How is it that Hel has NO worshipers

[Kish]

And specifically, Nergal was not restricted from having clerics, including being his cleric not being an immediate "this is an undead creature" giveaway.

[Fyraltari]

The Dungeon boss comment was about Hel bestowing Clerical powers to random wights.

Malack probably, and not unlike Durkon, gained a few Cleric levels as your usual, living, snakefolk before being turned.

A wight with 1 level in cleric is just a random encounter waiting to happen.

[Rrmcklin]

Simple, the Giant is world-building right now, and as he has been doing that he has created opportunity for questioning previous strips. Even off-strip comments don't necessarily stop questions from arising when you take the strips themselves into consideration.

You can try handwave Hel being at absolutely 0 (minus her new Greg spawns) by saying "Series of Dumb God Laws", but since Hel has already (a) found one loophole in-strip (b) had thousands of years to find more and (c) is actively trying to subvert said "Dumb God Laws", then you have to admit that there must be reasonable people out there that question the absoluteness of 0 worshippers, even if you are (1) a reasonable person and (2) not part of the previously designated group. The strips just have not given us a conclusive answer as to why absolute 0 is maintained.

Heck, even the whole "all clerics die as low-level dungeon bosses" seems a stretch if you consider that Malack (not her cleric, but still) managed to never let himself become a dungeon Boss. Heck, he was hanging around the Living and apparently only Tarquins group knew he was a vampire....You mean she couldn't commune with the others like she did with Durkon and tell them not to hole themselves up in a dungeon, but to gain experience by working as a low-level diplomat for some kingdom or something?

I honestly don't understand the issue some people have with "the author said this, so it means this". Yes, realistically it wouldn't be literally 0, but the author's word trumps realism in situations like this.

There is functionally no difference between "Hel has literally 0 worshippers" and "Hel has so few worshippers they don't matter", that dwelling on why Rich didn't make it the latter instead of the former is pointless except for pedantry.

[Peelee]

A wight with 1 level in cleric is just a random encounter waiting to happen.

"Well, yeah, against some goblins, I thought. That's why we made them!" - Hel, probably.

[Emanick]

I honestly don't understand the issue some people have with "the author said this, so it means this". Yes, realistically it wouldn't be literally 0, but the author's word trumps realism in situations like this.

There is functionally no difference between "Hel has literally 0 worshippers" and "Hel has so few worshippers they don't matter", that dwelling on why Rich didn't make it the latter instead of the former is pointless except for pedantry.

I'm not one of the people who is saying "Rich is wrong about this," but if what you as an author says conflicts with "realism," then expect people to question you. Readers who find something unrealistic are likely to be less fully immersed in the story; keeping a sense of realism going is crucial to maintaining everyone's suspension of disbelief.

Again, I'm not saying Rich's statement that "literally no one worships Hel" is wrong. But it does require me to make certain additional assumptions about how the world works in order for me to believe it, like "it's physically impossible to 'worship' Hel, in the sense that gives gods power, anyway."

[Dion]

dwelling on why Rich didn't make it the latter instead of the former is pointless except for pedantry.

Well which is it? It’s either pointless or it’s pedantry! It can’t be both.

[Fyraltari]

Well which is it? It’s either pointless or it’s pedantry! It can’t be both.

Yes it can. Most of it is.

[Rrmcklin]

I'm not one of the people who is saying "Rich is wrong about this," but if what you as an author says conflicts with "realism," then expect people to question you. Readers who find something unrealistic are likely to be less fully immersed in the story; keeping a sense of realism going is crucial to maintaining everyone's suspension of disbelief.

Again, I'm not saying Rich's statement that "literally no one worships Hel" is wrong. But it does require me to make certain additional assumptions about how the world works in order for me to believe it, like "it's physically impossible to 'worship' Hel, in the sense that gives gods power, anyway."

I fail to see why that's actually an issue, though. Like, that's the first thing that my mind goes to, and as there's nothing contradicting it, there's no reason to dwell on it.

Realism matters for certain things, that's true, miscellaneous facts like this aren't one of them though. At least, not for me.

[Ruck]

Simple, the Giant is world-building right now, and as he has been doing that he has created opportunity for questioning previous strips. Even off-strip comments don't necessarily stop questions from arising when you take the strips themselves into consideration.

The Giant has also said that he deliberately doesn't build the details of his world unless he has to, since it's designed to be as generic as possible and also he doesn't want to fill anything in that might contradict something he wants to later. So to that end, I don't expect detailed answers to things that don't matter. (The fact that Hel has had literally zero living worshippers ever matters to the story; the mechanic by which that arises doesn't.)

You can try handwave Hel being at absolutely 0 (minus her new Greg spawns) by saying "Series of Dumb God Laws"

Great, done.

but since Hel has already (a) found one loophole in-strip (b) had thousands of years to find more and (c) is actively trying to subvert said "Dumb God Laws", then you have to admit that there must be reasonable people out there that question the absoluteness of 0 worshipers, even if you are (1) a reasonable person and (2) not part of the previously designated group.

Alternately: If the Giant says she has had literally zero living worshipers ever, then given your points, there must not be a loophole by which she can gain living worshipers.

The strips just have not given us a conclusive answer as to why absolute 0 is maintained.

No, they haven't, but given that the creator of the entire setting says it's "literally no one ever" and not "virtually" or "figuratively" no one, I take that at face value, because a mechanic by which that would become the case simply isn't as important for this story as the fact that that is the case.

Heck, even the whole "all clerics die as low-level dungeon bosses" seems a stretch if you consider that Malack (not her cleric, but still) managed to never let himself become a dungeon Boss. Heck, he was hanging around the Living and apparently only Tarquins group knew he was a vampire....

As others have said, Nergal isn't Hel, Malack probably had some cleric levels before being vampirified, and he also developed magic that would allow him to functionally pass for living.

You mean she couldn't commune with the others like she did with Durkon and tell them not to hole themselves up in a dungeon, but to gain experience by working as a low-level diplomat for some kingdom or something?

Apparently not. (How many kingdoms are hiring undead clerics as diplomats, anyway?)

I'm not one of the people who is saying "Rich is wrong about this," but if what you as an author says conflicts with "realism," then expect people to question you. Readers who find something unrealistic are likely to be less fully immersed in the story; keeping a sense of realism going is crucial to maintaining everyone's suspension of disbelief.

I mean, the setting is "self-aware stick-figure fantasy parody," and a lot of stuff already happens "because magic." So I'm not sure why this particular point is the one that would shake anyone's "realism." (I put "realism" in quotes because, again, "self-aware stick-figure fantasy parody.")

Again, I'm not saying Rich's statement that "literally no one worships Hel" is wrong. But it does require me to make certain additional assumptions about how the world works in order for me to believe it, like "it's physically impossible to 'worship' Hel, in the sense that gives gods power, anyway."

Well, there you go. You made an assumption that fits both what Rich said and the story. Seems easier-- and more accurate-- than trying to come up with justifications for why what Rich said isn't really what he meant.

[Draconi Redfir]

I can get why people would try to come up with a mechanic for how it is Hel has no worshipers, even though I don't personally need it explained for my suspension of disbelief. What I don't understand is why people are trying to come up with ways to explain why when Rich said the below, he meant something else:

oh, h'uh. didn't know about that one. guess i'm wrong about that part then. *shrugs*

[Ruck]

oh, h'uh. didn't know about that one. guess i'm wrong about that part then. *shrugs*

In that case, glad to help. The Index of the Giant's Comments is exceedingly useful.

[Kish]

Apparently not. (How many kingdoms are hiring undead clerics as diplomats, anyway?)

Especially ones of the "she could stick clerical powers on them" variety, like ghasts and wights, instead of the "you keep whatever class levels you had in life" variety--like vampires (and liches).

I also suspect Greg was able to commune with Hel using a high-level spell, rather than Hel being an exception to the established "the Dark One just gives Redcloak enough approval to grant spells" rule. (Why Redcloak would not, in that case, prepare and cast the "talk directly to his god" spell is...a question interesting to me primarily for what it says about Redcloak.)

[Rrmcklin]

As far as Malack goes, he (or rather, his host) being a cleric in life is something the Giant has confirmed (I don't remember the exact post, but I think it was in the "do all vampires work like this?" thread) and said that calling him a "shaman" was just cultural terminology, and didn't refer to the mechanics of his class at all.

By the same token, Bugbear shamans are also probably just clerics of the Dark One, going by a different name.

[Jasdoif]

As far as Malack goes, he (or rather, his host) being a cleric in life is something the Giant has confirmed (I don't remember the exact post, but I think it was in the "do all vampires work like this?" thread) and said that calling him a "shaman" was just cultural terminology, and didn't refer to the mechanics of his class at all.

You're probably looking for this.

"Shaman" is just a descriptive term, used to paint a picture of what sort of life he had. He was still a cleric, mechanically speaking. He would have switched gods because whatever nature-oriented barbarian deity he used to worship no longer granted spells to a vampire that was keeping his former cleric's soul hostage. I suppose, hypothetically, he could have decided to keep worshipping a god who didn't want him and never granted him spells, ignoring the fact that there was another god who did want him and would grant him spells. But he didn't. And maybe, hypothetically, there's another god out there that would accept a vampire cleric other than Nergal, and he could have started worshipping him. But he didn't. He looked at the situation logically and said, "Oh, this must be my rightful place in the universe. Hail Nergal!" and called it a day. That's still free will.

I think everyone is getting way too hung up on "What If's" that would have essentially led to Malack not being in the story the way that he needed to be in the story. The role required was for an evil vampire cleric to make friends with Durkon, so that later they could turn on each other; if he wasn't evil, and he wasn't a cleric, he wouldn't have been in the story at all. Maybe there are other vampires out there doing other things, being Good and living in harmony with the world. Don't care. Don't need them for this story.

[Ruck]

Especially ones of the "she could stick clerical powers on them" variety, like ghasts and wights, instead of the "you keep whatever class levels you had in life" variety--like vampires (and liches).

I also suspect Greg was able to commune with Hel using a high-level spell, rather than Hel being an exception to the established "the Dark One just gives Redcloak enough approval to grant spells" rule. (Why Redcloak would not, in that case, prepare and cast the "talk directly to his god" spell is...a question interesting to me primarily for what it says about Redcloak.)

I could see an alternate explanation that involves something like undead clerics having direct connections to their gods that living clerics don't; see here for reference that could be used to justify that:

You have to worship a god in order to be their cleric—except in the case of undead, where she has a direct connection to their negative energy lifeforce.

That said, I figure that if it's necessary to the story that we find out, we'll hear about it (if what you think is true: We might get Durkon, who saw Durkula's direct communication with Hel, ask Redcloak what his chats with the Dark One are like), and if it's not, we won't.

[woweedd]

Simple, the Giant is world-building right now, and as he has been doing that he has created opportunity for questioning previous strips. Even off-strip comments don't necessarily stop questions from arising when you take the strips themselves into consideration.

You can try handwave Hel being at absolutely 0 (minus her new Greg spawns) by saying "Series of Dumb God Laws", but since Hel has already (a) found one loophole in-strip (b) had thousands of years to find more and (c) is actively trying to subvert said "Dumb God Laws", then you have to admit that there must be reasonable people out there that question the absoluteness of 0 worshippers, even if you are (1) a reasonable person and (2) not part of the previously designated group. The strips just have not given us a conclusive answer as to why absolute 0 is maintained.

Heck, even the whole "all clerics die as low-level dungeon bosses" seems a stretch if you consider that Malack (not her cleric, but still) managed to never let himself become a dungeon Boss. Heck, he was hanging around the Living and apparently only Tarquins group knew he was a vampire....You mean she couldn't commune with the others like she did with Durkon and tell them not to hole themselves up in a dungeon, but to gain experience by working as a low-level diplomat for some kingdom or something?

She's had just over a thousand years, actually. Keep in mind: The bet is only as old as the current world.

[Rrmcklin]

And Hel's worshipless status isn't even due to the "dumb god rules", not unless those rules specifically mandate that any and all bets the gods make between one another are binding.

Which might be a thing, I guess, but seems unnecessary when that can just be a term of the bet itself.

[rbetieh]

And Hel's worshipless status isn't even due to the "dumb god rules", not unless those rules specifically mandate that any and all bets the gods make between one another are binding.

Which might be a thing, I guess, but seems unnecessary when that can just be a term of the bet itself.

Well, the "no take-backs" rule comes into play... I think the most pressing rule is once the world is created, that worlds rules can't be changed. So Hel cant cancel the bet...

[Rrmcklin]

Well, the "no take-backs" rule comes into play... I think the most pressing rule is once the world is created, that worlds rules can't be changed. So Hel cant cancel the bet...

No, it doesn't, because that was specifically about no changing votes already cast a Godsmoot. It says nothing about bets.

[Rogar Demonblud]

She's had just over a thousand years, actually. Keep in mind: The bet is only as old as the current world.

Actually, they're up to a couple thousand (exact number not specified). The date in comic is based on the founding of one kingdom.

[woweedd]

Actually, they're up to a couple thousand (exact number not specified). The date in comic is based on the founding of one kingdom.

Source on that?

[Rrmcklin]

Source on that?

Thor said it in strip 1140.

[B. Dandelion]

Thor said it in strip 1140.

He said that the worlds the gods created lasted a few thousand years each, give or take. But that wasn't the question. Thor said nothing about the year given being based on the founding of a kingdom.

1184 is the year number used in Celestia. That's apparently based on the Northern calendar. It seems like a bit low of a number to fit with "a few thousand years each", but I'm drawing a blank on a specific reference to the world actually being older than that, or on 1184 coming from the foundation of a kingdom somewhere. Maybe the Snarl started to break out a bit earlier than expected this time -- he did leave some wiggle room.

[Dion]

1184 is the year number used in Celestia.

Also, I can’t think of any reason why the world couldn’t have started in year 500 (or whatever).

I mean, the gods booted up a fully functioning world. I’ve seen no indication they had to start everything from 0.

[Emanick]

He said that the worlds the gods created lasted a few thousand years each, give or take. But that wasn't the question. Thor said nothing about the year given being based on the founding of a kingdom.

1184 is the year number used in Celestia. That's apparently based on the Northern calendar. It seems like a bit low of a number to fit with "a few thousand years each", but I'm drawing a blank on a specific reference to the world actually being older than that, or on 1184 coming from the foundation of a kingdom somewhere. Maybe the Snarl started to break out a bit earlier than expected this time -- he did leave some wiggle room.

Bonus material from Don't Split the Party's digital edition establishes that Year 1 was the year when That Kingdom was founded in the Northern Lands. So the world is probably older than that.

Also, I can’t think of any reason why the world couldn’t have started in year 500 (or whatever).

I mean, the gods booted up a fully functioning world. I’ve seen no indication they had to start everything from 0.

Since the calendars were probably invented by mortals, not the gods, it seems unlikely that it would have started in Year 500. (Also, the idea that anyone would deliberately date a calendar from 500 years before the world was created strains credulity.)

[Dion]

(Also, the idea that anyone would deliberately date a calendar from 500 years before the world was created strains credulity.)

I take it you’re not a big fan of Last Thursdayism?

[Emanick]

I take it you’re not a big fan of Last Thursdayism?

Heh, no. Thanks for introducing me to the term, though; I didn't realize that concept had an official name.

[Mad Humanist]

Heh, no. Thanks for introducing me to the term, though; I didn't realize that concept had an official name.

I prefer to call it the Omphalos hypothesis. I fact if anything I believe it is the official term since it is the term coined by the person who seriously proposed it.

[Fyraltari]

I prefer to call it the Omphalos hypothesis. I fact if anything I believe it is the official term since it is the term coined by the person who seriously proposed it.

As I understand it, Last Thursdayanism is a redcution to the absurd of the Omphalos hypothesis, meant to point out how absurd it is. Not a serious proposal.

[Peelee]

As I understand it, Last Thursdayanism is a redcution to the absurd of the Omphalos hypothesis, meant to point out how absurd it is. Not a serious proposal.

Indeed. Also this seems like a good place to change the topic.

So, how about that Hel?