Tiamat and The Dark One: In on "The Plan" Together?

[The Aboleth]

Apologies if this has been brought up in the Discussion Thread or elsewhere; I could not find reference to this idea in any of my searches.

In Comic 668 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html), we see that the IFCC has been reprimanded by Tiamat. The way the scene reads, it comes off as if the fiends have subtly deceived Tiamat into believing the deaths of the Black Dragons that V killed were "an unfortunate necessity" of whatever plan they had in mind. To put it another way: It doesn't appear that Tiamat knows exactly what the IFCC's plan is, but they were able to convince her not to worry about it and that it'd ultimately work out in her favor.

I didn't think much of the interaction at the time...but with the new info we've received from Comic 1143, I can't help but wonder: Is there something else there?

Thor notes in Comic 1143 (emphasis mine) that "Tiamat is the only one who's ever met [The Dark One] in person, and [the Western Gods] think she's lying to further some scheme." Again, on the first read I didn't pay much attention to the line, attributing it to world-building about the Gods' various personalities and viewpoints. BUT...what if there is more to it? What if this "scheme" is actually related to TDO's "Plan," or perhaps to the IFCC's? Heck, why not BOTH?

It seems weird to me that an Evil God would see many of her followers killed off, confront the people who had a hand in that destruction, and accept an explanation of "We're sorry, Tiamat! It was an unfortunate necessity of our Plan to overthrow the Gods of Good--a Plan which we can't give you the details of, but can assure will be met with success that will benefit you upon completion!" Maybe the IFCC simply rolled a natural 20 on their Deception check, but even with that I still feel like Tiamat would want to know more.

Possible theories that might tie these points together:

A) Tiamat always knew about The Dark One's Plan, and saw the IFCC's actions as a detriment to it (hence her outburst)

B) Tiamat doesn't know about The Dark One's Plan, but does know about the IFCC's and (after the interaction from 668) is working to further their ends. (This might be the "scheme" the Western Gods are wary of, though I suppose it could also be The Plan...but I feel like the other Gods know of The Plan and Thor would have been more specific in that case rather than limiting it to some vague "scheme").

C) Tiamat knows of both Plans, and is playing both sides in some way.

D) Tiamat doesn't know either Plan (the IFCC's or TDO's), and the mention of a "scheme" in 1143 is simply to let us know how paranoid the Western Gods are being, or is simply a reference to a separate, unrelated "scheme" of Tiamat's (Evil Gods are never lacking for Evil Plans, after all).

E) None of the above, and I'm reading too much into it.


I'll admit, it's probably Option E...but I can't feel like the choice of Tiamat being the God who's met TDO in person is deliberate and related in some way. Rich could have chosen any other Evil God to be the one who has met TDO in person, yet he chose a God who we've already seen interacting with OTHER Evil schemers in the comic. I feel like there's something ultimately there, even if I'm off-base on the above points in this post.

What do you think?

[Rrmcklin]

Yeah, 99% chance it's Option E. But, hey, at least you're aware of that. A lot of people come up with theories and from that moment convince themselves it's true unless the story specifically says it's not (and even then....)

[Roland Itiative]

Isn't the IFCC's plan to destroy all gods? Remember, the excuse of "convincing her that it was an unfortunate necessity in a plan to destroy the gods of good" was only technically true, so it doesn't seem like they share their actual plans with her at all.

Plus, they had to promise a lot to get out of the situation, and even then the fiend that talked to her came out of it pretty damaged (even though it was apparently a phonecall, well, five phonecalls).

Out of the options you gave, D is most likely the right one.

[martianmister]

Probably C.

[Emanick]

Isn't the IFCC's plan to destroy all gods? Remember, the excuse of "convincing her that it was an unfortunate necessity in a plan to destroy the gods of good" was only technically true, so it doesn't seem like they share their actual plans with her at all.

Plus, they had to promise a lot to get out of the situation, and even then the fiend that talked to her came out of it pretty damaged (even though it was apparently a phonecall, well, five phonecalls).

Out of the options you gave, D is most likely the right one.

How do we know that the IFCC’s plan is to destroy all gods?

[Bad Wolf]

Isn't the IFCC's plan to destroy all gods? Remember, the excuse of "convincing her that it was an unfortunate necessity in a plan to destroy the gods of good" was only technically true, so it doesn't seem like they share their actual plans with her at all.

Plus, they had to promise a lot to get out of the situation, and even then the fiend that talked to her came out of it pretty damaged (even though it was apparently a phonecall, well, five phonecalls).

Out of the options you gave, D is most likely the right one.

Nope. They've mentioned both storming the Upper Planes and bringing down the Good aligned gods, nothing about the evil ones.

[hroþila]

I agree with Roland. "Technically true" strongly suggests their plan doesn't stop there.

[Rrmcklin]

Isn't the IFCC's plan to destroy all gods? Remember, the excuse of "convincing her that it was an unfortunate necessity in a plan to destroy the gods of good" was only technically true, so it doesn't seem like they share their actual plans with her at all.

Plus, they had to promise a lot to get out of the situation, and even then the fiend that talked to her came out of it pretty damaged (even though it was apparently a phonecall, well, five phonecalls).

Out of the options you gave, D is most likely the right one.

That's an interpretation, but by no means the most likely one. When Lee told the others of his promise to Tiamat to kill five good dragons for every black one that died, the others were like "Sure, that'll be easy if everything goes well.", as if they were planning to genuinely honor the promise. That wouldn't make sense if their plans would result in Tiamat (and all the other evil gods) being destroyed as well.

They weren't being totally honest with Tiamat, but considering their plans involve the Gates that's to expected. Good or Evil, most gods wouldn't abide that.

[Gift Jeraff]

It's "technically true" that their scheme is to bring down the gods of Good, so I've been of the mindset that their plans somehow go against all of the gods, but doesn't necessarily destroy all (or any?) of them since the implication is that they still intend to follow through on Lee's promise to Tiamat.

In regards to the OP, I'm currently leaning towards "most of the gods are scenery dressing and not going to have their exact goals and motives explored." I think Rich just falls back to Tiamat a lot since she's more well-known (especially to a RPG oriented audience) than other Mesopotamian deities. Though if she does have a role to play in the future, I imagine it has something to do with why kobolds are equals with humans on the Western Continent which seemingly contradicts the Secret Lore of the Crimson Mantle.

[snowblizz]

It's "technically true" that their scheme is to bring down the gods of Good, so I've been of the mindset that their plans somehow go against all of the gods, but doesn't necessarily destroy all (or any?) of them since the implication is that they still intend to follow through on Lee's promise to Tiamat.

I've always figured as much from first reading. The unspoken follow up to the line to "Technically true I suppose." would be "...because we plan on bringing down the gods of evil too".

I agree that the promise to Tiamat seems odd but I see 2 possibilities. 1) LAWFUL Evil, they will honour the bargain whether recepient likes it or not, espicially if they don't. Because being a Lawful essence forces Lee to. 2) an aspect of timing, they will need to fulfil the promise to tip the gods of good over, before they can topple the gods of evil too or all the gods would unite against the fiends.

What's somewhat unclear to me is how the fiends figure into the whole thing, and "angels" (not sure what the proper term would be). They are not part of the reality that gets reshaped I guess? And how does their relationship with the gods really function. Is there an edge in power to either side, etc etc etc.

There's a lot we don't know there.

[D.One]

Isn't the IFCC's plan to destroy all gods? Remember, the excuse of "convincing her that it was an unfortunate necessity in a plan to destroy the gods of good" was only technically true, so it doesn't seem like they share their actual plans with her at all.

Plus, they had to promise a lot to get out of the situation, and even then the fiend that talked to her came out of it pretty damaged (even though it was apparently a phonecall, well, five phonecalls).

I agree with Roland. "Technically true" strongly suggests their plan doesn't stop there.

I've always figured as much from first reading. The unspoken follow up to the line to "Technically true I suppose." would be "...because we plan on bringing down the gods of evil too".

I agree that the promise to Tiamat seems odd but I see 2 possibilities. 1) LAWFUL Evil, they will honour the bargain whether recepient likes it or not, espicially if they don't. Because being a Lawful essence forces Lee to. 2) an aspect of timing, they will need to fulfil the promise to tip the gods of good over, before they can topple the gods of evil too or all the gods would unite against the fiends.

I also agree that their plan might probably hurt the evil gods too, even if they are not destroyed. Or maybe their plan involves something that will improve their stand compared to the gods, good or evil.

What's somewhat unclear to me is how the fiends figure into the whole thing, and "angels" (not sure what the proper term would be).

Celestials

Thor notes in Comic 1143 (emphasis mine) that "Tiamat is the only one who's ever met [The Dark One] in person, and [the Western Gods] think she's lying to further some scheme." Again, on the first read I didn't pay much attention to the line, attributing it to world-building about the Gods' various personalities and viewpoints. BUT...what if there is more to it? What if this "scheme" is actually related to TDO's "Plan," or perhaps to the IFCC's? Heck, why not BOTH?

[...]

I'll admit, it's probably Option E...but I can't feel like the choice of Tiamat being the God who's met TDO in person is deliberate and related in some way. Rich could have chosen any other Evil God to be the one who has met TDO in person, yet he chose a God who we've already seen interacting with OTHER Evil schemers in the comic. I feel like there's something ultimately there, even if I'm off-base on the above points in this post.

What do you think?

I've always understood the line about Tiamat being "the only one who's ever met The Dark One in person" as "the only one in the Western Pantheon who's ever met The Dark One in person", since the scene shown displays Tiamat, Loki, Rat and Thor meeting TDO.

[xroads]

I choose option C. Though I do wonder how Tiamat, who has the power to provide visions to seers, did not see the Familicide spell coming.

Though if she does have a role to play in the future, I imagine it has something to do with why kobolds are equals with humans on the Western Continent which seemingly contradicts the Secret Lore of the Crimson Mantle.

I've often wondered about this too. I think kobolds are the ultimate survivalists. They may have started off as chunks of xp, but they eventually figured that worshiping an established god and making themselves useful increased the odds of staying alive. Also why all of the kobolds we've met have names. They figured it increased their survival odds

• Adventurer: Let's slay the kobold!
• Kobold: Wait! How about you just take the treasure? I won't fight you. By the way, name's Kwikwit
• Adventurer Ummm... Nice to meet you Kwikwit. I suppose we could just take the treasure. But what about that xp we lose out on?
• Kobold: Ummm.... ummm... oh I got it. If you let me live, I'll do your taxes.
• Adventurer Do our taxes?
• Kobold: Sure. Sure. And this will give you more time to adventure and gain more xp.
• Adventurer: I suppose. But I don't even know which kingdom we're suppose to pay tax...
• Kobold: Oh let me, your accountant worry about that. Now run along. There's at least three more levels in this dungeon. And don't forgot about the jade rat hidden in the back. It's worth a small fortune.

[hroþila]

Kobolds may have overcome their handicap on the Western Continent (partly or fully), but it's clear that they're not on equal footing with everybody else on a global scale, or Belkar would never have got all those adventurers to slay a seemingly non-villainous kobold for him with no justification. As such, I don't think that contradicts the lore of the Crimson Mantle, it just shows there are many sociological and political factors at play.

[snowblizz]

I've often wondered about this too. I think kobolds are the ultimate survivalists. They may have started off as chunks of xp, but they eventually figured that worshiping an established god and making themselves useful increased the odds of staying alive.

Even humans are chunks of XP to each other if need be. To me the Western continent (other spots here and there) hints that Reddcloak's spiel about not getting a good deal from the gods may not be entirely accurate either and that there may be a better, though slower and not as immediately gratificatious way to achive what he claims to be his goal.

[Quartz]

Isn't the IFCC's plan to destroy all gods?

No, they just want the slaughter to continue.

[DavidBV]

It is a possibility that the "new purple color" is actually a scheme from Tiamat+Rat, and not really a new color.

Purple=red+blue, you know.

And they all seem to have been buddies in the past.

Edit: and Loki could be the one behind the whole idea, as he's also present.