OOTS #1171 - The Discussion Thread

[D.One]

He specifically says that he doesn't care because "hardly any of these were mine anyway", implying he would care if this was mostly his.

(I think another implication of this is that Hel doesn't end up getting very many disputed souls that would otherwise go to Loki in the first place, because he's good at contract-trickery and the like.)

Or, more probably in the context given in the comic, Hel doesn't get many Loki's followers because there are very few dwarven Loki's followers, given all the honor thing and Loki being usually an enemy of Thor, who plays a central role in dwarven culture. Remember, Hel doesn't get (and have to argue about) all the dishonorable dead, just the dwarves.

Which puts the entire premise of OoTS on unsteady ground. Core premise of the Order forming: Blood Oath of Revenge (against Xykon) by an LG wizard is passed to his LG son, who takes it up. He forms a party to help accomplish that goal.

Shenanigans ensue for the next 7 books.

Except that Roy himself distanced from that premise some time ago, opting not to sit and let Xykon get away with whatever he's got planned just because his father happens to be a self-absorbed arrogant jerk.

[borg286]

I apologize if this has been theorized elsewhere but could we get some demi-god get raised into the pantheon if enough worshipers get sent from Hel to him/her? If so, would they then get a vote?
Based on how quickly Thor accepted either time or souls, I'm thinking he took the least suspected-by-Hel option, namely souls moving power from Hel.
Either This will drain her enough, boost some underdog enough, or occupy her enough to tip the balance.

[jwhouk]

Durkon did do what he thought was right, and offered to marry her. The offer was rejected, to put it lightly. Her part seems pretty done to me.

What you did there? I saw it. B)

I'm just wondering how the Giant is going to wrap this chapter up - unless he already decided that a strip in the past few hundred was actually the finale to this particular book?

[Quebbster]

I apologize if this has been theorized elsewhere but could we get some demi-god get raised into the pantheon if enough worshipers get sent from Hel to him/her? If so, would they then get a vote?

Probably not.

Based on how quickly Thor accepted either time or souls, I'm thinking he took the least suspected-by-Hel option, namely souls moving power from Hel.
Either This will drain her enough, boost some underdog enough, or occupy her enough to tip the balance.

I Think Thor saw an opportunity to free some dwarf souls from Hel and took it. Doesn't need to be more to it.

[Worldsong]

See, Hel? If Loki got mad at Hilgya for that, then he would be a hypocrite.

Hmm. Based on that philosophy, I guess Loki's alignment would have to be True Neutral. He's Lawful and Chaotic depending on what's convenient and morality has more or less no bearing on decisions.

I knew someone was going to make this mistake. To clarify, no no no no no no no no no no.

Loki's Chaotic, you don't turn Lawful or Neutral when you follow or enforce a law/rule solely because it works out in your favour. To be Lawful you need to believe that it's important for rules to exist and be followed under all circumstances, with breaking them only being justified if that rule ends up being in conflict with whatever objective the system is supposed to achieve. The system, not your own wants.

Someone who breaks rules at every opportunity but follows them when they work in their favour is pragmatically Chaotic. Also known as intelligently Chaotic, cunningly Chaotic, realistically Chaotic, sensibly Chaotic...

I thought we were over the whole plot of "killing an entire family because a few of them did something wrong might not be a good idea"?

It's not going to be over until we agree with Weirdo, so it's an eternal struggle.

Thor's clerics won't bother ressurecting dwarves who died in a mining accident (and thus doomed to Hel even if they otherwise had 100% honorable lives until then) unless paid a big pile of shiny gold and gems, and Thor himself is "meh" when it happens.

Thor also forgot to tell any of his followers that even if you die "honorably" against a vampire, your soul gets stuck inside the new vampire.

Actually there was a whole vampire invasion of the dwarven realm, Thor's clergy slaughtered as they hoped to die honorable deaths to get to valhalla, but instead their souls get locked inside even more vampires, and Thor was still "meh".

And when Durkon finally broke free from the vampire (something that Thor didn't move a single finger to help with), Thor was all "hey I want you to return to the cold cruel world and risk your life again", then Durkon got incinerated by the highest priestess of Loki herself and Thor was still "meh".

So considering how Thor doesn't really does anything to protect his worshipers, and actually sends them into even greater dangers when they're supposed to be rewarded, yet his worshipers remain fanatical to him, I don't see how Loki would need to bother.

Oh god it's you again. All right, let's smash this hateboner, although honestly others have already pointed out the blatant silliness of these assumptions.

First off, as has been stated before, resurrection isn't free and it's generally safe to assume that clerics don't have large amounts of wealth sitting around waiting for the opportunity to be used in a resurrection spell. Money tends to be something which doesn't accumulate easily for most people. Could the dwarven society set up a system where they constantly keep enough gold available for resurrections? Possibly. More likely is that clans try to keep enough gold available for their own kin since even Good people can still prioritize their own loved ones, under the reasoning that someone being dear to you personally doesn't somehow lower their objective value.

Second, as the Giant has (ONCE AGAIN) stated, vampires are extremely rare in the OotS world and the odds of you encountering them are really, really low. Combine that with the fact that gods can't just send detailed messages to their followers (coming back to this later) and it's safe to assume that Thor never had both opportunity and motive to warn them, since even if he got the opportunity to send a detailed message he probably wasn't thinking about vampires at that point in time because vampires are almost never on anyone's mind by virtue of being really, really rare.

Thor going meh is definitely, certainly, absolutely depicted in the comic. Well done for spotting such an explicit expression of not caring.

And yeah let's forget that Thor went out of his way to check whether Durkon wanted to go back because, in his own words, he would've felt like a jerk if he told Durkon to go back against his will. Granted he would have done so if needed, but because saving the world is important, not because he revels in treating his followers like crap and expendable pawns.

And as Thor has ALSO stated, he couldn't really talk to Durkon until Durkon was dead. There is no sign of the gods having an open channel with the living. Clerics have spells which allow them to contact gods but those tend to have very limited information flow. Which is why it could actually be considered admirable that Thor found a way to warn the dwarves that they need to die honourably for that bet which Loki tricked him into while he was drunk thus not making him the evil mastermind (I shouldn't have to specify that last part but apparently when someone decides they dislike Thor they will pile everything on him, regardless of whether it makes any sense).

The point here is that you COULD twist all of this into Thor not actually caring. You'd just have to presume that every time Thor does something which helps someone else or says something nice it's a lie or is really just about how it works out for him. And when you've decided that every good thing someone does doesn't count because they REALLY must be doing it for how it benefits themselves you've ended up in the pit of "I've already decided this person is bad so only unrealistic acts of altruism could convince me otherwise".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Based on that philosophy, I guess Loki's alignment would have to be True Neutral. He's Lawful and Chaotic depending on what's convenient and morality has more or less no bearing on decisions.

His philosophy also includes considering humiliating others a good reason to do something, which lands him squarely on the Evil category. And as Worldsong has already quite correctly pointed out, following some rules when it is convenient to do so isn't a mark of neutrality. Following rules when it's to your advantage is not an indicator of any kind. You can only judge such things when what you want to do and what the rules tell you you should do are in opposition. Since Loki cheats "all the time", that tells us he is chaotic: his respect for rules is non-existent.

Grey Wolf

[danielxcutter]

I still think Loki is Chaotic Evil, but at the very least a different type than, say, Fenrir:

Tear down the world! Murder everyone! Piss on their graves! Fenrir, God of Monsters, votes Yes.

I'd say Loki's place is in Pandemonium while Fenrir is squatting somewhere in the Abyss. Maybe he's the OotSverse counterpart to Baphomet.

[Resileaf]

Loki would be lawful if he was described as being highly reluctant to break the rules. As it is, he has only been described as only paying heed to them when they arrange him or when they absolutely need to be followed or the whole world unravels.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'd say Loki's place is in Pandemonium

The problem is that according to his priest, his place is in Valhalla. I distrust anything Hilgya says, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with a reason why she'd be wrong on such a basic point of knowledge about the abode of her god.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

The problem is that according to his priest, his place is in Valhalla. I distrust anything Hilgya says, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with a reason why she'd be wrong on such a basic point of knowledge about the abode of her god.

Grey Wolf

Who says he cant have a place in both? He lives in Pandemonium, but the North Pantheon always keeps his bedroom clean for him in Valhalla for whenever he feels like coming by to visit, say hi to Mom, etc...

And then he stays about a week longer than he's welcome, until eventually Thor has to kick him out since he has a perfectly nice home of his own already, and he never helps out with the chores, and he leaves crumbs all over Odin's nice chair.

[fishhead202]

I really thought this was going to go differently.

Thor/Loki haggle over souls, Hel is just annoyed, and does a "take them I don't care!". They do a bunch more with the same result, and eventually they get her to give up ALL her souls, weakening her to the point that her vamps lose power.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I really thought this was going to go differently.

Thor/Loki haggle over souls, Hel is just annoyed, and does a "take them I don't care!". They do a bunch more with the same result, and eventually they get her to give up ALL her souls, weakening her to the point that her vamps lose power.

If that were the case, this'd be an entry in "the Wacky Adventures of Thor and Loki", not "Order of the Stick, book 6 (title pending)".

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

If that were the case, this'd be an entry in "the Wacky Adventures of Thor and Loki", not "Order of the Stick, book 6 (title pending)".

Grey Wolf

Or possibly "The Order of the Stick: the wacky adventures of Thor and Loki?"

[Krenn]

Not really, the Alignment spectrum actually boils down to two very simple tilt scales that together make a TON of nuance and detail.

Good to Evil cares about your views on the good of others vs the good of yourself. A purely Good person would always help someone else even if it hurts them. A purely Evil person will do whatever it takes to get what THEY want even if it hurts others.

There's no requirement to not care about friends and family, not be able to cooperate if needed. It's just all about self interest. Loki is Evil because his tenet is always do what's best for him. Only he matters. He loves his brother sure, but if it came down to his brother or him dying, bye Thor. He cares about his Priests, so long as their care has benefit to him and doesn't hinder. Etc, etc.



No, it's evil. For the above reasons. Law to Chaos only cares about your view on personal freedom vs society.

That's one of the big ongoing arguments, in the various versions and interpretations of the two-axis alignment system out there.

I tend to argue that being evil means that given an all-things-otherwise-equal choice, you will generally take the most malicious and harmful option. even when the other options might hypothetically technically be more productive, you will generally go for malicious and harmful whenever you can justify it according to your pre-existing evil biases. And you commonly spend your free time being malicious just because you can.

Being good means the opposite: given an otherwise-equal-choice, you will generally take the least harmful, most beneficial to others, with reasonable levels of risk, trust, and self-sacrifice option. in accordance with your other biases, such as your god, career, country, and family.

Pure and aggressive selfishness, as a stable philosophy, is basically neutral: You don't want to actively harm other people just for the sake of harming them, nor do you especially want to help anyone, beyond your own small family or social group. You JUST want to help yourself, or possibly help your chosen cause which is itself indifferent to good or evil, such as Architecture, or Libraries. Which means you evaluate everything selfishly or myopically, and can cooperate with good or evil as you see fit, in furtherance of your own selfish goals.

A Neutral follow of the God of Architecture, who lives in a generally good-aligned city, probably won't get into too much trouble; he's just designing safe and stable buildings. But his only personal goals are to design stable buildings, get paid, and not die. If the city turns evil, he'll be just as selfishly willing to design slave labor camps, necromancer labs, and torture chambers. As long as he still gets paid, and isn't expected to violate his core beliefs by using shoddy materials or falsified inspection reports.

By the same token, a lot of professional thieves are going to be Neutral, on the theory that they're thieves, not murderers or saboteurs. They just want to own your stuff as quietly and efficiently as possible, without getting caught, and without doing so much collateral damage that people will feel obliged to hunt them down later.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

By the same token, a lot of professional thieves are going to be Neutral, on the theory that they're thieves, not murderers or saboteurs. They just want to own your stuff as quietly and efficiently as possible, without getting caught, and without doing so much collateral damage that people will feel obliged to hunt them down later.

No. Taking stuff from others without their consent harms them. That there are worse ways to harm them doesn't get you off the hook. A career built on deliberately harming others for your own advancement is Evil.

Grey Wolf

[Resileaf]

No. Taking stuff from others without their consent harms them. That there are worse ways to harm them doesn't get you off the hook. A career built on deliberately harming others for your own advancement is Evil.

Grey Wolf

Isn't that adventuring in a nutshell?
Mostly joking

[knag]

I still think Loki is Chaotic Evil, but at the very least a different type than, say, Fenrir:



I'd say Loki's place is in Pandemonium while Fenrir is squatting somewhere in the Abyss. Maybe he's the OotSverse counterpart to Baphomet.

{scrubbed}So yeah. I think he's absolutely the Stickverse Baphomet.

I've read a lot of opinions here saying that "Do what thou wilt" is evil. But I disagree. Loki says to "do whatever's best for you". Whether that is good or evil depends on your wants, what you think is "best for you". One could apply Kant's categorical imperative, or Mill's Utilitarianism to this Loki-Thelema and arrive at a fairly ethical philosophy. By itself it is fairly neutral to the morality of "best for you", and only becomes evil when you pick out the examples where Hilgya or Loki chose something that was best for them and hurtful to someone else, and ignore those where they help others.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Isn't that adventuring in a nutshell?
Mostly joking

Morderhobo adventuring, certainly. I pride myself in that after a certain point, any good character I've played had better reasons for their adventures than Belkar's "they're green and we're not, and they have stuff I want".

Grey Wolf

[Worldsong]

I think the closest I've come to a blatant murderhobo character was one who was sent to explore the world because the people back home wanted to acquire more knowledge.

And their first quest was to eliminate some goblinoids who had been harassing the countryside (sounds familiar doesn't it).

Only after the dungeon had been cleared did it become apparent that the real reason the goblinoids needed to die was to create an excuse for the nation next door (which has a lot of civilized monster inhabitants) to invade.

We quickly left that place.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think the closest I've come to a blatant murderhobo character was one who was sent to explore the world because the people back home wanted to acquire more knowledge.

I mean, the most blatant murderhobo I've played was the character in the example adventure in the player's manual, which starts you off at the entrance of a dungeon, and you just go in, kill stuff, and take the treasure.

Since I didn't know better, I modeled several games after that pattern before adding a measure of reason to the proceedings.

Grey Wolf

[Worldsong]

I mean, the most blatant murderhobo I've played was the character in the example adventure in the player's manual, which starts you off at the entrance of a dungeon, and you just go in, kill stuff, and take the treasure.

Since I didn't know better, I modeled several games after that pattern before adding a measure of reason to the proceedings.

Grey Wolf

I had the advantage of getting started with DnD relatively late in life so me and everyone I played with had an actual interest in worldbuilding.

Of course the years of freeform online RPing also helped with that.

[zimmerwald1915]

I think the closest I've come to a blatant murderhobo character was one who was sent to explore the world because the people back home wanted to acquire more knowledge.

Exploration is always, one hundred percent of the time, a prelude to [attempted] expansionism. Knowledge advances so that it may be exploited. People who want to advance it for its own sake are useful idiots.

I'm glad you learned this lesson in a game.

[Worldsong]

Exploration is always, one hundred percent of the time, a prelude to [attempted] expansionism. Knowledge advances so that it may be exploited. People who want to advance it for its own sake are useful idiots.

I'm glad you learned this lesson in a game.

In the defense of my character, she was a ratfolk from a small warren who just like to write things down while hiding underground, and the plot to get one nation to attack another was from some filthy surface dweller.

EDIT: also the entire quest happened outside of the borders of the nation my character originated from and her home nation wasn't really involved in any way.

[The MunchKING]

His philosophy also includes considering humiliating others a good reason to do something, which lands him squarely on the Evil category.

I don't agree, necessarily. Humiliating stuck-up and vain authority figures is a pretty Chaotic thing, with whether it's good, evil, or neutral being how much you humiliate them relative to how much they deserve being taken down a few pegs. At least in the context of trickster Gods in places like Scion. So if Thor was being a huge ass about how righteous and Good he is or he's secretly really tyrannical, I would say humiliating him would be Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good. Now I know Thor isn't really a tyrant crushing all dissent, but I disagree with the concept that humiliating someone is automatically Evil.

[D.One]

Maybe he's the OotSverse counterpart to Baphomet.

Or maybe he's the counterpart to Fenrir, {scrubbed}, since, in most D&D, Devils and Demons (like Baphomet) are entities separate from evil gods.

[Dion]

... but I disagree with the concept that humiliating someone is automatically Evil.

For human beings, humiliation and other forms forms of social ostracism cause actual harm (sure, it’s the type of harm that doesn’t show up when you x-ray the fat deposit in the skull, but it is still actual harm).

Harming someone for your amusement, or for no reason but because you think they “deserve” to be harmed, is evil.

[Rogar Demonblud]

After they abandoned her. She fell off when a flight spell got dispelled, and the linear jerks didn't bother to search for her...

Well, they did get there two-dimensional behinds kicked all over the place very shortly thereafter. One dead, one arrested, two captured and one fled.

[zimmerwald1915]

Harming someone for your amusement, or for no reason but because you think they “deserve” to be harmed, is evil.

This sort of absolutism leads to absurd results. For example, every judge delivering a civil judgment becomes Evil.

[Worldsong]

Well, they did get there two-dimensional behinds kicked all over the place very shortly thereafter. One dead, one arrested, two captured and one fled.

True, although it's also true that Hilgya didn't abandon them by choice. I doubt they planned to drop her but I don't think she let go on purpose either.

[zimmerwald1915]

In the defense of my character, she was a ratfolk from a small warren who just like to write things down while hiding underground, and the plot to get one nation to attack another was from some filthy surface dweller.

EDIT: also the entire quest happened outside of the borders of the nation my character originated from and her home nation wasn't really involved in any way.

This isn't any kind of defense, and if anything, reinforces her in the role of useful idiot.