OOTS #1145 - The Discussion Thread

[Keltest]

The Warding on the front door, and more appropriately "Prove who you are or get blasted for messing with Divine Secrets". And if you mean an assassination outside of the actual Gods moot, well that's what the ton of Cleric levels and armed bodyguards are supposed to stop.



Once he left though, he quit having anything to do with the Moot is MY point though.

Ok, but he vamped the cult BEFORE he left the Moot. As evidenced by this exact occurrence, theres nothing actually preventing somebody from subverting the hosts to pursue their own ends. At an extremely basic level, they could be bribed to not allow access to any of the representatives of gods likely to vote against them. If you wanted to go further up, they could charm the bodyguards to kill their own priests.

The point being, by having such overly specific rules, they've actually worsened security and increased the possibility for violence.

[Paleomancer]

Drat it! I rephrase it to be less combative, and this happens Advantages of not spouting one's mouth off...

The Warding on the front door, and more appropriately "Prove who you are or get blasted for messing with Divine Secrets". And if you mean an assassination outside of the actual Gods moot, well that's what the ton of Cleric levels and armed bodyguards are supposed to stop.

Only focused on the moot itself. Note that said clerics and bodyguards failed to do anything anyway until too late, and I'm fairly sure posters on this very site could work out ways to bypass the door defenses anyway. Certainly Hel and her high priest found a way to do so, and those cleric levels and bodyguards were absolutely useless to stop them. Real truces try to account for treachery on the part of all participants, including actions by and done to the "staff." If that means extending the truce to the Elemental Clerics, so be it.

Once he left though, he quit having anything to do with the Moot is MY point though.

Which is entirely irrelevant to my point. My irritation stems from how the moot plot relied on the hackneyed trope of stupid bureaucracy, without actually looking at how real bureaucracies can be stupid (part II with the Dwarven Elders, unless the Order gets the vampire first). The very notion of sacred hospitality and diplomatic immunity come from the inherent risk to one party (hosts, guests, messengers, and diplomats) from being in proximity to a second party who is either unknown or known to be hostile; violating such rules was (and in certain circles still is) considered unforgivable.

Still, perhaps the loss of the Eastern Pantheon is the problem. Zeus was the patron deity of Sacred Hospitality after all, I bet he'd have smote vampire Durkon like ZAP!

Ok, but he vamped the cult BEFORE he left the Moot. As evidenced by this exact occurrence, theres nothing actually preventing somebody from subverting the hosts to pursue their own ends. At an extremely basic level, they could be bribed to not allow access to any of the representatives of gods likely to vote against them. If you wanted to go further up, they could charm the bodyguards to kill their own priests.

The point being, by having such overly specific rules, they've actually worsened security and increased the possibility for violence.

Exactly! Except better phrased than my post

[Fyraltari]

I'd like to specifically address something. One important point that comes up a few times in this argument is the idea that no cleric would be safe if there weren't rules against directing your clerics to harm others. This seems like your only argument in support of the idea that there's a general rule against harming other gods' clerics instead of the Godsmoot-specific one you initially referenced.
Why would this be a problem? Why would gods want to kill other gods' clerics? What would they get out of it?
This is especially annoying because I brought up the possibility just last post

That's easy enough. Food.
There's a finite amount of mortals to go around, that means a finite amount of Belief, Dedication, Souls an Worship. The more Clerics you have relative to the others, the more followers you have, the more power you have, the less they have. Thor, Loki and Hel are all adversaries (though Thor and Loki keep it civil and can wot=rk together on a common goal. Probably), I see no reason to assume other gods don't have fights too. Fenrir is part of the pantheon, for starter and thinking of it we saw Thor and Surtur about to fight at one point.

And you ignored it by saying that the clerics weren't on their guard because the rules against helping your priests hurt other priests are so extreme that Thor couldn't tell them to defend themselves. Not something simple like "they don't have any reason to expect an attack," you said that.

They have nor eason to expect an attack because those attacks never happen. Yet the gods have reason to order them, and we know that Loki had to find a loophole to send Hilgya. The obvious answer to the paradox is that it is forbidden to do so.

Incidentally, wouldn't the fact that Hel sent some of her priests specifically to attack Thor's temple result in some kind of censure if even telling your cleric where one they might want to kill it would be against the rules?

Because she did not. Durkon* did that on his own. She sent him to rif the vote (and maybe not even that much since he takes credit for it when taunting Roy). He even says he only attacked Thor's temple because it would make for a more ironic battleground.

That is insufficient basis for assuming someone is lying in any particular case.

But it is enough to refute an assumption that someone is telling the truth.

Fair enough, but gods being callous to mortals in bulk (no matter how kind they are to individuals) seems to be common to all gods.

Most of them, maybe but Thor, Hermod, Freya and Sigrun care for mortals in bulk, going by their vote.

The only evidence we have that there's any rule against killing priests in general is that there's a Godsmoot-specific rule about it.

And that Loki ahd to make an excuse to send Hilgya. Because I am not saying there's a rule against priests killing priests. I am saying there is a rule against Gods ordering their Clerics to kill Clerics.

Let's remind everyone watching our debate (...mostly the two of us) how this particular thread of discussion started:

Okay.

You didn't seem to think there was a general "don't help your priests kill other priests" rules at this point—you were focused on the Godsmoot. Only after people pointed out that the incident you cited had nothing to do with the Godsmoot did you tackle the "well, gods obviously can't help their priests kill other priests, that's gotta be a rule" angle, even though there's no evidence that such a rule exists

I wasn't "focusing" on the Godsmoot, I was making a list. I fail to communicate that item clearly. That's all. In my defense, it was two in the morning when I wrote that.
And you'll notice that I replied "Morton's Fork" to that because wether it is a Godsmoot rule or a general one is completely irrelevant.

and Loki didn't even try to hide that he was doing it.

He's not hiding it, he's using a loophole.

I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith, and definitely not sure you're arguing in good logic.

You may want to dial the agrresion down a bit. We're just arguing about a webcomic, not need to get on any high horse.

So...based on the fact that you can't think of any reason gods wouldn't order the deaths of other gods' clerics if they could, you assume they can't. I don't find this line of reasoning convincing.
As for the Thor example, what the frig makes you think that Thor knew Hel had a specific plan for Durkon* before she revealed her secret plan?

First: Thor tried to kill Durkon* back on the Mechane.
Second: Why would he need to know the plan before the Moot? An entire day has passed, that's enough to warn Firmamen

I'm not saying that Odin ordered every step along the way, but that that particular prophecy seemed to have been given in one of Odin's more lucid moments.

Based on what? This strip tells us that Odin is only occasionally all in there and Thor had assumed he had a plan for Durkon but Odin himself can't tell, and know Thor seem to believe it was random. Why do you conclude that it seems Odin was in his better day mode at that moment.

Thor explicitly says Odin has both good days and bad days, and both Thor and (admittedly-not-lucid) Odin seem to think the prophecy was given by Lucid Odin for a reason.

I mean Odin says that it doesn't sound like something he would do. I guess you are reading that as "I must have had a reason then" which is an entirely valid reading but mine was more along the line "I can't even tell what I am doing or why".

It's possible it wasn't, but I find it unlikely that senile-day Odin accidentally gave a prophecy which not only fulfilled itself but did so in a way which supports Odin's goals, so much so that his own son assumes it was intentional.

It's a prophecy, by definition it's going to be fullfilled. And we don't know wether it actually did any good, every explanation of why it would be necessary is based on the assumption that it was necessary in the first place. And even if it is true that Order could not have suceeded without Durkon. Sometimes you just get lucky.

How would he tell them? The clerics don't have cell phones.

Doesn't stop them from making "static on the line" jokes

(And I wouldn't call "the few minutes between Hel's reveal and the vampires teleporting to their doorstep" "ample time".)

Okay, I see the problem here.
Here's what happened, Durkon* and co teleported from the Moot with barely a spell left. Then they hid for an entire day (replenishing their spells and waiting for the eve of the day of the Council Meeting) and attack Thor's temple at dusk. A few hours later the Order arrived.

There was time.

EDIT:

They explicitly SAID there was a truce at the the moot, and normally Good smiting Evil and Vise-versa is the order of the day. But it only applies to the high-priests, and possibly their direct bodyguards. It doesn't apply to every worshiper across the world.

Thor did not order his people in Firmament to kill Dukon* and the Bleed of the Stone and Loki had to make an excuse to send Hilgya. Either the Godsmoot truce extends to every Cleric or (more likely in my opinion) there's a rule that says that while Clerics killing each other on their own is fine, a god may not order his clergy to kill a particular Cleric of another god.

[dtilque]

1. You said any spell violated thermodynamics, you didn't initially specify "D&D". It's important to speak specifically to express specific thoughts.

OK, then I'll go back to any magic spell. But this is pretty much the definition of magic: something that violates the laws of nature. If it doesn't violate them, it's not magic. And chances are, if something violates a law of nature, it's going to violate the laws of thermodynamics in addition.

2. I'd argue that D&D's metaphysics are vague enough to make an external source of energy plausible.
3. How would the existence of mana violate the laws of thermodynamics? (And isn't manna the sky-bread?)

Some mystical external D&D energy is probably indistinguishable from mana, at least on the surface. Not sure how mana or this energy would violate the laws. I don't think mana is sufficiently defined to say how. And I guess I mispelled it. (Note that manna definitely violates the laws of nature, too)

ETA: I just remembered one of Niven's mana stories explicitly violated the laws of thermo.

Spoiler

Show

It was the one where the wizard created a demon that separated hot molecules from cold ones.

Spoiler

Show

The idea came from his new clerk named Maxwell

[Snails]

Thor did not order his people in Firmament to kill Dukon* and the Bleed of the Stone and Loki had to make an excuse to send Hilgya. Either the Godsmoot truce extends to every Cleric or (more likely in my opinion) there's a rule that says that while Clerics killing each other on their own is fine, a god may not order his clergy to kill a particular Cleric of another god.

I am having trouble imagining either case as remotely plausible.

In the first case, a secret godsmoot has to be difficult to have hard universal rules around. How would the low level clerics be informed to not kill the clerics they do not like?

In the second case, Loki/Hilgya is just a weirdly extreme example of a bleeding obvious loophole: "Hey there, cleric of mine. There is a cleric of that god we do not like over there. <nudge nudge> I would never order you to do anything rash, of course. <wink wink>"

The simplest answer is Loki is well aware that Hilgya is nearly insane, and can handle her best with an indirect approach.

The frost giants seemed to be clued in, to a degree, so there does not seem to be a strongly enforced universal rule.

[Riftwolf]

The Warding on the front door, and more appropriately "Prove who you are or get blasted for messing with Divine Secrets". And if you mean an assassination outside of the actual Gods moot, well that's what the ton of Cleric levels and armed bodyguards are supposed to stop.

Sorry, but where in the link is blasting or Divine Secrets mentioned? High Priest of Odin says 'Prove who you are or leave'. Not sure why a lot of people think the penalty for anything at the Godsmoot is Death.

[JackRackham]

Someone get upset at the insensitive portrayal of dementia. I would, but I can't muster the energy right now.

I don't think he's portraying dementia. I think he's portraying a deity who was warped by his followers' beliefs into being scatter-brained.

[Fyraltari]

I am having trouble imagining either case as remotely plausible.

In the first case, a secret godsmoot has to be difficult to have hard universal rules around. How would the low level clerics be informed to not kill the clerics they do not like?

That's why I thought the second one more likely.

In the second case, Loki/Hilgya is just a weirdly extreme example of a bleeding obvious loophole: "Hey there, cleric of mine. There is a cleric of that god we do not like over there. <nudge nudge> I would never order you to do anything rash, of course. <wink wink>"

That's not simpler a loophole than "Dominating the Elders" or "attacking the priest your are bodyguarding". And yet.

The simplest answer is Loki is well aware that Hilgya is nearly insane, and can handle her best with an indirect approach.

Why? She obeys him and in this case would have even reasons of her own to do so.

The frost giants seemed to be clued in, to a degree, so there does not seem to be a strongly enforced universal rule.

The Frost giant weren't attacking any priest. Also I don't think they were any more clued in than "I want that zepellin brought down. Now". They didn't make any mentions of why they were doing what they were doing beside "Lord Thrym commands it". Indeed, why tell them they'd be sealing their own fate?

[JackRackham]

Someone get upset at the insensitive portrayal of dementia. I would, but I can't muster the energy right now.

I don't think he's portraying dementia. I think he's portraying a deity who was warped by his followers' beliefs into being scatter-brained.

I don't think that is a thing Rich would do at this stage.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I've noticed that some people are kind of missing the point of Thor's "he has good days and bad days" line. Odin isn't always like this, and (presumably) when he gave his prophecy about Durkon that was a "good" day.
On Loki, I get that he's a trickster god and all, but it really does seem like some people are trying to wiggle him as being behind everything when it isn't necessary.

...Did someone agree with me?
Wait, why is this surprising to me?

Gonna say it again - Odin is not suffering from something akin to dementia or senility. He's explicitly suffering from a nutritional deficiency; the Belief and Worship he was receiving were not sufficient because the Northerners thought badly of magic, and he's god of magic. It's as though he was a person whose body absolutely required meat for good health living in a vegetarian society.

I'd say it's more akin to food poisoning than nutrient deficiency...but I can see why people see the parallels to dementia, given the symptoms.
That said, I don't get why people are saying Odin's dementia is being played for laughs when the punchline is about Durkon.

OK, then I'll go back to any magic spell. But this is pretty much the definition of magic: something that violates the laws of nature. If it doesn't violate them, it's not magic. And chances are, if something violates a law of nature, it's going to violate the laws of thermodynamics in addition.

I don't like this definition, because...well...by definition, the laws of nature encompass anything that's possible, so if magic is possible in a given universe, that means they must be within the laws of nature of that universe. I guess you could define "magic" as anything that's impossible by the laws of nature as we understand them, but given how much that understanding changes (and how much we know we don't know), that doesn't seem like a useful definition.

Some mystical external D&D energy is probably indistinguishable from mana, at least on the surface. Not sure how mana or this energy would violate the laws. I don't think mana is sufficiently defined to say how. And I guess I mispelled it. (Note that manna definitely violates the laws of nature, too)

I don't see why mana would be a violation of any physical laws, any more than the existence of (say) exotic matter would be. It's not predicted to exist under current models, but that's not the same as being forbidden by them.

ETA: I just remembered one of Niven's mana stories explicitly violated the laws of thermo.

Spoiler

Show

It was the one where the wizard created a demon that separated hot molecules from cold ones.

Spoiler

Show

The idea came from his new clerk named Maxwell

Landauer proposed a rigorous mathematical solution to that when Larry Niven was still in college, but I guess I can't blame him too much for not knowing about it. Still, I would have thought that even without a clear mathematical minimum for how much power the demon would need, it would have been obvious that that demon doesn't actually violate the laws of physics unless its brain is a reversible computer of some sort.

Spoiler: Fyraltari

Show

That's easy enough. Food.
There's a finite amount of mortals to go around, that means a finite amount of Belief, Dedication, Souls an Worship. The more Clerics you have relative to the others, the more followers you have, the more power you have, the less they have.

...No. This isn't a zero-sum game, dude, hurting other people doesn't help you. If Thor has 50 clerics and Loki has 100, Thor won't have more clerics if he kills 20 of Loki's. He'll still have 50, and he'll have pissed off the entire pantheon. If nothing else, he risks that Loki, Odin, Hel, etc will all gang up on his 50 clerics, because they actually work together (sometimes). They rely on and trust each other enough not to be ***** to each other in hopes that nobody will stop them from, I dunno, forcing those 20 clerics' congregations to worship them.
Incidentally, this is why pre-police societies don't devolve into backstabbing instantly. Nobody has a reason to hurt someone else that outweighs the liability of someone else being stabbed in the back.

Because she did not. Durkon* did that on his own. She sent him to rif the vote (and maybe not even that much since he takes credit for it when taunting Roy). He even says he only attacked Thor's temple because it would make for a more ironic battleground.

Wait...so Hel telling Durkon* to go to Thor's temple to rig a vote, explicitly as part of her plan, which she knew would involve killing a bunch of Thor's clerics, is okay. (And it's totally likely that Hel didn't order, or at least give explicit permission, for Durkon* to kill as many Thor clerics as he needed.) However, Loki telling Hilgya where Durkon is when she asked (because, whatever you assert, Loki never told Hilgya to kill Durkon) is not okay.
...I don't know how to respond to that. But it seems pretty clear to me by now that you're not arguing in good faith.

[Nemoricus]

Wait...so Hel telling Durkon* to go to Thor's temple to rig a vote, explicitly as part of her plan, which she knew would involve killing a bunch of Thor's clerics, is okay.

Hel didn't send the former High Priest to attack the temple. She sent him to dominate the Council of Clans.

The Council is held in a chamber in the center of the town, which is not within the temple of Thor.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Hel didn't send the former High Priest to attack the temple. She sent him to dominate the Council of Clans.
The Council is held in a chamber in the center of the town, which is not within the temple of Thor.

This comic all but states that attacking the temple was part of Hel's plan, one way or another. (So does the second one you linked, but I figured that hearing it from the horse's mouth would be mroe convincing.) After all, the "preparations" seem to include the slaughter at the temple.
I don't know how anyone can argue that Loki should be held responsible for Hilgya dusting Durkon*, but Hel shouldn't be held responsible for the legion of vampire clerics invading Thor's temple.

[TRH]

I don't think he's portraying dementia. I think he's portraying a deity who was warped by his followers' beliefs into being scatter-brained.

I don't think that is a thing Rich would do at this stage.

It's hardly dementia if his condition is expected to improve with more age, is it?

[Ironsmith]

It's hardly dementia if his condition is expected to improve with more age, is it?

The fact that it can be cured at all would tend to lean away from that interpretation. Given the source, it's more like somehow getting a little loopy after having some bad fish or something.

[dtilque]

I don't see why mana would be a violation of any physical laws,

On an informational basis, perhaps.

Say a magic user uses mana to cure someone's disease, say cancer or Alzheimers. In order to cure it, a large number of specific chemical reaction have to take place in order. A lot of those will happen on their own once the process is started, but how do you start the process? That is, which reactions need to happen to eventually remove the tumor or put the brain back into working order? The mage doesn't have any idea, so how is the mana supposed to know? So somehow the information needed to cure the disease is created out of thin air. Just adding more energy to the system won't do it.

[Nemoricus]

This comic all but states that attacking the temple was part of Hel's plan, one way or another. (So does the second one you linked, but I figured that hearing it from the horse's mouth would be mroe convincing.) After all, the "preparations" seem to include the slaughter at the temple.
I don't know how anyone can argue that Loki should be held responsible for Hilgya dusting Durkon*, but Hel shouldn't be held responsible for the legion of vampire clerics invading Thor's temple.

What lines specifically indicate that Hel ordered the attack on the temple? Condones it, certainly, given that she hates Thor and would like to see his clerics suffer. But it's incidental to her main goal of swaying the vote.

In any case, my only point is that I think the attack on the temple was her high priest's plan, not hers specifically. Hel should be held responsible for a great deal, but it seems unlikely that those consequences will be apparent in the comic itself.

[martianmister]

I think people are missing the point of whole dementia thing. It doesn't mean Odin literally has dementia, it mean his condition could be interpreted as a reference to, and based on dementia, similar to how belt of gender changing is interpreted as a case of transgenderism.

I've noticed that some people are kind of missing the point of Thor's "he has good days and bad days" line. Odin isn't always like this, and (presumably) when he gave his prophecy about Durkon that was a "good" day. On Loki, I get that he's a trickster god and all, but it really does seem like some people are trying to wiggle him as being behind everything when it isn't necessary.

I would believe that, if not for that line:

Did I? That doesn't sound like something I'd do. Sounds kinda mean, honestly.

His protest seems genuine to me. I think there is something more to this.

[Fyraltari]

...No. This isn't a zero-sum game, dude, hurting other people doesn't help you. If Thor has 50 clerics and Loki has 100, Thor won't have more clerics if he kills 20 of Loki's. He'll still have 50, and he'll have pissed off the entire pantheon. If nothing else, he risks that Loki, Odin, Hel, etc will all gang up on his 50 clerics, because they actually work together (sometimes). They rely on and trust each other enough not to be ***** to each other in hopes that nobody will stop them from, I dunno, forcing those 20 clerics' congregations to worship them.

Yes it is. That's the basis of Hel's plan, she'll get more souls when the others have to parcel out the remaining ones.
If Thor's clergy drove out Loki's from a town, then the people of the town will come to worship Thor in time, not Loki, hence more food for Thor and less for Loki.
I find the claim that the gods would band together to protect one of their own aginst another dubious when they can't even band together to defend the whole lot of them against an external threat.

Incidentally, this is why pre-police societies don't devolve into backstabbing instantly. Nobody has a reason to hurt someone else that outweighs the liability of someone else being stabbed in the back.

And you know what these societies had? Laws. Pre-police societies are just communities too small to need/afford a group of people dedicated to law enforcment, a chief to pass judgment and the community itself to administer it was enough.
So yeah, everything about these gods tell me they'd need a rule to behave responsibly.

Wait...so Hel telling Durkon* to go to Thor's temple to rig a vote, explicitly as part of her plan, which she knew would involve killing a bunch of Thor's clerics, is okay. (And it's totally likely that Hel didn't order, or at least give explicit permission, for Durkon* to kill as many Thor clerics as he needed.)

That wasn't her plan. That was Durkon*'s. And as I have already linked, Durkon* doesn't find it important to the plan itself. He just had two grudges to settle while he was at it.

However, Loki telling Hilgya where Durkon is when she asked (because, whatever you assert, Loki never told Hilgya to kill Durkon) is not okay.

Yes it is. That's why it worked. It's a loophole.

Wait... Are you under the impression that I was arguing that Hel wasn't using loopholes as well?

...I don't know how to respond to that. But it seems pretty clear to me by now that you're not arguing in good faith.

Okay, that's twice now that you single out one argument, ignore the rest, says it isn't true while offering no other explanation for what happened on panel, ignore the evidence I present and then accuse me of arguing in bad faith or bad logic despite me adressing your points and giving counter-arguments..

I am willing to give you the benefitr of the doubt that you are just that certain of the validity of your points and misunderstanding mine but it is really trying my patience and making me question your intellectual honesty.

This comic all but states that attacking the temple was part of Hel's plan, one way or another. (So does the second one you linked, but I figured that hearing it from the horse's mouth would be mroe convincing.) After all, the "preparations" seem to include the slaughter at the temple.
I don't know how anyone can argue that Loki should be held responsible for Hilgya dusting Durkon*, but Hel shouldn't be held responsible for the legion of vampire clerics invading Thor's temple.

The preparations seem to be "raise some more vampires", "set an ambush for the order" and whatever the Ex-exarch still has in store. And again, you want something ffrom the horse's mouth?
Second page fifth and sixth panels and second-to-last panel.
Edit: Of course Hel is responsible for Durkon*'s actions. Just as much as Loki is for Hilgya's presence here. A lot. But they did not order them here. Which is apparently enough for it not to be illegal under the gods' agreement.

[Potatopeelerkin]

Yes it is. That's the basis of Hel's plan, she'll get more souls when the others have to parcel out the remaining ones.
If Thor's clergy drove out Loki's from a town, then the people of the town will come to worship Thor in time, not Loki, hence more food for Thor and less for Loki.
I find the claim that the gods would band together to protect one of their own aginst another dubious when they can't even band together to defend the whole lot of them against an external threat.

And you know what these societies had? Laws. Pre-police societies are just communities too small to need/afford a group of people dedicated to law enforcment, a chief to pass judgment and the community itself to administer it was enough.
So yeah, everything about these gods tell me they'd need a rule to behave responsibly.

Driving a god's followers out of one town won't really earn you much, and once you do that, you'd alienate the rest of the pantheon. If you're willing to sabotage a fellow pantheon member for a small amount of personal gain, it's only a matter of time before you do it to the next person- so it seems like a great way to get everyone to isolate you. Their long lifespan and small population means that their reputation among the other gods is really important if they don't want to find themselves kicked to the kerb.

These gods have been around for thousands of worlds. How much would they really gain from trying to take over one world (or a small part of one world), and how much would they stand to lose? And that's assuming they could actually manage to do it without everything devolving into war.

The members of the pantheon are smart enough to realise they have nothing to gain from infighting, with the exception of Hel, who's more "messed up" this time around due to her poor nutrition and has an actual reason to want to spite the rest of the pantheon. I think her plan more motivated by vindictiveness than any self-gain, and she'll probably wield whatever she gets in a way that hurts the rest of the pantheon rather than helping herself.

And it doesn't really seem like Loki and Thor are on that poor terms, judging by the bet, Loki stopping Thor from killing the Dark One, the information Thor has about Loki's opinions on the subject, etc. It's not like they're trying to kill each other on sight. So why would they spend all their energy and resources escalating a battle with one another when they could work together and accomplish much more?

That wasn't her plan. That was Durkon*'s. And as I have already linked, Durkon* doesn't find it important to the plan itself. He just had two grudges to settle while he was at it.

See, by the point you're rationalising it like this, I think it's simpler just to assume the rule doesn't exist at all (at least not explicitly- natural consequences still exist). There's nothing to suggest a rule like that exists, there'd be no reason to mention the special rules for the Godsmoot if they existed outside of the Godsmoot, and the plan to hijack the Godsmoot was clearly Hel's. How much of the manner in which Durkon* did it was her idea and how much was his is debatable, but either way Hel knew clerics were going to die when she ordered him to do it. No reasonable court would let that slide if there were rules against killing. At that point, that rule is so easily skirtable it might as well not exist at all.

I'm also not sure how that link backs up your point at all.

[Fyraltari]

Driving a god's followers out of one town won't really earn you much, and once you do that, you'd alienate the rest of the pantheon. If you're willing to sabotage a fellow pantheon member for a small amount of personal gain, it's only a matter of time before you do it to the next person

That's a slippery slope fallacy, that a Good god would be willing to curb the power of an Evil god, for example, does not mean he'd be willing to do so to any god.

so it seems like a great way to get everyone to isolate you. Their long lifespan and small population means that their reputation among the other gods is really important if they don't want to find themselves kicked to the kerb.

Their reputation with other gods doesn't keep tham alive, though.

These gods have been around for thousands of worlds. How much would they really gain from trying to take over one world (or a small part of one world), and how much would they stand to lose? And that's assuming they could actually manage to do it without everything devolving into war.

Yes that would be a bad idea, that's (probably) why there (probably) is a rule. That's the very essence of safety regulations.

The members of the pantheon are smart enough to realise they have nothing to gain from infighting

Balder doesn't seem very smart. Fenrir and Surtur look like the kind who would enjoy the fighting no matter what and Njord seem to act a lot on impulse.

with the exception of Hel, who's more "messed up" this time around due to her poor nutrition and has an actual reason to want to spite the rest of the pantheon. I think her plan more motivated by vindictiveness than any self-gain, and she'll probably wield whatever she gets in a way that hurts the rest of the pantheon rather than helping herself.

While that's probably true, i'd say we have no way to know how different she is from before and one idiot is enough for a rule.

And it doesn't really seem like Loki and Thor are on that poor terms, judging by the bet, Loki stopping Thor from killing the Dark One, the information Thor has about Loki's opinions on the subject, etc. It's not like they're trying to kill each other on sight. So why would they spend all their energy and resources escalating a battle with one another when they could work together and accomplish much more?

People can be in good term while also being ennemies. That's paradoxical but quite common, too.
And wether or not Loki is telling the truth to Thor is what's in question here (I hold the position that given Loki's pattern of behaviour so far, while it's possible he is being honest it should not be considered guaranteed).

See, by the point you're rationalising it like this, I think it's simpler just to assume the rule doesn't exist at all (at least not explicitly- natural consequences still exist). There's nothing to suggest a rule like that exists

Then explain why Loki did not send anyone beside's Hilgya and why Thor did not tell his people about Durkon*.

there'd be no reason to mention the special rules for the Godsmoot

Sure they'd be. To explain why the High priests and bodyguards can"t attack Durkon* on their own. Or each other for that matter. These people are working at cross-purpose every day that isn't the godsmoot and they fight each other enough that there's a rule that a Cleric of Thor getting killed by a Cleric of Loki get free(er?) drinks in Valhalla.

if they existed outside of the Godsmoot, and the plan to hijack the Godsmoot was clearly Hel's.

Hel's plan was to get a servant of hers to the Moot and bribe some demigods. Durkon* did not know he could kill the ushers before Gontor let his mouth run wild and he takes credit for the "Dominating the elders plan" (indeed Hel had no way of knowing he'd get his hands on a teleportation orb beforehand).

How much of the manner in which Durkon* did it was her idea and how much was his is debatable, but either way Hel knew clerics were going to die when she ordered him to do it.

See above.

No reasonable court would let that slide if there were rules against killing. At that point, that rule is so easily skirtable it might as well not exist at all.

Of course they are. These rules exist so the plot can happen. "no attacking your own priest" and "no killin the ushers" are also obvious rules.

And frankly I don't see how "No ordering your priests to kill other gods' clergy" is so easily skirtable. Thor was able to do jack to stop Hel, Loki could only send one Cleric because it just so happen she had a massive grudge against Hel's priest's host by pure chance. And Hel doesn't get anything from the death of Clerics she intended to die with the world (furthermore, she actually loses the dedication and soul they'd have provided since they died fighting).

I'm also not sure how that link backs up your point at all.

You don't see how "a plan I devised" backs my point of "that was his idea, not Hel's"?

[Windscion]

...
The point being, by having such overly specific rules, they've actually worsened security and increased the possibility for violence.

Depends upon what you mean by violence. If you mean mortals dying, so what? If you mean Snarl Jr, I disagree. They can always change the rules, after all, once flaws are exposed. I mean the entire basis for the godsmoot is to avoid godfights.

[Keltest]

Depends upon what you mean by violence. If you mean mortals dying, so what? If you mean Snarl Jr, I disagree. They can always change the rules, after all, once flaws are exposed. I mean the entire basis for the godsmoot is to avoid godfights.

Right, so now instead of just saying "ok, we agree there shall be nothing more extreme than shouting here, anybody who goes beyond that is banned from voting for a thousand years" with additional penalties for specific infractions, they apparently decided to ban specific violent acts individually, so all it takes is somebody thinking of a new one, or a new way to apply one, to get around it. Again, the very fact that the vampire was able to subvert the entire Cult of the Stone, and that it turned into a massive proxy fight around supporting or destroying them, demonstrates the weakness of their current system.

[The MunchKING]

That wasn't the Gods though, that was just their Clerics trying to interpret. Also arguably Her was doing her job as the Goddess of Death and Undeath by spreading Vampires around.

Thor makes storms, Help makes undead. Same basic concept.

[Keltest]

That wasn't the Gods though, that was just their Clerics trying to interpret. Also arguably Her was doing her job as the Goddess of Death and Undeath by spreading Vampires around.

Thor makes storms, Help makes undead. Same basic concept.

Autocorrect aside, that sounds like a giant gaping loophole. Whats to stop Fenrir from bringing in monsters? or Thrym to attack with Frost Giants? Or, frankly, Thor from zapping the mountain with lightning, or Loki from setting everything on fire? Or Tyr from making war on all the other priests, who cant fight back because that's not their portfolio?

[KorvinStarmast]

For instance, at the beginning of the whole thing, Angie is transported from our world to that other world. That violates, in a very big way, the conservation of matter in that world.

No more than a meteor striking the earth violates the conservation of matter on earth. (I am not sure what you are driving at here, and why you are choosing that frame of reference.)

By using your chosen example, I can choose a frame of reference as "my living room" and when you walk through the door and enter the room, you have violated the conservation of matter in that room." I am thus pretty sure that I am not quite seeing what you are driving at.

I don't think he's portraying dementia. I think he's portraying a deity who was warped by his followers' beliefs into being scatter-brained. I don't think that is a thing Rich would do at this stage.

Agree.

Say a magic user uses mana to cure someone's disease, say cancer or Alzheimers. In order to cure it, a large number of specific chemical reaction have to take place in order. A lot of those will happen on their own once the process is started, but how do you start the process?

Right, how to reach the threshold energy that gets the reaction started.

That is, which reactions need to happen to eventually remove the tumor or put the brain back into working order? The mage doesn't have any idea, so how is the mana supposed to know?

Magic. Consider it the fifth force, or even the fifth element. Gravity, strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic. That's the four we are familiar with. Add magic. It could even be a comparatively weak force and still be effective.

So somehow the information needed to cure the disease is created out of thin air. Just adding more energy to the system won't do it.

Not all magical systems create things ex nihilo. There are a lot of magical systems where the mana or "the weave" is a pool of energy, or potential energy, waiting to be tapped. You could think of it somewhat like an electromagnetic form of energy: you have to have certain techniques to tap into it. The "mana" is the catalyst to get the reaction started. (And now our analogy is reaching toward chemical reactions).

[Resileaf]

Autocorrect aside, that sounds like a giant gaping loophole. Whats to stop Fenrir from bringing in monsters? or Thrym to attack with Frost Giants? Or, frankly, Thor from zapping the mountain with lightning, or Loki from setting everything on fire? Or Tyr from making war on all the other priests, who cant fight back because that's not their portfolio?

Probably their pre-world-creation meetings where they decide what kind of world they're going to make.
Furthermore, the rules concerning the domain agreement probably apply to this as well. Should Fenrir flood the world with monsters against the rules already agreed upon, then every other god is free to retaliate with all of their power.

Besides, no matter how much the gods might want to ignore the rules, the snarl's existence forces them to play nice, at least between pantheons.

[mjasghar]

The usual explanation with magic is that it represents willpower - you are using that magic energy to transform the target into a state you desire
How it knows what that form is, is covered by the concept of True Forms or (for living beings) the soul/spirit which is usually depicted as a perfect form
Where there’s a god of magic that god adds intelligence or sometimes it’s insinuated magic is alive itself
It depends on the setting and author - purely fictional settings (non RPG based) can be more woolly

[Goblin_Priest]

Are we seriously arguing about whether or not magic breaks the laws of physics?

Edit: Are we also arguing that somehow clerics got some kind of godly rule protection that says that clerics can't be the target of other clerics...?

[dtilque]

No more than a meteor striking the earth violates the conservation of matter on earth. (I am not sure what you are driving at here, and why you are choosing that frame of reference.)

The word "world" is not always a synonym for "planet". I was using it in another sense, as a synonym of "universe". Transporting a body to that universe is a violation of conservation of matter.

Are we seriously arguing about whether or not magic breaks the laws of physics?

Some people seem to have the strange idea that there are magic systems that don't violate the laws of nature. I'm not sure where they get this idea, because that's pretty much the definition of "magic". If it didn't have the violations, it would be called "technology".

[KorvinStarmast]

The word "world" is not always a synonym for "planet". I was using it in another sense, as a synonym of "universe". Transporting a body to that universe is a violation of conservation of matter.

It is also that basis for hundreds of books filled with speculative fiction, (Lin Carter, John Norman, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Philip Jose Farmer, etc) so I fail to see how any of this is germane to a discussion regarding a world where magic exists.

But thanks for explaining your frame of reference.