Council of the Clans voting on... what?

[Furious J]

There's a lot of debate about how a vote might or might not go on the discussion thread for 1155. In looking at the different arguments about what would be a "reasonable" or "believable" vote, I came up with an interesting question. (or, well, a question that I find interesting, anyway.)

I think it's more or less a given that the elders were/are going to be presented with the same basic choice that the gods have: end the world, or don't end the world. However, how much context will the elders be given for that decision? It has been mentioned a few times (275, 1137) that the gods won't (can't?) tell their followers about the Snarl unless they are already aware of it somehow.

Are we going to have a bunch of dwarven bigwigs aware of the soul-consuming threat that is imprisoned inside their world after this vote? Or is it going to be something more along these lines?

King Dvalin: A grave choice lies before us. Shall we beseech the gods to end the world, consigning the souls of our entire race to Hel?
Council Elder: O First King, that the gods are considering this is a terrible thing. What reason could there be for such a choice?
King D: Er, technically, I can't tell you that.
C. Elder: ...
King D: Trust me, though, it's a super serious reason. A terrible situation, just the worst.

[Mad Humanist]

Well if Dvalinn does not give them any context, then he is well positioned to phrase the question pointing in a direction of his choice.

[hroþila]

A lot depends on what exactly Dvalin tells them: even if he can't talk about the Snarl specifically, he could still be very convincing, in theory. Regardless, I could see some comedy coming out of this, yeah, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what we see in the comic.

[Fyraltari]

He could go
"There is a high risk that the soul of every mortal will be destroyed in the next few days. While there is a chance this does not come to pass the gods are considering destroying the world and sending all of you to your respective afterlives where your souls would be safe. In the case of your kinsmen however that means Hel. Should I vote to destroy the world or not?"

[Mad Humanist]

He could go
"There is a high risk that the soul of every mortal will be destroyed in the next few days. While there is a chance this does not come to pass the gods are considering destroying the world and sending all of you to your respective afterlives where your souls would be safe. In the case of your kinsmen however that means Hel. Should I vote to destroy the world or not?"

Do you write referendum questions for a living? This question takes me back to 2016. Such a long time ago now.

[Fyraltari]

Do you write referendum questions for a living? This question takes me back to 2016. Such a long time ago now.

No, I do not. I am unsure what you are implying too.

[Furious J]

He could go
"There is a high risk that the soul of every mortal will be destroyed in the next few days. While there is a chance this does not come to pass the gods are considering destroying the world and sending all of you to your respective afterlives where your souls would be safe. In the case of your kinsmen however that means Hel. Should I vote to destroy the world or not?"

I had thought that it would be unconvincing to talk about a "soul-destroying threat" in vague terms, but those terms are actually pretty reasonable. So much for my interesting question.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No, I do not. I am unsure what you are implying too.

Brexit would be my guess, given his location.

And that's all I will say, because politics.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Brexit would be my guess, given his location.

And that's all I will say, because politics.

Grey Wolf

Yes I gathered as much, but I went and looked for how that referendum was phrased and it was nothing like the sentence I wrote so I don't see how that correlates. However if the explanation is political in nature, it'd be best not to give it, indeed.

[D.One]

There's a lot of debate about how a vote might or might not go on the discussion thread for 1155. In looking at the different arguments about what would be a "reasonable" or "believable" vote, I came up with an interesting question. (or, well, a question that I find interesting, anyway.)

I think it's more or less a given that the elders were/are going to be presented with the same basic choice that the gods have: end the world, or don't end the world. However, how much context will the elders be given for that decision? It has been mentioned a few times (275, 1137) that the gods won't (can't?) tell their followers about the Snarl unless they are already aware of it somehow.

Are we going to have a bunch of dwarven bigwigs aware of the soul-consuming threat that is imprisoned inside their world after this vote? Or is it going to be something more along these lines?

King Dvalin: A grave choice lies before us. Shall we beseech the gods to end the world, consigning the souls of our entire race to Hel?
Council Elder: O First King, that the gods are considering this is a terrible thing. What reason could there be for such a choice?
King D: Er, technically, I can't tell you that.
C. Elder: ...
King D: Trust me, though, it's a super serious reason. A terrible situation, just the worst.

That brings me back to the question: how mortals ever come to know about the Snarl?

[NerdyKris]

By falling victim to it. Once they see it reach out and kill someone, their patron god can tell them.

The Dark One wasn't party to that pact, so he was free to tell his High Priest about it.

Soon saw his wife killed, and was likely told by the twelve gods when he communed with them about it. Or he found out all on his lonesome by looking for similar reports with the other members of the Order of the Scribble.

The Order was told by Shojo who was told by his father who was told by Soon.

[woweedd]

That brings me back to the question: how mortals ever come to know about the Snarl?

The fact that people occasionally get murdered by it when those rifts in reality show up. See: what happend to Soon's wife, or when Laurain tried to claim Girad's Rift. And, as Thor's shown, while the Gods can't tell you of the Snarl's existence, they can elaborate if you already know of its exitsence, even if its existence is all you know, hence how Soon learned the backstory.

[D.One]

I've just now thought about a silly situation. Imagine a trickster god submitting his decision to a council of mortals:

King Dvalin's Crazy Sibling: A grave choice lies before us. What do you say? Yes or No?
Council Elder: O First King's Brother, what is thy question? For what shall we say yes or no?
King Dvalin's Crazy Sibling: It doesn't matter. Answer, yes or no.
Council Elder: ...
Complaining Council Elder Lady: Oh, to Hel with this. I vote Yes. Can I depart now?

[Furious J]

I've just now thought about a silly situation. Imagine a trickster god submitting his decision to a council of mortals:

King Dvalin's Crazy Sibling: A grave choice lies before us. What do you say? Yes or No?
Council Elder: O First King's Brother, what is thy question? For what shall we say yes or no?
King Dvalin's Crazy Sibling: It doesn't matter. Answer, yes or no.
Council Elder: ...
Complaining Council Elder Lady: Oh, to Hel with this. I vote Yes. Can I depart now?

Heh, I wonder if the Council of Elders have the option to abstain from votes? Purely hypothetical.

Also, D. One: I snorted at "to Hel with this". Nicely punned.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Heh, I wonder if the Council of Elders have the option to abstain from votes? Purely hypothetical.

If we assume the rules are vaguely analogous as to the ones in the moot, then probably yes, because otherwise, when exactly would Dvalin have stalled a previous vote for two days, when the number of gods that usually attend is odd? Only if one (or more) of the gods abstained. So Abstention is a possibility (either by design or by - as Hel - not being able to attend).

Grey Wolf

[Emanick]

If we assume the rules are vaguely analogous as to the ones in the moot, then probably yes, because otherwise, when exactly would Dvalin have stalled a previous vote for two days, when the number of gods that usually attend is odd? Only if one (or more) of the gods abstained. So Abstention is a possibility (either by design or by - as Hel - not being able to attend).

Grey Wolf

I expect you're right, but it's also possible that, even setting Hel aside, not every deity always has a cleric of sufficiently high level to cast Summon Proxy. We know that Hel has had clerics before, but that they keep dying before they become sufficiently powerful to attend a Godsmoot, so the spell might not be trivial to cast - my headcanon is that it's 5th level, but it could be even higher. If Njord or some other random god/goddess doesn't have a terribly large base of worshippers, it might be the case that occasionally, they simply don't get to send delegates to a Godsmoot because of a lack of powerful followers.

In fact, it's even possible that there are major gods who exist but currently lack powerful enough followers to send to the Moot - maybe their main temple just got wiped out by a fire giant raid, for instance. That's pretty unlikely, though, and I'd bet against it.

Yes I gethered as much but I went and looked for how that referendum was phrased and it was nothing like the sentence I wrote so I don't see how that correlates. However if the expalantion is political in anture it'd be best not to give it, indeed.

I'm not Mad Humanist, but I'd guess that he asked you that because you did a great job of writing something that sounded like an even-handed, very official referendum question.

[Mad Humanist]

I'm not Mad Humanist, but I'd guess that he asked you that because you did a great job of writing something that sounded like an even-handed, very official referendum question.

Yup that's about it.

Yes I gathered as much, but I went and looked for how that referendum was phrased and it was nothing like the sentence I wrote so I don't see how that correlates. However if the explanation is political in nature, it'd be best not to give it, indeed.

You laid out the risks and benefits, rather than completely misdirecting.

Of course I am not going to confirm what I am talking about in case that would be political.

[Fyraltari]

Well, thank you, then.

[thereaper]

I keep having this hilarious idea of the vampires (somehow) successfully dominating the elders (or more hilariously, for them to vote yes on their own), only for Dvalin to ignore them.

"Hey, I said I would consult them. I didn't say I would do what they said!"

[Ruck]

I keep having this hilarious idea of the vampires (somehow) successfully dominating the elders (or more hilariously, for them to vote yes on their own), only for Dvalin to ignore them.

"Hey, I said I would consult them. I didn't say I would do what they said!"

Hah, yeah, there are a lot of funny anticlimactic ways this could happen, but in 1016 he explicitly says "I swore an oath to obey the will of the Council on issues affecting all the clans."

[factotum]

Well if Dvalinn does not give them any context, then he is well positioned to phrase the question pointing in a direction of his choice.

Which seems to me would make the whole thing rather redundant. If Dvalin wants to vote a particular way he was perfectly at liberty to do so at the Godsmoot without having to get a vote from the clans.

[Ruck]

Which seems to me would make the whole thing rather redundant. If Dvalin wants to vote a particular way he was perfectly at liberty to do so at the Godsmoot without having to get a vote from the clans.

That wouldn't be very Lawful of him to violate his oath.

[factotum]

That wouldn't be very Lawful of him to violate his oath.

It would be plain sophistry for him to try and work round it by influencing the council to vote the way he wanted, though.

[woweedd]

That wouldn't be very Lawful of him to violate his oath.

I mean, phrasing his question about the situation deliberately in such a way as to get the result he wants, then working off of that, would be Lawful, but it'd also be Evil, and he seems Lawful Neutral at worst, so...

[RatElemental]

I mean, phrasing his question about the situation deliberately in such a way as to get the result he wants, then working off of that, would be Lawful, but it'd also be Evil, and he seems Lawful Neutral at worst, so...

"Okay, so this tax levy is up for a vote. The funds would go towards building this orphanage and paying for food. You can either vote for the levy, or you can kill some innocent orphans."

I can't see this as being Lawful Evil because he would be phrasing the decision in terms that are overwhelmingly biased, in this case not even mentioning how much the levy is or who it will affect or how it will be carried out or even if it will fund things besides the orphanage too, and instead focusing entirely on the orphans. It's probably more along the lines of Neutral/Chaotic Good.

Similarly, I can't see it being Lawful Evil to phrase the question of whether to destroy the world or not in a way biased towards preventing its destruction. Hell, even biased towards destroying it probably isn't Lawful Evil, and you can make a case for it not being evil due to what's at stake in the event of an uncontrolled demolition.

[woweedd]

"Okay, so this tax levy is up for a vote. The funds would go towards building this orphanage and paying for food. You can either vote for the levy, or you can kill some innocent orphans."

I can't see this as being Lawful Evil because he would be phrasing the decision in terms that are overwhelmingly biased, in this case not even mentioning how much the levy is or who it will affect or how it will be carried out or even if it will fund things besides the orphanage too, and instead focusing entirely on the orphans. It's probably more along the lines of Neutral/Chaotic Good.

Similarly, I can't see it being Lawful Evil to phrase the question of whether to destroy the world or not in a way biased towards preventing its destruction. Hell, even biased towards destroying it probably isn't Lawful Evil, and you can make a case for it not being evil due to what's at stake in the event of an uncontrolled demolition.

While you are correct that deciet is not actually inherently Evil, and I admit to jumping the gun a little, deciet can be Lawful, quite easily, as Lawful characters will often willfully deceive. Out-and-out lying is Chaotic, but, as Tarquin can tell you, deciet isn’t, and there are many ways to deceive without technically lying. See: Tarquin’s famous “I said i’d be sending solodiers, I never said what side they’d be on.” Or, Hell*, Devils deceive about as easily as breathing, and they’re technically embodiments of Law, as well as Evil.

*Literally.

[Dion]

Maybe Dvalin wants the world to end. Maybe he’s sick of being the demigod of dwarves, and wants to be demigod of sentient toasters, or house elves, or whatever is in store for him for the next world.

“In this world, I’m the first king of the sentient kitchen appliances, and I vow to always consult the clan of ancient microwaves, egg beaters, and soap dispensers before making any decision that affects them all!”

[Furious J]

Hm, now we're on to alignment, eh?

I agree that King Dvalin could word the question in a biased fashion to swing the vote. However, based on what we've seen of him so far (which is admittedly very little to go on), I don't think that he would, or that he will. He (as channeled via his proxy) didn't seem particularly alarmed at the Godsmoot, and I think that's because with or without Hel's machinations, this is not a trivial decision. One choice is very bad for the dwarves, but the other carries the risk of oblivion for everyone. It's fitting, if painful, that the dwarf elders themselves have to make this call, and I don't think there is an unambiguously correct (or good or evil) choice.

I'm actually a little curious about how the consultation process would work, mechanically, given the fact that King Dvalin can't specifically mention the Snarl. If the demigod were to phrase the choice in roughly the same way that Fyraltari did, the members of the council might very well have questions. Do they have an opportunity to ask King Dvalin for more information? Or do they just have to speculate and debate amongst themselves based on the originally-worded choice put before them?

(Assuming that the OotS do put a stop to the Vampire Vote-Riggers, it's actually quite lucky that they will end up being on hand for the deliberations. If the elders do have questions, Roy et al. just so happen to be able to talk about the Snarl and to outline more of the details about this nebulous "high risk" that all souls are under.)

Maybe Dvalin wants the world to end. Maybe he’s sick of being the demigod of dwarves, and wants to be demigod of sentient toasters, or house elves, or whatever is in store for him for the next world.

“In this world, I’m the first king of the sentient kitchen appliances, and I vow to always consult the clan of ancient microwaves, egg beaters, and soap dispensers before making any decision that affects them all!”

Oh, sure, dwarves are often characterized as cantankerous or "gruff". But I can only imagine being the demi-god king of sentient kitchen appliances. Hell, the ancient microwaves' solution to any problem would be to nuke it!

[martianmister]

Fyraltari basically end the thread.

[Furious J]

Fyraltari basically end the thread.

He sure did! It was a good answer to my question. While I still think it'll be interesting to see how much information about the Snarl the clan elders will have after the vote is resolved, there's not much more to say on it.