OOTS #1171 - The Discussion Thread

[Worldsong]

That is semantically true - because the legions of Hell aren't real, unlike "normal populations" like the ones to which you and I belong. They exist in stories humans make up to tell each other. You've accepted a story where they serve a role or acceptible targets, while someone else might accept another population in their place - orcs, for instance.

The important difference there is that I only accept them as acceptable targets because by definition they are incompatible with anything good or decent. I have a distinct hatred for discrimination, the only reason why devils are the exception is because they are supposed to be the exception. They're supposed to represent everything wrong, they're not even full-fledged creatures like orcs who are supposed to be flesh and blood like us, with actual wants and needs and who can be understood and reasoned with if enough effort is made.

Traditional devils are not supposed to have any of that. A traditional devil is supposed to just be the physical form of the single intent to inflict suffering through any means.

[zimmerwald1915]

Are you suggesting that its impossible for a group to exist that definitionally deserves a specific reaction?

Haven't met one yet. Why are you so invested in imagining one?

[Worldsong]

Haven't met one yet. Why are you so interested in imagining one?

You say that as if we're the first ones to do it, rather than devils being a rather old concept of 'literally everything bad'

[Keltest]

Haven't met one yet. Why are you so invested in imagining one?

Because a story of a hero overcoming villains would be really short and boring if there weren't actually any villains, and there are a certain subset of people who cant enjoy such a story if the villains are anything short of utterly irredeemable.

[zimmerwald1915]

You say that as if we're the first ones to do it

I said nothing of the kind. My point, if you'll recall, was that there wasn't so much daylight between your fundamental position and The_Weirdo's as you might like to think. This presupposes someone holding these positions before you.

I'm not even condemning you over it; I've defended The_Weirdo at points, mostly because he draws his friend/enemy distinction to favor the poor and the weak rather than the rich and the strong (who could stand to be poorer and weaker, frankly).

[Worldsong]

I said nothing of the kind. My point, if you'll recall, was that there wasn't so much daylight between your fundamental position and The_Weirdo's as you might like to think. This presupposes someone holding these positions before you.

I'm not even condemning you over it; I've defended The_Weirdo at points, mostly because he draws his friend/enemy distinction to favor the poor and the weak rather than the rich and the strong (who could stand to be poorer and weaker, frankly).

There is a very important difference there, namely that I'm not condemning people to a mass slaughter because a single individual got tormented by a small portion of them. I'm saying that when you're dealing with literal manifestations of evil the same rules do not apply, which IS very different.

If those devils are capable of good then that changes my stance immediately and drastically, which is exactly the point where Weirdo goes into the wrong direction so far as I'm concerned because he essentially dismisses the value of all those people inside that city. The moment that one wrong thing has happened he immediately declares them all deserving of death, even if many of them spend their time trying to do good.

[zimmerwald1915]

If those devils are capable of good then that changes my stance immediately and drastically, which is exactly the point where Weirdo goes into the wrong direction so far as I'm concerned because he essentially dismisses the value of all those people inside that city. The moment that one wrong thing has happened he immediately declares them all deserving of death, even if many of them spend their time trying to do good.

If we're talking D&D devils (which I certainly was - SCS was playing D&D 3.5) then yes, every one of them is capable of Good. Not just Good acts, but outright alignment shift. Just like every other creature.

Nothing ontological about D&D devils changes that. Not being made of evil, not having the [evil] subtype, nothing. There is no line. Drawing one, again, just means that in order to convince you to designate an acceptable target, one just has to convince you of its lack of moral agency. Which is easy enough to do. I'd rather not mention any examples in this brave new world of active mods eager to prove themselves, but I'm sure you can call them to mind easily enough.

[The_Weirdo]

There is a very important difference there, namely that I'm not condemning people to a mass slaughter because a single individual got tormented by a small portion of them. I'm saying that when you're dealing with literal manifestations of evil the same rules do not apply, which IS very different.

If those devils are capable of good then that changes my stance immediately and drastically, which is exactly the point where Weirdo goes into the wrong direction so far as I'm concerned because he essentially dismisses the value of all those people inside that city. The moment that one wrong thing has happened he immediately declares them all deserving of death, even if many of them spend their time trying to do good.

Have you read "The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas"?

[Worldsong]

{scrubbed}

[zimmerwald1915]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Did we seriously just have a three-page argument over a misunderstood literary reference?

[Worldsong]

Did we seriously just have a three-page argument over a misunderstood literary reference?

If you're talking about the thing with Weirdo, that's gone on for much longer than that.

The thing between you and me hasn't gone on for longer than about twenty posts or something.

[Throknor]

We have proof in this very comic of what Loki thinks of saving a few of his followers' souls: not worth the time it'd take to swindle them out of Hel's grasp.

Hilgya is an entertaining little bugger, and he is proud of how she puts her own wants above the needs of those around her - and even his, Loki's, needs! - (more proud than he is mad that she bailed, at any rate), and thus he will continue to empower her to keep murdering Thor priests over inappropriate marriage proposals.

But it is a far cry from that to say that the loophole is Loki's teaching or that it will work. She's an agent of chaos, right or wrong, and that is likely enough for Loki to continue to grant her spells, even if in the end, he won't lift a finger to rescue her from Hel.

Grey Wolf

This thread took a not just a left turn, but one that's feels perpendicular to reality. But I want to clarify the point I was trying to make from Hilgya's point of view: Not that she was right but that by being granted spells she isn't completely delusional in thinking Loki approves. To use a forced analogy, its as if Bob thinks Chelsea "likes" him because she talks with him when no other women does. While he may be wrong he could be right. Unlike Frank who gets jealous of Bob even though Chelsea has never even talked to him - he just "knows" they are meant to be together.

I think when Hilgya dies Loki might argue for her if he's in the neighborhood, but you are correct that it isn't written in his "to-do" list as a guaranteed action like Hilgya hopes it is. It may even be that she wouldn't be surprised if she is wrong but her personality is such that she would rather end up with Hel than be honorable all the time. She could recognize the Loki "loophole" as a longshot but that doesn't mean she would describe it as such to others.

[Aquillion]

From what data we're given she was forced into the marriage itself with chains and crossbows, but on the other hand apparently once the marriage had been made official there wasn't much stopping her from running away (for the first person to argue that there could have been lots of obstacles which she managed to overcome, I don't remember those being mentioned anywhere in the comic so they can't realistically be used as an argument).

She also implied she was unable to get a divorce until she scammed her clan out of their fortune, leaving them too distracted to fight back. Obviously this isn't the same as being physically locked in place, but it was a serious problem for her (see eg. Durkon's reaction when he discovered she was married.)

A lot of the other arguments over that depend on how big her clan was and, therefore, how much responsibility the people affected by her scamming them bore - people's guesses have ranged from "just the five or so dwarves we saw, all of whom were directly involved in her arranged marriage" to "thousands of dwarves, including poor sweet innocent hypothetical children who are now hypothetically starving to death."

But in general I think it's silly to fixate too much on that particular thing. Scamming people out of money isn't axiomatically evil, even (especially?) if done for revenge, and even if it hurts people indirectly - I don't believe at all that Haley was always careful to only steal from evil people, say. And the game sort of has to be structured like this to let people play rogues who aren't evil.

And even if they are evil, it runs a sort of fine line. I mean the OOTS pretty remorselessly murdered a teenage dragon for his bling - yes, he attacked them, but only while they were in the middle of a home invasion robbery. In most real-world legal contexts that wouldn't qualify as self-defense, and could even be premeditated murder if they went in there knowing his death was a possibility. What I'm saying is that for certain specific things - especially when it comes to stealing - there's a degree of genre convention that people aren't extending to Hilgya in this case.

(I would still say she's probably evil based on her overall expressed outlook, but the line between self-interested, non-omnicidal Chaotic Evil and indifferent-almost-to-the-point-of-sociopathy Chaotic Neutral is fairly thin.)

[Worldsong]

She also implied she was unable to get a divorce until she scammed her clan out of their fortune, leaving them too distracted to fight back. Obviously this isn't the same as being physically locked in place, but it was a serious problem for her (see eg. Durkon's reaction when he discovered she was married.)

A lot of the other arguments over that depend on how big her clan was and, therefore, how much responsibility the people affected by her scamming them bore - people's guesses have ranged from "just the five or so dwarves we saw, all of whom were directly involved in her arranged marriage" to "thousands of dwarves, including poor sweet innocent hypothetical children who are now hypothetically starving to death."

But in general I think it's silly to fixate too much on that particular thing. Scamming people out of money isn't axiomatically evil, even (especially?) if done for revenge, and even if it hurts people indirectly - I don't believe at all that Haley was always careful to only steal from evil people, say. And the game sort of has to be structured like this to let people play rogues who aren't evil.

(And even if they are evil, it runs a sort of fine line. I mean the OOTS pretty remorselessly murdered a teenage dragon for his bling - yes, he attacked them, but only while they were in the middle of a home invasion robbery. In most real-world legal contexts that wouldn't qualify as self-defense, and could even be premeditated murder if they went in there knowing his death was a possibility.)

I don't believe there's such a thing as axiomatic evil.

In this case it'd be evil mostly because it seems relatively safe to say that it harms a lot of people who weren't necessarily actively involved in the injustice Hilgya was suffering. Also because of how it's portrayed motivation-wise, namely that Hilgya accepted it as a more feasible alternative to burning down the clan hall because it wouldn't harm her child's lungs.

[Keltest]

I don't understand why people are saying that Loki wouldn't argue for Hilgya. Its in his own best interests to do so, and the only reason he isn't doing so here is because Hel will either win the argument handily, or agree and thus deprive him of his ability to stay and watch her.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't understand why people are saying that Loki wouldn't argue for Hilgya.

Because Loki is in the current comic not bothering to argue for his own followers. If he isn't willing to argue when a few of his followers are involved, even when all it takes is to come up with a transparently BS reason as Thor did, I don't see a reason he would when it might take some actual argumentation if Hilgya has died dishonorably.

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

Because Loki is in the current comic not bothering to argue for his own followers. If he isn't willing to argue when a few of his followers are involved, even when all it takes is to come up with a transparently BS reason as Thor did, I don't see a reason he would when it might take some actual argumentation if Hilgya has died dishonorably.

Grey Wolf

Because he's making the same calculation as Thor in this scene: the souls have no or negligible value to him for their own sake, they have value to the extent they can be useful to him. It so happened that Thor got the most use out of the souls by arguing for them and drawing Hel's attention away from his priest, while Loki is getting the most use out of them by using them as an excuse to hang around and keep an eye on Hel to make sure she doesn't get up to any shenanigans.

In another context, Loki might argue for those souls. Or Hilgya's soul. Who knows? And who knows what context Hilgya's soul might come up in?

Loki is, if nothing else, fickle. Trying to predict his behavior from past behavior alone is something of a fool's errand.

[Worldsong]

Because Loki is in the current comic not bothering to argue for his own followers. If he isn't willing to argue when a few of his followers are involved, even when all it takes is to come up with a transparently BS reason as Thor did, I don't see a reason he would when it might take some actual argumentation if Hilgya has died dishonorably.

Grey Wolf

Maybe she's worth more because she's an actual cleric?

I mean personally I don't think Loki would be terribly invested in saving her hide once she's dead but if you were to look for a reason why he might prioritize her over those uncontested souls my first guess would be that clerics are worth more.

That or maybe it's easier to get her away from Hel because she'd be a recently deceased soul. Being uncontested doesn't mean they haven't been stuck with Hel for a while already.

[Dion]

You've accepted a story where they serve a role or acceptible targets...

You know what Homer said about stories! ”Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie, and one to listener.”

You know what else Homer said about stories? “Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another.”

Yep, that Homer sure knows a lot about stories.

[zimmerwald1915]

You know what Homer said about stories! ”Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie, and one to listener.”

You know what else Homer said about stories? “Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another.”

Yep, that Homer sure knows a lot about stories.

Joke was funnier the first time.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Maybe she's worth more because she's an actual cleric?

It could be. But like with the originating assertion that Hilgya's loophole came from Loki rather than her, I see no reason to assume so. They are possibiities, not certainties. And thus one should be careful when constructing any argument that uses them as foundational.

Grey Wolf

[Dion]

Joke was funnier the first time.

Not gonna be get funnier the third time.

But seriously, you’re posting on a comic book forum about stick figures that are fighting an evil lich. And you’re slagging on people who like to read stories that treat devils as evil personified?

I mean, I kind of get where you’re going with this. It’s not good to train your brain to think of anyone or anything as an irredeemable “other”. That path just leads to fear, hatred, anger, and regrettable tweets.

But isn’t there a less ridiculous way to make your point?

Edit: awww darn, the end of the argument was scrubbed.

[Worldsong]

Not gonna be get funnier the third time.

But seriously, you’re posting on a comic book forum about stick figures that are fighting an evil lich. And you’re slagging on people who like to read stories that treat devils as evil personified?

I mean, I kind of get where you’re going with this. It’s not good to train your brain to think of anyone or anything as an irredeemable “other”. That path just leads to fear, hatred, anger, and regrettable tweets.

But isn’t there a less ridiculous way to make your point?

In all fairness it turns out I was misunderstanding the reference.

EDIT: There wasn't much of an end anyway, it was just the realization that we'd been talking about different things the entire time.

[Dion]

In all fairness it turns out I was misunderstanding the reference.

And I’m sure I’m misunderstanding big parts of the argument. Sometimes I just like to be a curmudgeon and point out that we’re on the internet arguing about stick figures... we sometimes take ourselves waaaaay too seriously.

[The_Weirdo]

In all fairness it turns out I was misunderstanding the reference.

EDIT: There wasn't much of an end anyway, it was just the realization that we'd been talking about different things the entire time.

Then it's not really my fault, now is it?

[Worldsong]

Then it's not really my fault, now is it?

I meant the thing between me and Zimmer.

Reading a synopsis of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas still doesn't make me agree with your stance.

[zimmerwald1915]

Not gonna be get funnier the third time.

But seriously, you’re posting on a comic book forum about stick figures that are fighting an evil lich.

I'm rather glad Mr. Burlew doesn't read the forums anymore, to see you being so dismissive of his work and missing the point of it so badly. Especially when he's gone out of his way to beat us all about the head with that point.

[Keltest]

Because Loki is in the current comic not bothering to argue for his own followers. If he isn't willing to argue when a few of his followers are involved, even when all it takes is to come up with a transparently BS reason as Thor did, I don't see a reason he would when it might take some actual argumentation if Hilgya has died dishonorably.

Grey Wolf

Loki isn't here to argue for hopeless cases though, he's here to make sure that Hel doesn't cheat and destroy the world. Yeah, he could save a few hundred souls, but then Hel could do something sneaky and against the rules, like spontaneously kill Durkon with a heart attack, and that would doom all however-many-dwarves-there-are to that same fate.

[Worldsong]

I'm rather glad Mr. Burlew doesn't read the forums anymore, to see you being so dismissive of his work and missing the point of it so badly. Especially when he's gone out of his way to beat us all about the head with that point.

I dunno, I think he'd appreciate seeing that there's people who can enjoy his work in a lighthearted fashion and point out to others that they shouldn't get too deep into arguments about it.

[The_Weirdo]

I meant the thing between me and Zimmer.

Reading a synopsis of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas still doesn't make me agree with your stance.

Okay, then let me help you out by pointing something that may or may not have been in the synopsis you read:

The child that suffers so the utopia may go on is introduced to every last one of its inhabitants after said inhabitants reach a certain age. The author specifies that the condition for the utopia to keep existing is the mistreatment of the child - and that, should anyone help the child at all - at all! - the utopia ceases to exist.

Conversely, that means that, if anyone that goes visit the child so much as hugs the child, the reason for mistreating the child goes away, and the child can be treated decently, if decently for the standards of a now-flawed society.

The ones that stay in Omelas do not; they are willing to sacrifice an innocent for their happiness.
The ones that walk away from Omelas do not, but opt not to benefit from it.

No one from Omelas, absolutely no one takes the very simple steps that would be necessary to make it stop.

Did your synopsis tell you that?