After vs Life

[pendell]

Complete Divine gives "merge into the plane" as the reason for a mechanical effect - specifically, the time limit on spells like Raise Dead, Resurrection and True Resurrection.

Wait..? True Resurrection has a time limit?

*Checks SRD* So it does. Also can't bring someone back dead of old age.

It wasn't always so.
Complete divine dates from 2004. The document I quoted is from an earlier edition, 1987. So clearly
the concept has evolved.

Back in the day, the mechanical limitation to resurrection was that every resurrection cost you 1 point of constitution. When you ran out of constitution, you couldn't be brought back. Nothing to do with souls dissolving, simply the fact that being killed takes a physical toll

This shows up in Hackmaster as well -- I recall one story where a character was repeatedly resurrected and killed until the con was 0 and the character was forever dead.

As I said, the concept has evolved and changed over time. D&D has evolved in other ways too ...

there was a time when you couldn't play a goblin character, and there was a time when demihumans had class restrictions. All of these things have evolved over time not so much for the philosophical objections, but to improve the gameplay experience.

The only difference between our existence and OotS existence is that they are assured a second life after the current one, where good people are happy for as long as they want before voluntarily going into oblivion.

While I dispute things about 'our existence' (a philosophical question out of bounds here) this does tangentially answer my question: Why are the good gods "good" for allowing this?

The answer is: If you WANT eternal life and endless bacchanalia on the mountain, never merging with the plane, you don't HAVE to. Many mortals eventually tire of their existence and go "up the mountain" but if you don't want to, you can stay as long as you wish.

For myself, in such a world, I would push hard for outsider status or for godhood outright; forget "going up the mountain".

Oblivion is what await us all, in one form or another, and to achieve oblivion by means of the Celestia Mountain as described in OotS is not even close to the top worse ways I can think of.

You've read The Last Battle and A Door Through Time, right? In many fictional universes an afterlife of oblivion is NOT what awaits the soul, but an eternal life of some kind, in which the soul enjoys -- or endures -- eternity based on the "shape" it was carved into in life.

That's fiction. Real-world discussion, again, breaks the forum rules.

The most , I think, I can say with regards to the real world is that no one actually knows what happens after death. Sure, there are religious teachings that tell us what people BELIEVE about life after death, but that's not anywhere near the same thing as objective evidence from an eyewitness. ANY conclusions about life after death -- oblivion, reincarnation, an afterlife of any kind -- are highly speculative. Because of that, we can't for a fact say
whether OOTS afterlife is "better" than the real world or "worse", because we don't actually have a yardstick to compare it with.

We CAN , however, say whether we find the concept more personally attractive than real world concepts, and I do not. There's no accounting for taste, however.

My own view on the matter is best stated by Eliezer Yechovsky, in "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality",
Chapter 39 : "Pretending to be wise"

Spoiler: Methods of Rationality

Show

If people were hit on the heads with truncheons once a month, and no one could do anything about it, pretty soon there'd be all sorts of philosophers, pretending to be wise as you put it, who found all sorts of amazing benefits to being hit on the head with a truncheon once a month. Like, it makes you tougher, or it makes you happier on the days when you're not getting hit with a truncheon. But if you went up to someone who wasn't getting hit, and you asked them if they wanted to start, in exchange for those amazing benefits, they'd say no. And if you didn't have to die, if you came from somewhere that no one had ever even heard of death, and I suggested to you that it would be an amazing wonderful great idea for people to get wrinkled and old and eventually cease to exist, why, you'd have me hauled right off to a lunatic asylum! So why would anyone possibly think any thought so silly as that death is a good thing?

Also Chapter 45

Spoiler

Show

Death is not something I will ever embrace.

It is only a childish thing, that the human species has not yet outgrown.

And someday...

We'll get over it...

And people won't have to say goodbye any more...

...

And someday when the descendants of humanity have spread from star to star, they won't tell the children about the history of Ancient Earth until they're old enough to bear it; and when they learn they'll weep to hear that such a thing as Death had ever once existed!

Or, as J.K. Rowling put it in Deathly Hallows -- "The Last Enemy to be destroyed is death"..

And when she wrote that, she didn't make it up herself. She was quoting someone else , much older,writing in the long ago and the far away.

Thus my position: Death or oblivion is not, to my mind, a positive good or a happy ending, To me, death is NOT a natural part of the cycle of life with respect to humans but an abhorrent thing, and one
which we will one day overcome. It will not happen in my lifetime, but when it DOES eventually happen I will rejoice for the human race.

Death is my enemy. And that's why Roy and I in the story, though we get there from different directions , arrive at the same conclusion: "Afterlife", even happy afterlife, is no substitute for life. So the gods shouldn't destroy the world.

I am not going to spend time researching the history of D&D's treatment of dead souls. If you want to learn more about it, you're on your own. It's all inconsistent anyway, so even if you find a book that contradicts what I said, that doesn't mean there's not another one out there that agrees with me. And frankly, even if I'm remembering wrong and not a single book corroborates what I'm saying, so what? How does it matter to the story at all? Why is this even a subject anyone cares about?

Thank you for replying , even so. I understand you have limited time and energy so I appreciate that you took the time to reply.

From a story perspective , it makes no difference. This is the way you've written your world. It's not the way I would write mine but that isn't important.

The question I had was the comment that D&D has always worked this way, and as someone who's been involved with D&D since the 70s that raised a question in my mind: Really?

So I got interested in the question as to when this idea came about and when it was introduced.

I don't want to research it further myself, but the conclusion I have come to is that the inconsistencies and contradictions both within editions and across them are deliberate.

Why?

Because D&D is, at its bottom, an entertainment , a way to set up adventure stories with friends. It's not a tool for teaching or enforcing dogma. Because of that , it is NOT a hard , consistent universe. Rather, it deliberately leaves as much as possible ambiguous, but it provides a set of world-building tools
so that as many people as possible can fashion their own stories and worlds.

So the guide to the planes and the source books are, at bottom, tools for world-building, not a canonical Scripture which sets out the axioms of a real-world philosophy. The more 'hard' D&D is, the more specialized
and limited its audience is, something a marketing company wants to avoid.

Consequently, it was in the interest both of TSR and of Hasbro to give as few fixed rules as possible. There are source books if you want additional structure or background, but they're not core.


From what I've read, it appears to me that the concept of souls merging into the plane was not built into D&D from the beginning, but it has been introduced and gradually evolved into the game as a way of preserving game balance. But if it's something a player or DM find distasteful, there's no reason they should observe it in their group.

I do not care how the afterlife works in my story. The cosmology, the details, the moral implications. It doesn't matter. It's all made up, and I am more than happy to handwave it because there is no story benefit to wasting time being more detailed. Vanilla D&D, as filtered through my memory? Sure, good enough. Next!

Noted and understood. Carry on with the excellent storytelling. I've been reading for nine years because I enjoy your writing and I expect to continue to do so.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[woweedd]

[snip]

You know, speaking as someone who mostly agrees with you, I find it ironic you used Rowling as an example of your point when one of the major "Aesop's" of Harry Potter is that death is't something to be feared. As Dumbledore, the character who most often serves as our author mouthpiece, puts it, ""After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." Also, "It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing more." and finally, "Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, and, above all, those who live without love." Yeah, overall, Rowling seems to see death as a very necessary thing. There's a reason Voldemort's entire motivation is that he's terrified of dying, terrified to the point that he'll kill anyone if he means he gets to live as he does with the Horcruxes.

[pendell]

You may have heard the phrase "Hallows not Horcruxes" in book 7?

Putting that together with the quote Rowling used on the gravestone, the lesson *I* took away is that death will one day be overcome , and so there is no reason to fear it now. It won't last forever and it doesn't mean the annihilation of the soul.

ETA: Found the quote

Master of death, Harry, Master of Death! Was I better, ultimately, than Voldemort?"

"Of course you were," said Harry. "Of course – how can you ask that? You never killed if you could avoid it!"

"True, true," said Dumbledore, and he was like a child seeking reassurance. "Yet I to sought a way to conquer death, Harry."

"Not the way he did," said Harry. […] "Hallows, not Horcruxes."

And a similar quote

"'The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death'…" A horrible thought came to him, and with it a kind of panic. "Isn't that a Death Eater idea? Why is that there?"

"It doesn't mean defeating death in the way the Death Eaters mean it, Harry," said Hermione, her voice gentle. "It means… you know… living beyond death. Living after death."

There's a right way and a wrong way to confront death. Accepting death in the sure and certain hope mentioned in that gravestone, hoping that one day it will be overcome, is Rowling's "Right way".

Being so determined to avoid death that you're willing to commit murder to create a horcrux , willing to resort to any atrocity or any cruelty, as Voldemort did, is manifestly the wrong way. Voldemort is so far down in the alignment deep end NOT because he hates death (a surgeon or a doctor often does, as well) but because of the MEANS he uses to oppose it. Voldemort is what you get when you take "the ends justify the means" to its' logical extreme, then give that philosophy to a magical sociopath who has difficulty with the concept of empathy period.

ETA: The difference between Voldemort and the wish expressed on the tombstone is that the people buried there have faith in their ultimate rescue from death, and therefore embrace hope even as they accept death, trusting that even death at last will die.

Voldemort has no faith, and thus has no hope to overcome death save that which he can make happen himself by his own power. And thus rather than choosing faith, ' the assurance of things hope for, the substance of things not seen', he insists on overcoming death in his own power using his own methods. Which is troublesome enough, but he is utterly without scruple in pursuing this end. The result is that , rather than overcoming death, he inflicts death on rather a lot of people before finally being forced into the afterlife anyway as a pitiful, shrunken creature.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[kivzirrum]

You'll notice Rich said "if that sort [of] exploration is the point of the work". You would be hard-pressed to claim that it is not an intentional point of Sanderson's work to explore rational magic systems; he certainly goes on about it often enough. And he does manage to tell serviceable stories within that framework; I've enjoyed just about everything of his that I've read (which includes the Mistborn books, the first two Stormlight Archives, and Steelheart).

But if you as a reader are unable to look beyond that sort of nickel-and-dime accounting and engineering version of magic, if you're unable to accept magic that is not only weird and wondrous but actually fails to make logical sense, you're artificially limiting your reading horizons. You're letting what M. John Harrison calls "the great clomping foot of nerdism" get in the way of enjoying a raft of exceptional stories—Chip Delany, M. John Harrison, Jeff Vandermeer, Jorge Luis Borges, Mervyn Peake, Terry Gilliam.... All authors ask their audiences to overlook some things to enjoy their stories; that's suspension of disbelief. If you dig and dig and parse and pick apart any story, including Sanderson's, you'll find the seams (though in Sanderson's case the first seams you come to won't be in the magic system). It's not a productive way to approach art.

I was going to post with my own contribution to the subject, but you said just about everything I would have. Except I've never heard that "great clomping foot of nerdism" quote before now, and I love it.

[Kantaki]

You may have heard the phrase "Hallows not Horcruxes" in book 7?

Putting that together with the quote Rowling used on the gravestone, the lesson *I* took away is that death will one day be overcome , and so there is no reason to fear it now. It won't last forever and it doesn't mean the annihilation of the soul.

There's a right way and a wrong way to confront death. Accepting death in the sure and certain hope mentioned in that gravestone, hoping that one day it will be overcome, is Rowling's "Right way".

Being so determined to avoid death that you're willing to commit murder to create a horcrux , willing to resort to any atrocity or any cruelty, as Voldemort did, is manifestly the wrong way. Voldemort is so far down in the alignment deep end NOT because he hates death (a surgeon or a doctor often does, as well) but because of the MEANS he uses to oppose it. Voldemort is what you get when you take "the ends justify the means" to its' logical extreme, then give that philosophy to a magical sociopath who has difficulty with the concept of empathy period.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I think the overcoming death in the Harry Potter books is meant as accepting it, welcoming it when the time has come. I mean how did the Tale of the Three Brothers end? The last brother met death like an friend in the end instead of continueing to hide.
Hermione even points this out when Harry has his little "I should use the Hallows to become immortal" moment.

Harry can win against Voldemort because he accepts death and is willing to die. And Dumbledore calls death the next adventure.

I think the aesop there is that you shouldn't fear death, that any kind of immortality should be attaied through the things you leave behind and that you shouldn't fear death.

As for Roy's arguement, I think it isn't that the afterlife is bad, that death should be avoided, but that if there is a chance to save the world and to give everyone the opportunity to live mortal life before they go there it should be used.

[woweedd]

You may have heard the phrase "Hallows not Horcruxes" in book 7?

Putting that together with the quote Rowling used on the gravestone, the lesson *I* took away is that death will one day be overcome , and so there is no reason to fear it now. It won't last forever and it doesn't mean the annihilation of the soul.

ETA: Found the quote



And a similar quote



There's a right way and a wrong way to confront death. Accepting death in the sure and certain hope mentioned in that gravestone, hoping that one day it will be overcome, is Rowling's "Right way".

Being so determined to avoid death that you're willing to commit murder to create a horcrux , willing to resort to any atrocity or any cruelty, as Voldemort did, is manifestly the wrong way. Voldemort is so far down in the alignment deep end NOT because he hates death (a surgeon or a doctor often does, as well) but because of the MEANS he uses to oppose it. Voldemort is what you get when you take "the ends justify the means" to its' logical extreme, then give that philosophy to a magical sociopath who has difficulty with the concept of empathy period.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I think by "living beyond death', she means it in the Terry Pratchett-style "nobody is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away." kind of way.

[pendell]

I think by "living beyond death', she means it in the Terry Pratchett-style "nobody is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away." kind of way.

I have an article from the New York times in front of me in which she was interviewed on the matter. I had originally linked it , but I felt it contravened the forum rules so I pulled it. I still have it, though, and I'll send it in PM if you wish.

Fundamentally, Rowling has explicitly stated that the two verses on the tombstone -- "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" and "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" underlie the whole series. And when she's talking about "overcoming death" this way, she's talking about resurrection. Not D&D resurrection, but actual, permanent, physical, eternal life that is not terminated by old age or anything else. Otherwise "The next adventure" is a meaningless phrase. "Oblivion" is not an adventure; it's an end to all adventure, all exploration, all knowledge, all of everything that it means to be human.


Remember that Rowling's world is not fully standalone, but is built on top of western thinking and traditions on death, a very specific context; if people accept death in their world it is because death is not annihilation of the soul, either immediate or long-term, merging with a plane. Rather, death is accepted because it's a necessary stage of a much larger life. It's because "death" in Rowling's world is followed by resurrection. That's why it's not to be feared. Voldemort doesn't believe in this and so is terrified of death, because he believes there is nothing on the other side of it.


Remember that Potter is the "boy who lived"; much of the seven books is taken up with fighting against death -- he resists Voldemort's attempts to kill him, and Voldemort resists death through horcruxes.

In the end, Potter accepts death -- and receives his life back. Voldemort fights death to the end -- and dies anyway, for good.

He who seeks to save his life will lose it, and he who loses his life will find it.

That's from the same source as "The last enemy to be destroyed is death".

As I said -- Rowling's work does not stand alone. She is writing within a very specific context that she has explicitly confirmed in interviews. Absent that context, it's very easy to misinterpret her work and writings.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[woweedd]

I have an article from the New York times in front of me in which she was interviewed on the matter. I had originally linked it , but I felt it contravened the forum rules so I pulled it. I still have it, though, and I'll send it in PM if you wish.

Fundamentally, Rowling has explicitly stated that the two verses on the tombstone -- "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" and "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" underlie the whole series. And when she's talking about "overcoming death" this way, she's talking about resurrection. Not D&D resurrection, but actual, permanent, physical, eternal life that is not terminated by old age or anything else. Otherwise "The next adventure" is a meaningless phrase. "Oblivion" is not an adventure; it's an end to all adventure, all exploration, all knowledge, all of everything that it means to be human.


Remember that Rowling's world is not fully standalone, but is built on top of western thinking and traditions on death, a very specific context; if people accept death in their world it is because death is not annihilation of the soul, either immediate or long-term, merging with a plane. Rather, death is accepted because it's a necessary stage of a much larger life. It's because "death" in Rowling's world is followed by resurrection. That's why it's not to be feared. Voldemort doesn't believe in this and so is terrified of death, because he believes there is nothing on the other side of it.


Remember that Potter is the "boy who lived"; much of the seven books is taken up with fighting against death -- he resists Voldemort's attempts to kill him, and Voldemort resists death through horcruxes.

In the end, Potter accepts death -- and receives his life back. Voldemort fights death to the end -- and dies anyway, for good.

He who seeks to save his life will lose it, and he who loses his life will find it.

That's from the same source as "The last enemy to be destroyed is death".

As I said -- Rowling's work does not stand alone. She is writing within a very specific context that she has explicitly confirmed in interviews. Absent that context, it's very easy to misinterpret her work and writings.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I don't think Rowling agrees that Death IS Oblivion but that's getting into real-world religious topics beyond the scope of this board. I kind of think you're just seeing what you agree with, personally.

[kivzirrum]

I think it's interesting that so many people were horrified with the description offered of what the Oots/D&D afterlife entails. I don't think it sounds so bad, really, and I speak as a strongly individualist person. Fascinating how different people can have such a wide variety of reactions

[Spoomeister]

I think it's interesting that so many people were horrified with the description offered of what the Oots/D&D afterlife entails. I don't think it sounds so bad, really, and I speak as a strongly individualist person. Fascinating how different people can have such a wide variety of reactions

My main issue is not any sort of opinion one way or another on philosophical implications of the D&D afterlife. It was more surprise and disappointment that in a story that features gods, extraplanar existence and afterlives so prominently, the details of same are not important to the author.

I've basically been told that these gods and souls and heavens and hells which are tied to several hundred of the 1000 strips of the comic are just the set dressing, and then dismissed concerns about that with "yeah but that's not the story I wanted to tell". I mean really, "Fansplain something better if you don't like it" is not something to say to someone who tolerated the Star Wars prequels :)

But then, that's my problem, not Rich's. Having kept up with the forum as a lurker for years, I am very well aware of Rich's stance on telling the story he wants to tell, and the support he has in OOTS fandom for that. And obviously his recently expressed frustration with never-satisfied-fans is legit and justified. I'm sure many authors - many entertainers in general - who have had even a bit of the kind of success he's had, deal with that. I don't begrudge him any of that.

It's just... I don't know, I've been drawn into an increasingly sophisticated storyline, characterization and plots over the years, and this thread has been making me wonder if I should go back to the simple "heh, good line / nice gag" level of enjoyment of the original strips.

I guess I'm just really really glad that the Snarl still exists, because it's pretty much the only true significant threat or risk in the story left.

• Death is close to meaningless in a D&D setting, which is not Rich's fault at all; anyone can be brought back any time through a variety of means, I suppose I sign up for that in a fantasy setting.
• Death of the world the characters are on is meaningless, if there's all these extraplanar places to return to and Rich is fine making up whatever he needs to in order to move pieces on or off the board whenever. (Newsflash to self: all authors do this, you're just seeing how the sausage is made, get over it.)
• Character growth over the course of the series is of course the main attraction and the whole journey to enjoy, but without the threat of some permadeath the stakes feel fairly artificial, as what do these characters have left to lose by now?

The Snarl at least represents actual permadeath - a literal un-making - so seeing OOTS try to prevent the end of everything still makes for good conflict. It also makes for a cause bigger and nobler than any one individual person's growth or objectives, which again, good conflict and good story.

But yeah. I'm reminded by this thread that in all storytelling, this one included, it goes kind of like they say at the beginning of the improv TV show "Whose Line Is It Anyway?": "Welcome to Whose Line, where the rules are made up and the points don't matter".
I can't emphasize this enough: it's not on Rich to fix that. I'm just one reader. His story. His rules, no matter what they may be or even if he doesn't feel like he needs them for some things past a certain point.

I just temporarily had my belief unsuspended, and it may take me a bit to re-suspend it.

[Corneel]

I think it's interesting that so many people were horrified with the description offered of what the Oots/D&D afterlife entails. I don't think it sounds so bad, really, and I speak as a strongly individualist person. Fascinating how different people can have such a wide variety of reactions

The Planescape AD&D 2nd Edition version is even worse than Rich's version of the Afterlife. At least Roy's mom remembers him. Petitioners (Planescape term for the outer plane incarnations of souls of those that died - usually on the Prime Material Plane) do not remember anything of their mortal life, their memories being ripped out/off in the astral plane when they die, where they remain to be consulted by "Speak with Dead" spells*. Petitioners are 0 or 1st level and their only care is to become closer to their god (or if non-theistic their plane) and in-setting they are noted for their single-mindedness in this.



* If you wonder about raise dead and resurrection: a soul passes back through their memories on the Astral plane on its way back to its body.

[hamishspence]

In 3e, not all souls are Petitioners, in the afterlife. Indeed, once one becomes a Petitioner, one can no longer be resurrected, as I recall.

Petitioners are supposed to represent exceptionally devoted mortals. Manual of the Planes (3.0) suggests that Lantern Archons are standard petitioners for Celestia.

[kivzirrum]

My main issue is not any sort of opinion one way or another on philosophical implications of the D&D afterlife. It was more surprise and disappointment that in a story that features gods, extraplanar existence and afterlives so prominently, the details of same are not important to the author.

I've basically been told that these gods and souls and heavens and hells which are tied to several hundred of the 1000 strips of the comic are just the set dressing, and then dismissed concerns about that with "yeah but that's not the story I wanted to tell". I mean really, "Fansplain something better if you don't like it" is not something to say to someone who tolerated the Star Wars prequels :)

But then, that's my problem, not Rich's. Having kept up with the forum as a lurker for years, I am very well aware of Rich's stance on telling the story he wants to tell, and the support he has in OOTS fandom for that. And obviously his recently expressed frustration with never-satisfied-fans is legit and justified. I'm sure many authors - many entertainers in general - who have had even a bit of the kind of success he's had, deal with that. I don't begrudge him any of that.

It's just... I don't know, I've been drawn into an increasingly sophisticated storyline, characterization and plots over the years, and this thread has been making me wonder if I should go back to the simple "heh, good line / nice gag" level of enjoyment of the original strips.

I guess I'm just really really glad that the Snarl still exists, because it's pretty much the only true significant threat or risk in the story left.

• Death is close to meaningless in a D&D setting, which is not Rich's fault at all; anyone can be brought back any time through a variety of means, I suppose I sign up for that in a fantasy setting.
• Death of the world the characters are on is meaningless, if there's all these extraplanar places to return to and Rich is fine making up whatever he needs to in order to move pieces on or off the board whenever. (Newsflash to self: all authors do this, you're just seeing how the sausage is made, get over it.)
• Character growth over the course of the series is of course the main attraction and the whole journey to enjoy, but without the threat of some permadeath the stakes feel fairly artificial, as what do these characters have left to lose by now?

The Snarl at least represents actual permadeath - a literal un-making - so seeing OOTS try to prevent the end of everything still makes for good conflict. It also makes for a cause bigger and nobler than any one individual person's growth or objectives, which again, good conflict and good story.

But yeah. I'm reminded by this thread that in all storytelling, this one included, it goes kind of like they say at the beginning of the improv TV show "Whose Line Is It Anyway?": "Welcome to Whose Line, where the rules are made up and the points don't matter".
I can't emphasize this enough: it's not on Rich to fix that. I'm just one reader. His story. His rules, no matter what they may be or even if he doesn't feel like he needs them for some things past a certain point.

I just temporarily had my belief unsuspended, and it may take me a bit to re-suspend it.

Ah, there's something I want to say in response to this, but I don't know if it would violate certain rules of the forum, so just in case I'll refrain. Suffice it to say I don't entirely see this the same way--I don't think the stakes are diminished or the story any less tense or diminished--but I understand what you're saying and respect your viewpoint

[Spartakus]

I guess I'm just really really glad that the Snarl still exists, because it's pretty much the only true significant threat or risk in the story left.

• Death is close to meaningless in a D&D setting, which is not Rich's fault at all; anyone can be brought back any time through a variety of means, I suppose I sign up for that in a fantasy setting.
• Death of the world the characters are on is meaningless, if there's all these extraplanar places to return to and Rich is fine making up whatever he needs to in order to move pieces on or off the board whenever. (Newsflash to self: all authors do this, you're just seeing how the sausage is made, get over it.)
• Character growth over the course of the series is of course the main attraction and the whole journey to enjoy, but without the threat of some permadeath the stakes feel fairly artificial, as what do these characters have left to lose by now?

Let's imagine the world really ends in strip 1000 and the OOTS all go to a plane fitting their alignment. Even when I think the Giant made up a really beautiful afterlife where everybode will have a happy ending (except propably Belkar) I'm horrified by this possibility. Maybe the life of everyone in the OOTS is meaningless from a cosmic point of view it is not the one where I'm standing. I love these characters. I enjoy watching them, I was shocked when Durkon died, I was sad when V got divorced and I was happy when Elan got his personal victory over his evil father. If the gods kill everyone in a few minutes all of this would really have become meaningless. All their struggles vs Xycon, their striving against the end of the world and all their efforts to make said world a better place would be in vain because of a sudden Apocalypse.

I don't care if there would be a new world aka campaign setting where another group of adventurers can have exciting adventures and the fact that OOTS would be at a better place would not calm me. I want these people to succeed in their task because it is the one I've been watching for years.

And that is just my point of view. If OOTS ends next week I'm loosing my favourite comic but for Roy (who is as aware of the problem as I am) there is literally his live at stake. It is not his death that is meaningless but if the gods destroy the world his whole existence would suddenly become meaningless. He would have failed in the very task he devoted his life to.

BTW I am very happy for the insight into the process of sausage-making for this matter. As far as I understood, the LG afterlife is all about fulfilling the desires of the souls until the desire itself vanishes. (Same goes propably for NG and CG as well but the inhabitants have different desires) That is the point where you go to the next part of the mountain where other, less basic desires are fulfilled until you finaly reach the point where your desire of existing itself vanishes. Since this is a voluntary process and nothing forces you to give up a desire I find this idea just beautiful. But there are some desires the afterlife can't fullfill (just vanish) and it is precisely these desires that make people want to life as long as possible. In http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0600.html Roys mother explicitely says that having grandchildren is such a desire for her and since said grandchildren can only be made on the material plane there is nothing that can be done about that in the afterlife.

It was more surprise and disappointment that in a story that features gods, extraplanar existence and afterlives so prominently, the details of same are not important to the author.

I guess many of us who took the DM-seat some time have faced this problem. We are creating a story for our players and at some point smeone asks: "How exactly does this work?"
If we are prepared we can provide an answer but if you push that answer too hard you get new questions like "how can I visit my friends of different alignment after our death" and we reach the point where we can only make something up on the spot. Sometimes we offer to think some time about a better answer but if we make a good story our players are more interested in "What happens next?"
And so am I. So my most urgent question to the Giant is: "What do the gods decide?"
Looking forward to the next strip.

[Corneel]

In 3e, not all souls are Petitioners, in the afterlife. Indeed, once one becomes a Petitioner, one can no longer be resurrected, as I recall.

Petitioners are supposed to represent exceptionally devoted mortals. Manual of the Planes (3.0) suggests that Lantern Archons are standard petitioners for Celestia.

2e Planescape was pretty bleak as a setting, but people might have been too distracted by DiTerlizzi's artwork to notice.

[pendell]

Actually, there's a question *I* hope that gets answered in the coming strips:

"Why did the OOTS gods create OOTSworld in the first place?"

I assume that the real defense of the world's continued existence is that it will fulfill the reason it was created in the first place far more effectively than if it was destroyed and replaced with a new one. There has to be a really pressing reason for the gods to willingly accept the increased risk of the Snarl breaking loose and destroying not only this one, but preventing any other worlds from ever existing either. I can't see how we can defend the world's continued existence if we don't know why it exists in the first place.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

OoTS afterlife seems closer to 3e than 2e - Roy remembers his mortal life pretty well - and is not a lantern archon.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

"Why did the OOTS gods create OOTSworld in the first place?"

Answer.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

Answer.

Grey Wolf

I assume he meant the first world, or an inhabited world. A physical object inhabited by living beings instead of, say, a giant lead ball with a big "DO NOT DISTURB" sign on it that they could rebuild whenever it got old without any worry about the puny mortals on it.

[hamishspence]

Only so many "threads of reality" to go around, I would guess.

[pendell]

I assume he meant the first world, or an inhabited world. A physical object inhabited by living beings instead of, say, a giant lead ball with a big "DO NOT DISTURB" sign on it that they could rebuild whenever it got old without any worry about the puny mortals on it.

Correct. The original world that brought forth the Snarl in the first place.

It probably won't be spelled out in any detail , though. I think Rich Burlew is trying to make it clear that his primary interest in telling these stories is about the character interactions -- the strength of Roy, Vaarsuvius learning to trust in something other than arcane power, Elan learning to be less foolish, Haley learning to trust -- these are the things he considers important and wants to talk about . The rest of OOTSworld is a deliberate everyworld, stage dressing for a fairly generic fantasy story. It's neither the plot nor the worldbuilding that is intended to be exceptional about OOTS, but the characters themselves.

Still.. I am curious about that world Blackwing saw in the rift. It seems likely that the gods themselves are unaware of it, at least according to the dialogue so far.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Keltest]

Only so many "threads of reality" to go around, I would guess.

Ok, sure, but the actual prison lock seems rather arbitrary, as far as I am aware. Maybe they only have enough reality to make a small lead ball. Theres nothing im aware of that would make that any less effective a prison. The only thing that might cause it not to work is the size needs to be the same or larger than the snarl, and if that's the case they could just make the world as it is, but without all that life stuff theyre so worried about.

Correct. The original world that brought forth the Snarl in the first place.

It probably won't be spelled out in any detail , though. I think Rich Burlew is trying to make it clear that his primary interest in telling these stories is about the character interactions -- the strength of Roy, Vaarsuvius learning to trust in something other than arcane power, Elan learning to be less foolish, Haley learning to trust -- these are the things he considers important and wants to talk about . The rest of OOTSworld is a deliberate everyworld, stage dressing for a fairly generic fantasy story. It's neither the plot nor the worldbuilding that is intended to be exceptional about OOTS, but the characters themselves.

Still.. I am curious about that world Blackwing saw in the rift. It seems likely that the gods themselves are unaware of it, at least according to the dialogue so far.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

It strikes me that "Why would they have made the prison out of something they don't want to repair" is enough of a plot hole were it to go unanswered that Rich would probably address it at least tangentially somewhere. Even if that answer is "The gods are kind of dumb and didn't think holes would appear."

[Jasdoif]

Ok, sure, but the actual prison lock seems rather arbitrary, as far as I am aware. Maybe they only have enough reality to make a small lead ball. Theres nothing im aware of that would make that any less effective a prison. The only thing that might cause it not to work is the size needs to be the same or larger than the snarl, and if that's the case they could just make the world as it is, but without all that life stuff theyre so worried about.

Perhaps they didn't consider the possibility of the Snarl escaping, and thought it'd be perfectly fine (and easier) to create a new world and trap the Snarl at the same time. Or perhaps they did consider the possibility, and mortals are their alarm system.

[Corneel]

OoTS afterlife seems closer to 3e than 2e - Roy remembers his mortal life pretty well - and is not a lantern archon.

You're right but that has nothing to do with the point I'm making. People are seeming to say that Rich's version of the afterlife is quite depressing and wonder how he got there, like it's something he invented. I'm just pointing out that what he presents is in fact nothing strange to the 'verse (D&D) he chose as a background and that the one setting in D&D that most extensively focused on the outer planes and thus the afterlife is also the one to present the afterlife as about the least attractive (while also pointing out that it had some of the most beautiful artwork) to indicate that Rich isn't even using the most bleak of the official D&D versions.

[Emanick]

Actually, there's a question *I* hope that gets answered in the coming strips:

"Why did the OOTS gods create OOTSworld in the first place?"

I assume that the real defense of the world's continued existence is that it will fulfill the reason it was created in the first place far more effectively than if it was destroyed and replaced with a new one. There has to be a really pressing reason for the gods to willingly accept the increased risk of the Snarl breaking loose and destroying not only this one, but preventing any other worlds from ever existing either. I can't see how we can defend the world's continued existence if we don't know why it exists in the first place.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I suspect that most of the gods had different reasons for creating OOTSworld (the first one, obviously, not World 2.0). The Good ones presumably had fairly benevolent reasons; the Neutral ones may have wanted to be entertained; the Evil ones may have wanted to use mortals to enhance their own power. So I doubt there's one overarching reason we'll discover at one point, simply because it's hard to imagine that there were merely one (or even a few) main reasons to begin with.

As an aside, I very much appreciate the points you've made about the afterlife here, and I pretty much agree with them 100%.

[pendell]

I suspect that most of the gods had different reasons for creating OOTSworld (the first one, obviously, not World 2.0). The Good ones presumably had fairly benevolent reasons; the Neutral ones may have wanted to be entertained; the Evil ones may have wanted to use mortals to enhance their own power. So I doubt there's one overarching reason we'll discover at one point, simply because it's hard to imagine that there were merely one (or even a few) main reasons to begin with.

As an aside, I very much appreciate the points you've made about the afterlife here, and I pretty much agree with them 100%.

Good thoughts.

Or perhaps they did consider the possibility, and mortals are their alarm system.

But ... the mortals are also the single greatest threat to the gates, aren't they? The Order of the Scribble had its hands full taking the rifts back from people like the Holey Order or other insane villains who wanted to use the rift for their own ends.

And now we're facing a threat to all existent from a bored lich and a goblin who follows his god too blindly.

Are they the only ones?

It's not just the villains, either. By my count several of the gates were destroyed by the HEROES.

Soon's Gate: Miko with the sword in the throne room.
Girard's gate: Roy with the sword in the pyramid.
Durkon's gate: Durkon and Elan, with the gratuitous self destruct button in the bottom dungeon.
Lirian's gate:

Spoiler

Show

Redcloak with the flamestrike in the forest

In some ways it's as if the world would be safer with only villains -- the crossfire between heroes and villains seems to be putting the world in more danger than if the gods just GAVE the dark one his spot in the pantheon.

...

Villains threaten the world, heroes make it worse ... how about this?

Tarquin for World Emperor.

He's not a hero. He doesn't tear down evil villains and leave nothing in their place. He's a planner, he builds stable, long-term systems, and he's not crazy or stupid enough to try to use the gates in some mad scheme.

Perhaps the greatest enemy to would-be world conquering villains is a villain who already rules the world, isn't interested in competition, and will squash it ruthlessly and efficiently.

Partly tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[Gift Jeraff]

OoTS afterlife seems closer to 3e than 2e - Roy remembers his mortal life pretty well - and is not a lantern archon.

Then explain why that lantern archon was named "Roy is Archon."

[ti'esar]

Ok, sure, but the actual prison lock seems rather arbitrary, as far as I am aware. Maybe they only have enough reality to make a small lead ball. Theres nothing im aware of that would make that any less effective a prison. The only thing that might cause it not to work is the size needs to be the same or larger than the snarl, and if that's the case they could just make the world as it is, but without all that life stuff theyre so worried about.




It strikes me that "Why would they have made the prison out of something they don't want to repair" is enough of a plot hole were it to go unanswered that Rich would probably address it at least tangentially somewhere. Even if that answer is "The gods are kind of dumb and didn't think holes would appear."

I'm pretty sure the gods didn't just create World 2.0 to act as a prison for the Snarl.

[Spartakus]

You're right but that has nothing to do with the point I'm making. People are seeming to say that Rich's version of the afterlife is quite depressing and wonder how he got there, like it's something he invented. I'm just pointing out that what he presents is in fact nothing strange to the 'verse (D&D) he chose as a background and that the one setting in D&D that most extensively focused on the outer planes and thus the afterlife is also the one to present the afterlife as about the least attractive (while also pointing out that it had some of the most beautiful artwork) to indicate that Rich isn't even using the most bleak of the official D&D versions.

It appears one man's heaven is another man's hell.
As I pointed out before the OOTS-afterlife sounds like an amazing place to me (at least the LG one). The important thing is that you are not forced to merge into the plain. Not even by some kind of social standards. You allone decide when it is time to climb ub the mountain.

[Jasdoif]

But ... the mortals are also the single greatest threat to the gates, aren't they?

The gods didn't create the Gates, though.

The latest comic says the gods voted not to destroy when the rifts first appeared. For there to be a vote they had to know about the rifts, and

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

the Dark One learned of the rifts only after a cleric of his interacted with one

, so if mortals were to serve as an alarm system then it seems to have worked....