OOTS #1121 - The Discussion Thread

[factotum]

Well, as much as I remember, Rich said living an honorable life is important only because it maximizes the odds the dwarf'll die doing something honourable. But the way I understand it, the death has to somehow come, directly or indirectly, from whatever honourable thing the dwarf was doing.

Bear in mind, though, Thor in particular has every reason to argue his case for every dwarf that died, even if that means stretching things to breaking point. The one about the dwarf dying of infection after getting a splinter attacking a tree, for instance? Realistically, that guy was Hel's, but Thor argued otherwise. This is probably part of the reason Hel is so annoyed about all this--she gets so few souls anyway, it must get really annoying when ones that are definitely hers get snatched away.

[D.One]

Bear in mind, though, Thor in particular has every reason to argue his case for every dwarf that died, even if that means stretching things to breaking point. The one about the dwarf dying of infection after getting a splinter attacking a tree, for instance? Realistically, that guy was Hel's, but Thor argued otherwise. This is probably part of the reason Hel is so annoyed about all this--she gets so few souls anyway, it must get really annoying when ones that are definitely hers get snatched away.

Thor may argue about every dwarf, but we don't know for sure in which cases he would actually win the argument. In fact, we've alredy discussed before that we don't really know how these cases (where Thor (or any other god) and Hel debate about the honor of a dwarf) are settled.

[zimmerwald1915]

Thor may argue about every dwarf, but we don't know for sure in which cases he would actually win the argument. In fact, we've alredy discussed before that we don't really know how these cases (where Thor (or any other god) and Hel debate about the honor of a dwarf) are settled.

The most Hel-unfriendly scheme would be where she loses the soul if Thor can present any facially plausible argument against her getting it. I suspect the scheme is somewhat more lenient to her than that.

[Shining Wrath]

The most Hel-unfriendly scheme would be where she loses the soul if Thor can present any facially plausible argument against her getting it. I suspect the scheme is somewhat more lenient to her than that.

We don't know how they resolve disputes. There must be some mechanism, maybe they play rock-paper-scissors, or flip a coin. If there's a 3rd god who votes as a tie-breaker, that'd be a situation ripe for abuse. Maybe they agreed on Loki as the tie-breaker, Hel thought her father would be on her side, and then Loki of course had his own agenda and Hel feels betrayed.

If they were to pick a god to be a tie-breaker, who could fit the role? Not Odin, too close to Thor; probably not Loki, too devious. Frigg? It seems like Wisdom would be a good person to break ties.

[Jasdoif]

If they were to pick a god to be a tie-breaker, who could fit the role? Not Odin, too close to Thor; probably not Loki, too devious. Frigg? It seems like Wisdom would be a good person to break ties.

The absence of Forseti in the Northern Pantheon (or at least the Godsmoot) seems particularly notable here; the concepts of justice and mediation were attributed to him in the D&D (and I think non-D&D?) Norse pantheon, IIRC.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Forseti would likely rule the bet is invalid because it is unjust.

[zimmerwald1915]

Forseti would likely rule the bet is invalid because it is unjust.

Why? Because you say so? Because it seems like you're imputing your own morals onto this hypothetical person, who might have entirely different ideas about justice, with which you would vehemently disagree.

He might, for example, find justice in the natural hierarchy of things, and eschew concepts of universal justice based on the equal worth of all beings (which is a common complaint against the bet - the dwarves are being treated as chits and not people) as contrary to nature.

[Fyraltari]

Why? Because you say so? Because it seems like you're imputing your own morals onto this hypothetical person, who might have entirely different ideas about justice, with which you would vehemently disagree.

He might, for example, find justice in the natural hierarchy of things, and eschew concepts of universal justice based on the equal worth of all beings (which is a common complaint against the bet - the dwarves are being treated as chits and not people) as contrary to nature.

The thing is, justice is, as a concept, strongly tied to good. And in DnD in general and OOTS in particular, it is Good to treat people as equals and Evil not to.

Edit: This is hardly suprising since both were made by Americans and the U.S. and the "West" have had equality as a core tenet of their cultural views on morality since the days of the Enlightenment (at least).

[D.One]

I find it hard to believe that Forseti would rule out a bet that was made beetween two grown up free willed gods out of their own volition. Even if he disagreed with the bet, or thought of it as unfair, I believe he wouldn't have the power to undo it, because the rules of the bet seem to have been established and fixed in the construction of the world itself. There seems to be no way to back off from it, or turn it off, without undoing he world.

[Kish]

Zimmer's anti-justice thing aside, it seems to me that the premise that a god of justice would object to the bet hinges on a degree of god-anthropomorphism that doesn't fit OotS.

The gods--good and evil alike--view mortals as equivalent to insects. "But this would be unfair to the insects" isn't important, even to a god of justice. That does mean all the gods are evil from my perspective, but it's still what's been presented in the comic.

[Jasdoif]

Zimmer's anti-justice thing aside, it seems to me that the premise that a god of justice would object to the bet hinges on a degree of god-anthropomorphism that doesn't fit OotS.

The gods--good and evil alike--view mortals as equivalent to insects. "But this would be unfair to the insects" isn't important, even to a god of justice. That does mean all the gods are evil from my perspective, but it's still what's been presented in the comic.

Corollarily, the absence of a god of justice could indicate "justice" isn't an important concept to them.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The gods--good and evil alike--view mortals as equivalent to insects.

I don't think insects is the right comparison here. I think they view mortals more akin to how RL humans might view our intestinal flora and fauna. We need them for digestion, but most people don't particularly care about them, think nothing of wiping them out if that is what it takes to keep living (e.g. by taking antibiotics) and, in general, take them completely for granted, despite them being crucial to our well being.

Grey Wolf

[Ironsmith]

Zimmer's anti-justice thing aside, it seems to me that the premise that a god of justice would object to the bet hinges on a degree of god-anthropomorphism that doesn't fit OotS.

The gods--good and evil alike--view mortals as equivalent to insects. "But this would be unfair to the insects" isn't important, even to a god of justice. That does mean all the gods are evil from my perspective, but it's still what's been presented in the comic.

The problem is, that view goes against what's been said in the comics... notice the reasons (some of) the gods give in regards to not destroying the world:

"We owe it to our followers to give them every chance to make this right." -Thor
"My hand will not be the one that ends so many lives." -Freya
"The lives of our mortal children should not be brushed aside so easily, lest they turn from our guidance." -Frigg

And even among those who vote "yes":

"The only responsible option is the most cautious one." -Heimdall
"New life can only arise if we, the gods, survive." -Skadi

Source

Thor, Freya, and Frigg all explicitly value life on the planet (even if Frigg implies somewhat selfish reasons, possibly). Heimdall's position (as seen here) is still reasonable when you take the afterlife(/afterlives) into account... better dead than gone, and as Skadi points out, if the gods die, mortals are kind of screwed (recall that after killing one pantheon, the Snarl destroyed the entirety the planet in a matter of minutes... what would have happened if there weren't three more pantheons to rebuild it?). Loki's morality is ambiguous, but even he is in favor of letting the planet stick around, and in his choice of words, implies a lot of fondness for the people on it (if more in the sense of having a favorite toy than in the sense of having good friends).

We could go into their intervention (or lack thereof) implying morality, but I choose to believe that's what the clerics are for; the existence of an agreement that allows "generalized" cleric spells implies also that the gods willfully limit their intervention to what their clerics do, as part of the same agreement that prevents them from making a Snarl 2.0, with relatively few exceptions (and many of them have such limited portfolios that, even were that not the case, it's not likely they'd be of much help in most situations... how many people do you suppose Thor could save with a thunderstorm, for instance?)

Therefore, I think it's reasonable to say that, if there was a god of justice in OotS, he probably would care about the mortals, to some degree. In fact, there may still be... if Hel can be prevented from making clerics, it's not unreasonable to assume that a god that acts as a mediator between the other gods may forgo clerics entirely, so as to maintain a sense of neutrality or prevent gains to himself (and therefore bribery, and therefore corruption).

[Jasdoif]

Heimdall's position (as seen here) is still reasonable when you take the afterlife(/afterlives) into account... better dead than gone, and as Skadi points out, if the gods die, mortals are kind of screwed (recall that after killing one pantheon, the Snarl destroyed the entirety the planet in a matter of minutes... what would have happened if there weren't three more pantheons to rebuild it?).

And that's it, right there: they care about mortals only in the abstract sense. They can make new mortals if they want, and they don't care about murdering all the existing ones since it suits their interests.

[Ironsmith]

And that's it, right there: they care about mortals only in the abstract sense. They can make new mortals if they want, and they don't care about murdering all the existing ones since it suits their interests.

Again ignoring the Skadi point: if just the mortals die, more can be made, and the ones that were killed still exist in some form (and might even be reincarnated on the new world). If the gods are unmade by the Snarl, everyone, mortal or otherwise, is absolutely f***ed... the gods are dead and can't make a new world, and the mortals that were on the existing world aren't just dead, they're gone... no afterlife, no continued existence in any form. Heimdall's position could be summed up better as "the lesser of the two evils" than "apathy toward mortal lives".

That's not to say that none of the gods are, indeed, apathetic towards mortal lives... Tyr, Njord, Mani, and Fenrir all are pretty petty with their reasons for their votes, Balder just goes with Thor and Odin (could be interpreted as trusting their judgement, or just not giving a crap), and Sif, Freyr, Sunna, Hoder and Vafthrudnir could all go either way, depending on how you interpret what they've said. But the point isn't that the gods as a whole are apathetic; what I'm getting at is that there are gods in the pantheon who do, indeed, care about mortal lives, and that a personification of justice probably would, as well.

[hroþila]

I think saying that the gods see mortals as insects or bacteria is overselling the point. I think they see mortals as something closer to bunnies or piglets.

Also, I find Heimdall's stated reasoning to be entirely compatible with a Lawful Good alignment as understood by mortals.

[Jasdoif]

Heimdall's position could be summed up better as "the lesser of the two evils" than "apathy toward mortal lives".

Heimdall's position is "we should murder them all ourselves to keep the power we'll get from their souls, rather than give them more time to save themselves". Pretty sure that's "the evil rather than the neutral".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

if just the mortals die, more can be made

Sounds to me like you just agreed with Kish's point, or at the very least with mine.

Rich made such viewpoint into a punchline, once. I don't think it was meant to be taken as valid moral position, and even if it is, it does not in any way support the statement "the gods care about the mortals".

Grey Wolf

[Shining Wrath]

And that's it, right there: they care about mortals only in the abstract sense. They can make new mortals if they want, and they don't care about murdering all the existing ones since it suits their interests.

That's not Freya's position, or Thor's. Both explicitly care about the current set of mortals as deserving life.

Looking back at #999, I'd say the gods can divided thus.

• No, care at least a little about the lives of mortals: Thor, Freya, Frigg, Loki
• No, might care about lives of mortals: Odin (quite cryptic is our god of magic)
• No, seem focused on other things than mortal lives: Sif, Balder, Freyr, Mani
• Yes, might care about lives of mortals but care about other stuff more: Tyr, Heimdall, Skald
• Yes, don't seem to care about lives of mortals: Sunna, Njord, Hoder, Vafthrundnir
• Yes, in a class by himself of pure evil asshattery: Fenrir
• Yes, makes Fenrir look cuddly: Hel

Among the demigods (#1012)

• No, care at least a little about the lives of mortals: Bragi
• No, seem focused on other things than mortal lives: Iounn, Hermod
• Yes, don't seem to care about the lives of mortals: Surtur, Sigrun, and of course Thrym the Loser

EDIT: I'd say the view the gods take of mortals is akin to a farmer's view of his cattle. Some farmers are actually kind to their animals, worry about their welfare, and so on. Others try to get the most product for the least cost and / or effort. Hel's bet was the extreme version of this last - she wanted to have no (living) clerics while still reaping lots of souls. If you view clerics as the metaphorical equivalent of feeding your farm animals, Hel wanted to be a hunter, not a farmer - go out into the world and take animals she had done nothing to nurture.

Taken this way, Thor is a farmer who feeds his animals well, brings a vet by every so often, lets them exercise and run free, while Hoder is more of the factory farmer.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Actually, I was thinking Forseti would deem the bet unjust because of how it hampers Hel. Plus, any idea from Loki really needs an extended examination with the old hairy eyeball.

I should've explained that better instead of going to lunch. Or waited until after lunch to post.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Actually, I was thinking Forseti would deem the bet unjust because of how it hampers Hel.

That was not obvious to anyone (other than possibly Loki) when the bet was proposed. Calling off an established bet because a century after it is established it is obvious that one side is not getting the returns they expected is not particularly just. Unless this Forseti individual (which, to be clear, I know absolutely nothing about) simply considers all bets unjust because they might have a big winner and therefore a big looser, what would they care that the bet didn't turn out great for Hel?

Grey Wolf

[Ironsmith]

Heimdall's position is "we should murder them all ourselves to keep the power we'll get from their souls, rather than give them more time to save themselves". Pretty sure that's "the evil rather than the neutral".

Sounds to me like you just agreed with Kish's point, or at the very least with mine.

Rich made such viewpoint into a punchline, once. I don't think it was meant to be taken as valid moral position, and even if it is, it does not in any way support the statement "the gods care about the mortals".

Grey Wolf

I'm just gonna address these both at once, and hope the clarity helps here:

There are three possible outcomes to this Snarl catastrophe:

1) The mortals succeed, and the Snarl is contained.
2) The mortals fail, the gods destroy the world; the Snarl is contained, mortals still exist in some form, and there's still room for growth.
3) The mortals fail, the gods don't unmake the world in time; the Snarl is free, everyone dies and everything is unmade: game over.

Heimdall argues that 1) is unlikely to happen... they tried that once, and all that happened was the can getting kicked down the road a few decades. That leaves 2) or 3). For all concerned, 2) is the better option, and it's an easy conclusion to come to without being selfish about it. That does not mean they do not care about the mortals; far from it. It more likely means they do not believe mortals have the capacity to resolve the crisis on their own.

[Snails]

Also, it is logically possible for:

4) The mortals fail, the gods don't unmake the world in time; the Snarl is free; previously unforeseen means of avoiding world destruction appears.

Obviously the gods may not want to bank on that, but it is logically possible as an end result.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That does not mean they do not care about the mortals; far from it. It more likely means they do not believe mortals have the capacity to resolve the crisis on their own.

I disagree with the "far from it" assertion. I agree it does not mean they don't care about mortals. It also does not mean that they do. Shining Wrath's analysis shows that at best a tiny minority might give a damn about mortal... and even that is suspect. You might be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, but given that Thor is in that list, and we know he doesn't care enough about even his own priests to stay and see if they survive a battle, I have to say I can't give them the benefit of the doubt.

Also, you didn't address my point at all. Maybe I was unclear. Treating mortals as completely interchangeable is NOT caring. "We're moving to a new house, so we'll just euthanise the dog, and buy a new one when we get there, that'll be easier, amiright?" is not a caring attitude that one would expect towards any kind of living being. If nothing else, Hel has already demonstrated that there are ways the gods could save every single mortal - take them to an outer plane while they destroy the world - but the gods clearly don't care enough to put in even that minimum amount of effort.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

That was not obvious to anyone (other than possibly Loki) when the bet was proposed. Calling off an established bet because a century after it is established it is obvious that one side is not getting the returns they expected is not particularly just. Unless this Forseti individual (which, to be clear, I know absolutely nothing about) simply considers all bets unjust because they might have a big winner and therefore a big looser, what would they care that the bet didn't turn out great for Hel?

Grey Wolf

I could easily see a particular Lawful god taking the position that the Goddess of Death can scheme to increase her power, and other gods can scheme to diminish her power, only as long as nothing actually comes of such schemes--that it's a moral requirement for the power level of such gods to remain constant. Or alternatively, that regardless of what it means for the relative power positions of Hel, Thor, and Loki, each god should get all and only their own worshipers, with none of this "default dominion" and "barred from having worshipers" business.

I wouldn't particularly associate it with the concept of "justice" myself, though.

[Snails]

If nothing else, Hel has already demonstrated that there are ways the gods could save every single mortal - take them to an outer plane while they destroy the world - but the gods clearly don't care enough to put in even that minimum amount of effort.

Do we have direct evidence to support that the gods have that option? Just asking.

For the record, IMO world destruction before the last possible moment rates as an evil act. Which is probably why The Giant had no obviously Good aligned god fail to vote no.

[Jasdoif]

Heimdall argues that 1) is unlikely to happen... they tried that once, and all that happened was the can getting kicked down the road a few decades. That leaves 2) or 3). For all concerned, 2) is the better option, and it's an easy conclusion to come to without being selfish about it. That does not mean they do not care about the mortals; far from it. It more likely means they do not believe mortals have the capacity to resolve the crisis on their own.

Heimdall's position is indeed that the option that doesn't involve the murder of all mortals isn't worth considering. Meanwhile, Loki's position is that the gods could be ready to remake the world before the Snarl gets out, if the last rift is opened.

Timing is the question here...and Heimdall would rather end the lives of everyone on the world, than wait for the time it could take for them to save themselves. Which makes perfect sense if Heimdall finds mortal lives to be so cheap that lumping the entire population of the world together doesn't amount to something worth waiting for a change in situation over.

[Fyraltari]

Heimdall's position is "we should murder them all ourselves to keep the power we'll get from their souls, rather than give them more time to save themselves". Pretty sure that's "the evil rather than the neutral".

Alternatively his viewpoint is "Every mortal on theplanet will die anyway, Snarl or no Snarl, and we designed the afterlife in such a way that they will all* end up in a place tailored to their aspirations. Why should we risk our own existence for their temporary and arguable comfort?" Which would be at least Neutral.
It is also worth noting that Hel singles out Heimdall as a god that would want to change his vote in light of her contribution. Though that doesn't tell us if she thinks he would take pity on the Dwarves' plight or he would not like her to gain power.

• No, care at least a little about the lives of mortals: Bragi
• No, seem focused on other things than mortal lives: Iounn, Hermod
• Yes, don't seem to care about the lives of mortals: Surtur, Sigrun, and of course Thrym the Loser

Huh. I would have switched Hermod and Bragi's places personally.

I'd say the view the gods take of mortals is akin to a farmer's view of his cattle. Some farmers are actually kind to their animals, worry about their welfare, and so on. Others try to get the most product for the least cost and / or effort. Hel's bet was the extreme version of this last - she wanted to have no (living) clerics while still reaping lots of souls.
Taken this way, Thor is a farmer who feeds his animals well, brings a vet by every so often, lets them exercise and run free, while Hoder is more of the factory farmer.

I thinkthat's the best analysis.

If you view clerics as the metaphorical equivalent of feeding your farm animals, Hel wanted to be a hunter, not a farmer - go out into the world and take animals she had done nothing to nurture.

Nah. She wanted animals she had done to nurture to go to her kitchen and cook themselves with zero input on her part.

I'm just gonna address these both at once, and hope the clarity helps here:

There are three possible outcomes to this Snarl catastrophe:

1) The mortals succeed, and the Snarl is contained.
2) The mortals fail, the gods destroy the world; the Snarl is contained, mortals still exist in some form, and there's still room for growth.
3) The mortals fail, the gods don't unmake the world in time; the Snarl is free, everyone dies and everything is unmade: game over.

Heimdall argues that 1) is unlikely to happen... they tried that once, and all that happened was the can getting kicked down the road a few decades. That leaves 2) or 3). For all concerned, 2) is the better option, and it's an easy conclusion to come to without being selfish about it. That does not mean they do not care about the mortals; far from it. It more likely means they do not believe mortals have the capacity to resolve the crisis on their own.

5) Redcloak succeeds and the Dark Onecrowns himself King of Gods and Absolute Ruler of All that Is and Will Be.
Eat your heart out, Alexander!
*It is pretty clear that most (if not all) of the gods present (except Hel naturally) failed to take the Bet into account.

Edit:

If nothing else, Hel has already demonstrated that there are ways the gods could save every single mortal - take them to an outer plane while they destroy the world - but the gods clearly don't care enough to put in even that minimum amount of effort.

Very good point, i hadn't thought of that.
It would be an incentive to vote Yes, though as, if Loki 15 minutes estimate is exact, they wouldnot have the time to pull that off should the last gate fail.

[Rrmcklin]

Heimdall's position is "we should murder them all ourselves to keep the power we'll get from their souls, rather than give them more time to save themselves". Pretty sure that's "the evil rather than the neutral".

I mean, the mortals have been failing pretty handedly at fixing things themselves. If that weren't the case they wouldn't even be discussing the situation in the first place. Putting morality aside, they really have no reason to have confidence that the mortals currently trying to resolve the situation will succeed.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Of course, the mortals trying to fix the problem have only been at it for months, with the gods doing the best they can to keep anyone from learning anything about the problem. Including that there is a problem or that it could be fixed.

Really am coming around to the Stone Creed's idea that you don't need the gods.