OOTS #1115 - The Discussion Thread

[Fyraltari]

Everything all gods have done on screen? If not actively malicious, 'good' (in name only) gods have been shown to be incredibly callous. All I can say about them is 'better' than some other actively murderous ones. I mean, Roy was reprimanded for abandoning Elan, while Thor let a whole village die to give spells to his priest, for example.

More broadly, judge them by the world they've built. Unless we get some in comic indication that the thing they've done to goblinoids was only the evil gods' idea, they all look pretty horrible.

Thor didn't voluntarily let a village die. Incompetence and stupidity do not equal malice.

Some of the gods appear callous while the others appear more concerned with the mortals "logic be damned I am not giving up on this planet", "my hand will not be the one to end so many lives", "the souls of the dead are too precious", "I can't be the one to deliver this news".

Thor is not very bright but he clearly has taken to heart to correct his mistake as much as he can and knows and care for his followers (Not only does remember who Durkon is but he is willing to cheat the rules of the universe for his sake).

The world they made is deeply flawed but then again they are 1/3 Good, 1/3 Neutral and 1/3 Evil and they only have a limited control over the universe anyway (they can't unmake that pesky "Good, Law, Evil and Chaos are actual physical properties with beings spawned from them" thing can they?)

It has been shown that when each god tried to force their view they ended up with a big ball of deicide as a result so of course the Good gods have had to concede things to the Evil ones when making the world.

[SilverCacaobean]

Dear lord - can we please advance the story line at some point... After over 1100 panels I feel like further character development is a waste of time.

Who's this 'we' you're referring to? Do you think this story's a collective effort or something?

[Peelee]

The Order of the Stick successfully defeated Xykon and preserved the world. The end. There, now you got your plot and you can stop reading.

Sorely tempted to sig this.

[Fish]

As long as we're resurrecting old arguments, let's bundle them all into one controversial lump of blather and get it done with. Let us begin with the proposition as such: "If Haley's aasimar mother concentrated on making the plot move faster instead of Belkar turning undead for character growth, would it be morally justified for Thog to change to chaotic good because he loves puppies, or would Redcloak's niece be the hero because the Monster in the Darkness is baby Snarl?"

[Kish]

Is that your headcannon or do you have anything to support this double standard view?

How about the links in the last post where I said as much, which you didn't respond to? No? How about this?

Thor didn't voluntarily let a village die. Incompetence and stupidity do not equal malice.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that if Rich posted the section of Thor's hypothetical character sheet that covered his Intelligence and Wisdom, neither would be single-digit, and you're seriously making Thor out to be Elan-level brain-addled if you really think the perception "if this particular village of playing pieces gets smashed, it's mildly inconvenient but no more than that" played no role in his priorities when he grabbed the phone rather than postponing dealing with it until after he'd driven off Surtur.

Some of the gods appear callous while the others appear more concerned with the mortals "logic be damned I am not giving up on this planet", "my hand will not be the one to end so many lives", "the souls of the dead are too precious", "I can't be the one to deliver this news".

And the implied assumption that only those gods who expressed concern for the mortals would be Good-aligned 1) has no support, 2) doesn't work numerically as less than one-third of them do so, and 3) implicitly allows Neutral gods to be monstrously evil anyway--such that it still leaves the gods not covered by the same alignment standards as mortals.

Thor is not very bright but he clearly has taken to heart to correct his mistake as much as he can

As much as he can? Really? Hel's talked about her "ill-conceived bargain." If Thor had come to her a hundred years ago and said, "Listen, let's call this bet off," what do you suppose she would have said?

(And even if your headcanon is that she would have rejected it for some reason, you'd need to support that he tried to say he's corrected his mistake as much as he can.)

and knows and care for his followers (Not only does remember who Durkon is but he is willing to cheat the rules of the universe for his sake).

And then shrug that he's going to get tanked and go paw Sif, and his devas should let him know if the dwarf survives.

What's the prioritization shown there? Breaking the rules is something he just acts annoyed to have pointed out, so clearly it's at the bottom of his priorities list, but is Durkon's impending battle against a druid his own level more or less important to Thor than "I'm inconveniently sober and horny"?

As SilverCacaobean said, we don't have any in-comic indication that the way they set up monster races was only the evil gods' idea, much less your apparent belief that every example of horrifying divine callousness can be ascribed to one-third of the gods. As you yourself pointed out, though apparently rejecting the implications, the evil Loki was the one who made the case for not destroying the world.

[zimmerwald1915]

Yeah, no. OOTS may be character driven, but that doesn't mean character-driven stories are inherently superior, or that it would be worse if it were plot driven. Both are entirely valid ways of telling a story.

I'd respond, but. . .

The Order of the Stick successfully defeated Xykon and preserved the world. The end. There, now you got your plot and you can stop reading.

@Ruck did it for me.

[Fyraltari]

It does not mean they value mortal lives. It does not mean they are not, essentially, monsters.

How about the links in the last post where I said as much, which you didn't respond to?

It does not mean they value mortal lives. It does not mean they are not, essentially, monsters.

For the village I stand my ground that incompetence =/= malice.
For the godsmaoot you've got the full specrtum of gods caring and not caring about mortals and disagreeing on what's best for them.
For the Cliffport fight, what more do you expect him to do? He's just twisted the rules for Durkon which means the other gods will be afer him. How many Clerics of Thor are in mortal danger at any moment? How many believers? Do you expect him to bite his nails watching them all? Considering the scarcity of high-level Clerics I'd say that most of them do die in battle. It's to be expected that he be desensitized about it. Especially after losing an entire world before. Do you expect generals to obsessively worry about wether each individual soldier under their command will make it out alive?

No? How about this?

Huh. I've never come across that post before.
That's a rather flawed analogy, if you ask me (I didn't make the termites what they are nor did I decid that they should leave in my house therefore I have less responsabilities towards their well-being). But I'll accept that, in OOTS-world, and by word-of-author the gods operates under a different morality system than the mortals. I wonder how that works for the Dark One or the Elven Gods but okay.



Now, for the sakeof argument:

I'll go out on a limb and guess that if Rich posted the section of Thor's hypothetical character sheet that covered his Intelligence and Wisdom, neither would be single-digit, and you're seriously making Thor out to be Elan-level brain-addled if you really think the perception "if this particular village of playing pieces gets smashed, it's mildly inconvenient but no more than that" played no role in his priorities when he grabbed the phone rather than postponing dealing with it until after he'd driven off Surtur.

What are the INT and WIS score of someone who proposes to fight vampires with eyes closed according to you? Who thinks they should ask people wether they need help when inside the mouth of a monster?
Most gags rely on characters being dumber than they have any right to be.

And the implied assumption that only those gods who expressed concern for the mortals would be Good-aligned 1) has no support, 2) doesn't work numerically as less than one-third of them do so, and 3) implicitly allows Neutral gods to be monstrously evil anyway--such that it still leaves the gods not covered by the same alignment standards as mortals.

You are reading subtext that I idn't intend:
Here's my idea: Some Evil god that doesn't have any preference for a race in particular, say Fenris, proposes that every race that is favored by an Evil god should have the XP-bag treatment, the other Evil gods that either don't have a favored race or see it only as a bunch of disposable pawns agree, as do some of the Good gods who think in the long run having the Evil gods get this point and cede on another or the Evil gods of some races having a harder time maintaining their diet of souls or just having more powerful Clerics will truly be more beneficial to the universe than the opposite, as do the Neutral Gods who don't care either way, are more out for themselves than anything else or have a grudge with the Evilgods who have favored races too. The Good gods that holds the sanctity of life over everything else, the Neutral and Evil gods that do care a minimum or have their own selfish reasons disagree.
Bam about 50/50 flip.

Basically what I am getting at here is that the Snarl fiasco forced the gods to compromise. A compromise is when everybody is unhappy about the result. So I don'tthink blaming all the gods about the end result is warranted.

Also your 2) and 3) contradict each other.

As much as he can? Really? Hel's talked about her "ill-conceived bargain." If Thor had come to her a hundred years ago and said, "Listen, let's call this bet off," what do you suppose she would have said?

What about "Err, too late, uncle, we've already woven it into the threads of reality. Now the only way to change thins is unmake and remake the world. Of course that means giving me all the current Dwarves."

(And even if your headcanon is that she would have rejected it for some reason, you'd need to support that he tried to say he's corrected his mistake as much as he can.)

He's stated to have been the one who gave the Dwarves the honour-bound society loophole and seen arguing some pretty ridiculous cases.

As SilverCacaobean said, we don't have any in-comic indication that the way they set up monster races was only the evil gods' idea, much less your apparent belief that every example of horrifying divine callousness can be ascribed to one-third of the gods. As you yourself pointed out, though apparently rejecting the implications, the evil Loki was the one who made the case for not destroying the world.

Yes but do we have evidence otherwise? If not I'd rather assume that the evil stuff was caused by the evil and neutral ones and the good stuff by the good and neutrals. Because words.

All of this however is moot, because according to the Giant, gods in OOTS-world operate under a different morality than mortals. Bugger.

[zimmerwald1915]

Do you expect generals to obsessively worry about wether each individual soldier under their command will make it out alive?

Judging by their signature, I'd hazard a guess that Kish's response would be "No, and that's why a general is necessarily a depraved thing to be."

[Kish]

For the village I stand my ground that incompetence =/= malice.
For the godsmaoot you've got the full specrtum of gods caring and not caring about mortals and disagreeing on what's best for them.

With no correlation between callousness and alignment. Do you think Sunna's evil? Njord? Heimdall?

For the Cliffport fight, what more do you expect him to do?

I would expect him to act like he cared about Durkon's life as something with value comparable to his own if he cared about Durkon's life as something with value comparable to his own, rather than caring about his ego and a playing piece.

What are the INT and WIS score of someone who proposes to fight vampires with eyes closed according to you? Who thinks they should ask people wether they need help when inside the mouth of a monster?
Most gags rely on characters being dumber than they have any right to be.

If you hand-wave "that's just a gag," literally every appearance a god other than arguably Hel makes has some manner of joke about it. At which point you've arrived at "they're not subject to the same moral standards as mortals" through another door.

You are reading subtext that I idn't intend:
Here's my idea: Some Evil god that doesn't have any preference for a race in particular, say Fenris, proposes that every race that is favored by an Evil god should have the XP-bag treatment, the other Evil gods that either don't have a favored race or see it only as a bunch of disposable pawns agree, as do some of the Good gods who think in the long run having the Evil gods get this point and cede on another or the Evil gods of some races having a harder time maintaining their diet of souls or just having more powerful Clerics will truly be more beneficial to the universe than the opposite, as do the Neutral Gods who don't care either way, are more out for themselves than anything else or have a grudge with the Evilgods who have favored races too. The Good gods that holds the sanctity of life over everything else, the Neutral and Evil gods that do care a minimum or have their own selfish reasons disagree.
Bam about 50/50 flip.

Basically what I am getting at here is that the Snarl fiasco forced the gods to compromise. A compromise is when everybody is unhappy about the result. So I don'tthink blaming all the gods about the end result is warranted.

Evil winning is not a compromise unless the moral mean is closer to evil than to good.

And if the Neutral Gods don't care either way on the subject "let's set these creatures up to be slaughtered constantly!" they're, by mortal standards, thoroughly evil, not neutral. From where I'm standing, "Treating that sapient race as vermin will truly be more beneficial to the universe than the opposite" is already the perspective of a monster; if you'd accept that from Roy, your concept of Good is far from mine indeed.

I'm also wondering where you're getting this stuff about any of the cannon-fodder races being "favored by an evil god," or any god at all; it seems entirely backwards.

Also your 2) and 3) contradict each other.

They do not. Less than a third of the gods at the Godsmoot (I count four out of eighteen, being generous by giving every god who mentions valuing mortals or the world automatic credit rather than wondering whether Sif's priority is the dirtball or the people standing on the dirtball or whether Frigg cares about mortals rather than mortal belief in her guidance) indicate valuing mortal lives as something other than chesspieces is part of their reason for voting "no." I'll give you Odin because what he said was incoherent, if you want him. That leaves you one god short to support that the good gods are not evil, and if you can get there, all the neutral gods are still far into evil; to argue that the gods function by the same moral standards as mortals you'd need to make 2/3 of the gods at the Godsmoot indicate they valued mortal lives, which would obliterate the current book's plot as the vote would have no chance of passing.

What about "Err, too late, uncle, we've already woven it into the threads of reality. Now the only way to change thins is unmake and remake the world. Of course that means giving me all the current Dwarves."

Speaking of headcanon...

He's stated to have been the one who gave the Dwarves the honour-bound society loophole and seen arguing some pretty ridiculous cases.

Yes. He values his soul-batteries being his and not Hel's. He cares about winning, just as was shown when he enhanced Control Weather to show off and then wandered away with a dismissive quip.

Again, you claimed he did everything he could to correct his mistake; I can think of something just offhand that there's no reason to think he did and less reason to think wouldn't have worked, which would have been a very simple way to correct his mistake entirely had he been actually treating it as a mistake rather than taking full advantage of Hel's mistake to maximize the number of souls that went to him rather than to her.

Yes but do we have evidence otherwise?

Apparently we disagree on everything in this post or the previous ones in this thread that would point to an answer.

[Keltest]

I'd respond, but. . .


@Ruck did it for me.

If you think "And Frodo threw the ring into the volcano, the end" is the entirety of Lord of the Rings, I must sadly inform you that you are mistaken and need to re-read it.

[zimmerwald1915]

If you think "And Frodo threw the ring into the volcano, the end" is the entirety of Lord of the Rings, I must sadly inform you that you are mistaken and need to re-read it.

But Lord of the Rings is almost entirely character-driven?

[eilandesq]

How about the links in the last post where I said as much, which you didn't respond to? No? How about this?

I'll go out on a limb and guess that if Rich posted the section of Thor's hypothetical character sheet that covered his Intelligence and Wisdom, neither would be single-digit, and you're seriously making Thor out to be Elan-level brain-addled if you really think the perception "if this particular village of playing pieces gets smashed, it's mildly inconvenient but no more than that" played no role in his priorities when he grabbed the phone rather than postponing dealing with it until after he'd driven off Surtur.

And the implied assumption that only those gods who expressed concern for the mortals would be Good-aligned 1) has no support, 2) doesn't work numerically as less than one-third of them do so, and 3) implicitly allows Neutral gods to be monstrously evil anyway--such that it still leaves the gods not covered by the same alignment standards as mortals.

As much as he can? Really? Hel's talked about her "ill-conceived bargain." If Thor had come to her a hundred years ago and said, "Listen, let's call this bet off," what do you suppose she would have said?

(And even if your headcanon is that she would have rejected it for some reason, you'd need to support that he tried to say he's corrected his mistake as much as he can.)

And then shrug that he's going to get tanked and go paw Sif, and his devas should let him know if the dwarf survives.

What's the prioritization shown there? Breaking the rules is something he just acts annoyed to have pointed out, so clearly it's at the bottom of his priorities list, but is Durkon's impending battle against a druid his own level more or less important to Thor than "I'm inconveniently sober and horny"?

As SilverCacaobean said, we don't have any in-comic indication that the way they set up monster races was only the evil gods' idea, much less your apparent belief that every example of horrifying divine callousness can be ascribed to one-third of the gods. As you yourself pointed out, though apparently rejecting the implications, the evil Loki was the one who made the case for not destroying the world.

In fairness, Thor already intervened more than he was technically allowed to for Durkon up to that point--if gods were incapable of detachment regarding situations like that once they'd done all they could, they'd go insane (or worse, simply choose to start breaking the rules and risk setting loose another Snarl).

[Snails]

As long as we're resurrecting old arguments, let's bundle them all into one controversial lump of blather and get it done with. Let us begin with the proposition as such: "If Haley's aasimar mother concentrated on making the plot move faster instead of Belkar turning undead for character growth, would it be morally justified for Thog to change to chaotic good because he loves puppies, or would Redcloak's niece be the hero because the Monster in the Darkness is baby Snarl?"

That is pretty impressive. Can you squeeze in something about Tarquin or Malack not being evil? Pretty please?

[Keltest]

But Lord of the Rings is almost entirely character-driven?

not really. None of the characters change or grow over the course of the story, except Frodo just from how much trauma he undergoes.

[Rogar Demonblud]

True. LOTR is more World Builder Fiction than anything else. And what a world he built.

[Snails]

not really. None of the characters change or grow over the course of the story, except Frodo just from how much trauma he undergoes.

That is one of the reasons that arguably Sam is the protagonist. He is the one who more completely brings the boon and wisdom of his journey home. He is the true homebody who changes into a hero -- the biggest character growth in the entire trilogy.

[Snails]

Gods onscreen always creates questions that are impossible to fully answer, and it gets vastly worst if the audience is given the opportunity to wonder about the motivations and decisions of the gods.

The nature of D&Dish gods makes this slightly easier, because we know that gods are not omnipotent as individuals, and probably are not even omnipotent if they choose to work in concert. The metaphysics of D&D strongly hint that gods are bound by metarules that they themselves have little or no ability to budge.

Unfortunately, gods that do not maintain some degree of mystery to their mindset are not obviously different from 50th level PCs.

My interpretation is that The Giant chose to hide their mystery in plain sight by making some of their decisions look laughable.

When it comes to questions like "Hey, doesn't Thor have any common sense to be smarter about this thing and that thing?" My answer is: N. O. Thor has uncommon sense, that can sometimes look very wrong to common sense.

And I am not quite sure if the gods even have volition in the manner we say people do. Could Thor or Hel say no to Loki's proposed bet? Maybe not. Could Thor have used some common sense and amended the bet with Hel after it was playing out in such a lopsided manner? Maybe not. I expect they are sentient enough to learn from mistakes, but Thor is fated to continue to make Thor-like mistakes and Hel is fated to continue to make Hel-like mistakes.

[Snails]

More to the point, Good=/=Right, so far as we've seen. It wasn't all Evil gods wanting to destroy the world, lest we forget, and Loki, in all his Ambiguous Alignment Glory, was championing letting the Mortals take a whack at saving the world.

As depicted, we have no evidence that any good god in any pantheon voted for destruction. The Giant left a lot of ambiguity there, surely on purpose, because he did not want to highlight this vote as a matter of Good vs. Evil. With the world in the balance, it is this Evil god (Hel) facing off against the Evil/Neutral? god (Loki) and the Order who will tip the result.

But, yes, it is not the evil gods as a group who are destroying the world. Even if most voted for destruction (or not), the Neutral gods ended up deciding.

[WombleofDarknes]

Blimey, that (what has been sparked by my "Belkar possibly blaming Odin" suggestion) was unexpected.

I would suggest that the alignment of the gods would be largely irrelevant to Belkar in making any judgement (assuming my theory has any validity). What might be more relevant to him could be Why Odin did it - forced Durkon onto the path that led to his fight with Malak - and recompence for the ruination of Durkons life.

Or maybe, he'll just want to stab something. Many, many times.

[PontificatusRex]

not really. None of the characters change or grow over the course of the story, except Frodo just from how much trauma he undergoes.

Oh dear. I really think that if you believe that you need to read the books again - or for the first time, if you're just judging from the movies.

All the Hobbits, Gimli, Gollum, Eowyn...the characters who are most down-to-earth "human" undergo a huge amount of change and growth over the course of the story.

[Ruck]

Sorely tempted to sig this.

If it's my permission you're waiting for, by all means.

Yeah, no. OOTS may be character driven, but that doesn't mean character-driven stories are inherently superior, or that it would be worse if it were plot driven. Both are entirely valid ways of telling a story.

Well, the ideal story has both strong characters and strong plot. Without the characters, there's no reason to care about the plot, and without the plot, there's no reason to care about the characters. OOTS is a character-driven story, but if there wasn't a plot happening, we'd be asking ourselves why we're watching this particular time in their lives, and/or it would be closer to the gag-a-day strip it was when it started out.

To use my own opinions on TV, which everyone may not agree with, but: The Sopranos is an example of a show that's character-driven but not plot-driven. 24 is a show that's plot-driven but not character-driven. My favorite drama, The Shield, is both; it creates strong characters, then has those characters act in ways true to their nature that drive the story further and further, until they grow and change and receive a (relatively) happy ending, or don't and receive a tragic one.

[Keltest]

Oh dear. I really think that if you believe that you need to read the books again - or for the first time, if you're just judging from the movies.

All the Hobbits, Gimli, Gollum, Eowyn...the characters who are most down-to-earth "human" undergo a huge amount of change and growth over the course of the story.

Oh? Then please explain to me what character grown Gollum had, what change he underwent. Because he started out as a sad old pseudo-hobbit with a self-destructive obsession for The Ring, and ended as a sad old pseudo-hobbit with a self destructive obsession for The Ring. What changed about Gimli, except for the nature of his banter with Legolas? Eowyn admittedly does grow... in the final act, after 90% of the story is done, over the course of about half a chapter.

[Snails]

Gimli and Legolas grow a friendship, but we readers do not see any particular barriers to forming one, other than a lack of effort in finding common interests due to ancient history between their peoples that we have no possible way of comprehending. As plot-driven developments go, that ain't shabby. But significant character growth it is not.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Like I said, it seems to be world building more than anything else that people love with JRRT.

[Peelee]

not really. None of the characters change or grow over the course of the story, except Frodo just from how much trauma he undergoes.

....and? Character-driven does not absolutely require character growth. Take, for instance, Columbo. It's a character study; we watch to see the interaction between the murderer and the lieutenant. We watch to see Columbo find the critical points to make the murderer crack. Columbo rarely has conclusive evidence, and most episodes end with the murderer confessing. In most of the ones that do not, they end with Columbo tricking the person into self-incrimination. The plot only exists for the two characters to interact with each other.

Of course, the episodes with Robert Culp are the best examples of this. Great chemistry with Falk, but he also got handed some of the best episodes to begin with, so there's that too.

Anyway. Character growth is not required for a story to be character driven. That said, I'm not gonna comment on LOTR here.

If it's my permission you're waiting for, by all means.

Well, most of the hesitation is that the complaint is (thankfully) much less common now, though I wouldn't do it anyway without permission; my views on sigging are not necessarily anyone else's views, after all.

[zimmerwald1915]

Anyway. Character growth is not required for a story to be character driven.

More than that, it's actually beside the point. Character growth is reactive. A story being character-driven means that the characters' traits and the ways they play off each other instigate the action of the story. As opposed to the action of the story being something that happens to the characters.

[Snails]

While it is true that character-driven stories do not absolutely require significant character growth, there is a certain point where a lack of growth means the characters are basically happening at each other, which is not necessarily different at all from plot-driven stories.

So if we want to bother discussing character-driven versus plot-driven at all, I think it is useful to highlight the character growth.

In the case of OotS, The Giant had Haley run into Crystal, Belkar receive a Mark of Justice, Elan run into his father, Durkon get vamped, all for the primary purpose of being incidents that could precipitate character growth. Clearly The Giant could have written a story that was just a race from Gate to Gate. That plot would have worked just fine, and probably would have been sewn up by #600. He wrote what we have instead, because that is what he wanted to write, he wanted the race to "accidentally" spur character growth in all the main characters.

[hroþila]

I think this discussion should have started with a definition of how exactly each participant defines "character-driven" and "plot-driven".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think this discussion should have started with a definition of how exactly each participant defines "character-driven" and "plot-driven".

One feels that way about a great many conversations. Instead, how it did start was by bellyaching by a drive-by posting, as so many are instead started. Such is life.

GW

[Snails]

http://www.dorrancepublishing.com/ch...ts-difference/

Character-driven – As previously mentioned, character-driven writing focuses on the inner conflict of the characters that you’ve created. If you choose to use this writing style, your reader will spend time thinking about the characters and their attitudes, personal evolutions and decisions, and how those, in turn, change the shape of the plot and the story as a whole.

Plot driven – Plot-driven stories, on the other hand, place a larger emphasis on the actual plot itself. Factors such as plot twists, action and external conflict are what make up the focus of this style of writing. In most cases, the goals of the story are more external in that they are focused on the development of a situation.

Thus, Columbo is plot driven. The quirks of the characters matter, much like Superman being physically strong matters, but we do not really wonder about how and why characters make particular decisions, and what other choices they could have made, and whether they might decide to be a different person for reasons.

LotR is mostly plot driven.

Harry Potter is mostly plot driven. The three main protagonists do grow, other characters do not; but their basic shape is exactly the same as when they started.