a good deity cares a lot about good and ethic. :)

[SirKazum]

Exactly my point. :)
In real life they don't care for ethic, good or evil (not so much anyway), but that they could be the next. They do manipulate things to avoid that.
But OOTS' deities have strict alignments: a good deity cares a lot about good and ethic. :)

Oh, I get it now. I thought you were saying people punish "traitors" that way (as per the TVTropes page) because that was the ethical thing to do. But yeah, I see your point - Good-aligned gods might see Hermod's flipping as a matter of defending the greater good and not care that he betrayed Hel's trust (and, therefore, could betray them next).

[Dr.Zero]

Oh, I get it now. I thought you were saying people punish "traitors" that way (as per the TVTropes page) because that was the ethical thing to do. But yeah, I see your point - Good-aligned gods might see Hermod's flipping as a matter of defending the greater good and not care that he betrayed Hel's trust (and, therefore, could betray them next).

Indeed. They will trust Hermod to do choices for the greater good, instead of personal gain or alliances, when the need arises.
Since a good-aligned deity will never have to worry about being betrayed in the mid of their evil scheme (because they don't do evil schemes in the first place), they can trust him a lot, almost completely.

If it was hard to understand before, I am sorry. Even if it is not a surprise: I've the same problem in my native language, speaking a foreign language makes things only worse. ;)

[lord_khaine]

Indeed. They will trust Hermod to do choices for the greater good, instead of personal gain or alliances, when the need arises.
Since a good-aligned deity will never have to worry about being betrayed in the mid of their evil scheme (because they don't do evil schemes in the first place), they can trust him a lot, almost completely.

I agree on this. And do think it should be pointed out, that the link to TV tropes is of limited value.

It only presents all the cases where kings punished traitors that had acted for their own benefit. But it dont mention out of how many total cases this has been taken, so it is kinda worthless in regard to making any sort of decision on.

[Kurald Galain]

I agree on this. And do think it should be pointed out, that the link to TV tropes is of limited value.

It only presents all the cases where kings punished traitors that had acted for their own benefit. But it dont mention out of how many total cases this has been taken, so it is kinda worthless in regard to making any sort of decision on.

Hahaha! That's funny!

Based on reasoning like this, you would expect all Good deities to vote against destroying the world.

Whoops, but they didn't! That means that sweeping generalizations like the above must be totally wrong. Guess what? Not every Good god is going to automatically trust everyone who thinks he's doing the right thing.

[Dr.Zero]

Hahaha! That's funny!

Based on reasoning like this, you would expect all Good deities to vote against destroying the world.

Whoops, but they didn't! That means that sweeping generalizations like the above must be totally wrong. Guess what? Not every Good god is going to automatically trust everyone who thinks he's doing the right thing.

If they didn't, it was because they didn't know that there was an evil scheme behind that in the first place. ;)
Remember that the end of the world, as explained by Heimdall, meant "only" that everyone would have moved in the afterlife. Much better than risking being erased from history.

And when he realizes that there is an evil scheme planned by Hel, he tries to change his vote.

Personally I see it like: if you would really love with all your heart something/someone and another person, Mr X., should prove willing to go back on his word and willing to anger a powerful enemy only to protect that same thing/one you love so much, would you trust Mr X. in working together to protect that thing/one? Damn, yes.

Ok, at least if no sex is involved.

[Snails]

Keep in mind that it looks like all the obvious good gods voted no, and all the obvious evil gods voted yes. That is why Loki and Heimdall were the chosen spokespersons, because they might sway neutrals whose votes were not obvious.

Heimdall being highly honorable, but not really Good, regretted helping Hel with her plan, even if accidentally.

[Peelee]

And when he realizes that there is an evil scheme planned by Hel, he tries to change his vote.

Hel reminding him that he can't change his vote does not equate to him trying to change his vote. We don't even know if he would try. Just because Hel thinks he would doesn't mean anything. Hel is not stating empirical fact; she could be wrong.

[Dr.Zero]

Hel reminding him that he can't change his vote does not equate to him trying to change his vote. We don't even know if he would try. Just because Hel thinks he would doesn't mean anything. Hel is not stating empirical fact; she could be wrong.

Hel pointing finger: "No changing your vote, Heimdal." [blah blah, explanation of critical plot point for the reader]

It seems a quite precise rebuttal, not a simple: "And no one even dare to think to change his vote." [blah blah, explanation of critical plot point for the reader]