Prediction Page, (bring your quatloos, gps, and internets, you'll need them.)

[Somniloquist]

I will bet two delicious fruit pies (one apple and one blueberry) that the potential for the Snarl to spare someone from an unpleasant afterlife by ending their existence entirely...

1. Will be explicitly brought up, but...

2. Will not actually happen to Xykon, Redcloak, or Vaarsuvius. (I'm not quite willing to bet on Belkar.)

[Peelee]

I'll take that action.

[brian 333]

I will bet two delicious fruit pies (one apple and one blueberry) that the potential for the Snarl to spare someone from an unpleasant afterlife by ending their existence entirely...

1. Will be explicitly brought up, but...

2. Will not actually happen to Xykon, Redcloak, or Vaarsuvius. (I'm not quite willing to bet on Belkar.)

I'll add a Hubig's Peach that only Belkar is actually subjected to that fate, though others may be threatened.

[Edreyn]

I posted this one before, but will make a prediction here too.

Snarl threat will end by pacifying him, not eradicating or locking in more secure prison.

Author claims that no one is born evil, so why Snarl should be an exception? Isn't peace between those usually considered good and those considered evil was the main idea of the comic all along?

Another question is HOW to pacify him.
This is up to the author.

[Peelee]

I posted this one before, but will make a prediction here too.

Snarl threat will end by pacifying him, not eradicating or locking in more secure prison.

Author claims that no one is born evil, so why Snarl should be an exception? Isn't peace between those usually considered good and those considered evil was the main idea of the comic all along?

Another question is HOW to pacify him.
This is up to the author.

I'll take that bet. And for a possible second, do you also think the Xykon threat will end by pacifying him?

[Edreyn]

No, Xykon is obviously evil and beyond redemption - it WAS his own choice. But we, as readers, never saw anything about Snarl directly, and not from words of others. So can't be sure about him.

We already know that Snarl or his "pocket dimension" is NOT void of pure non-existence, as we could expect from how gods describe him. Maybe his all consuming nature is also not really that... all consuming?

[Tubercular Ox]

No, Xykon is obviously evil and beyond redemption - it WAS his own choice. But we, as readers, never saw anything about Snarl directly, and not from words of others. So can't be sure about him.

While I support every god-eating horror's right to confuse the alignment system by virtue of its alien nature, it's on-panel killing a few people for no reason other than being too close to a gate.

If it's irrational enough, there's an argument to make that it lacks moral agency and therefore can be destroyed or imprisoned without moral consequences.

OTOH, I'm not taking the bet.

[KorvinStarmast]

Snarl threat will end by pacifying him, not eradicating or locking in more secure prison.

If you look at how many millions of worlds which were made and subsequently destroyed - as Thor showed to Minrah and Durkon - the implication is that the Snarl is millions of years old. It potentially can learn. If what it learned was to imitate the various gods, then why could it not, eventually, figure out how to make its own little world? Plausible.

Author claims that no one is born evil, so why Snarl should be an exception?

. The Snarl was born angry and frustrated. This is based on what created it in the first place: deity level conflict and negative emotions in copious amounts.

It is a being of pure divine anger and frustration that we created by accident with our stupid petty squabbles.

Here I will segue into what the IFCC likes to see: pointless conflict.
The Snarl's instinct is to lash out, and that is due to it being a manifestation of pointless conflict.
I find a useful parallelism there, thematically.

Another question is HOW to pacify him.

It.
If it could be reasoned with, would not the gods have figured out how to do that after these many millenia?

I am reaching back into memory, but IIRC Rich seems to have gotten the initial idea for the Snarl from pointless arguments and conflict that happened at some of his RL gaming tables.
I am sure that our most erudite banana has a link. (I am not near my OotS books at the moment).

I'll take that bet. And for a possible swconey, do you also think the Xykon threat will end by pacifying him?

FWIW: I don't.
He's the BBEG, and genre conventions need to him to be defeated.
My bet is that Roy ends him, using his grandfather's sword.

[Peelee]

beyond redemption

Hate that phrase, apropos of nothing.

[Kish]

It. If it could be reasoned with, would not the gods have figured out how to do that after these many millenia?

A few dozen of the least reasonable and able to negotiate characters in the comic figure out how to do something there's no indication they tried when they can't even agree to negotiate with the Dark One? I'd say no.

I am reaching back into memory, but IIRC Rich seems to have modeled the snarl around pointless arguments and conflict that happened at some of his RL gaming tables.

Telephone Game, subcategory "board speculation promoted to truth."

I think there is an excellent chance there will be no negotiation with the Snarl because the Snarl isn't actually sapient.

The Snarl's alignment.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think there is an excellent chance there will be no negotiation with the Snarl because the Snarl isn't actually sapient.

That's an open question, but if we take the Kyle Reese description of the Terminator (first move) as a model, it fits well enough.

FWIW, don't you have to be sapient to have emotions? That may not be answerable, as I am sure that opinions vary on that.

The Snarl's alignment.

There are a variety of monsters in D&D (at least in previous editions, which Rich is familiar with) who are what Gary Gygax referred to as having "alignment, Hungry", (Can't remember if that was in Dragon Mag or the AD&D 1e DMG)
In this category the Snarl might fit, if we add "Angry" to "Hungry".

[Edreyn]

Did anyone here read "The Ickabog" by Rowling? It's all about creature born with anger from conflicts of those around. Born cruel and evil, not by choice but because those creatures are born with emotions of those nearby. But even in this case, they can be helped. They will not really become good, but they can become not dangerous to others.

[Jasdoif]

I am reaching back into memory, but IIRC Rich seems to have gotten the initial idea for the Snarl from pointless arguments and conflict that happened at some of his RL gaming tables.
I am sure that our most erudite banana has a link. (I am not near my OotS books at the moment).

It's in the commentary for No Cure for the Paladin Blues.

...The story of the Snarl, an unstoppable beast born of petty arguments and squabbles, is kind of an analogy for any kind of Gamer Drama. Lurking beneath the surface in many gaming groups, it threatens to devour the enjoyment you gain from playing roleplaying games. It can cause rifts between friends and eventually cause the gaming group to break up. Later, some of the same people might form a second group with new members, but the Drama still is lurking, threatening to break free if active steps aren't taken to listen and understand one another (that is, to seal the rifts). Deep, huh?

[KorvinStarmast]

It's in the commentary for No Cure for the Paladin Blues.

Thank you. I was pretty sure I knew which book to look in, but I can't.
Much appreciated.

[Kish]

I stand corrected on Rich saying something along those lines.

I do not think that really has much to say about whether it will be reasoned with (in either direction), any more than Vaarsuvius' mass-murder having stood in for players who insist on the validity of racial morality, who are always with us, means that Vaarsuvius must go to their grave unwilling to acknowledge wrongness.

[KorvinStarmast]

I stand corrected on Rich saying something along those lines.

I do not think that really has much to say about whether it will be reasoned with (in either direction), any more than Vaarsuvius' mass-murder having stood in for players who insist on the validity of racial morality, who are always with us, means that Vaarsuvius must go to their grave unwilling to acknowledge wrongness.

V has already admitted to being wrong, and was - on screen - horrified at how very wrong that choice was.
V has also - on screen- indicated a desire, even if it's impossible or nearly so, of attempting to make restitution.

Which leaves me with: what was your aim in writing that?

As to 'you can't negotiate with the Snarl' ... given what has been shown on screen so far, that's a pretty safe bet, even if Belkar's point in strip 900 remains valid.

[Edreyn]

So, goblins are not necessarily evil, beholders are not necessarily evil, lizardmen, dragons and so on, but snarls are?

How would you identify the difference?

Snarl killed innocents? So did Redcloak. He is just a mortal, but he caused death to countless people, even to his own.
You say Snarl can't control his actions because he is born from evil emotions, but Redcloak can - and he willingly chooses slaughter.

Kobolds become adventurers and join "not-evil-by-default-creatures" parties, vampires work as court advisors, bugbears are cruel to visitors but live far enough to not cause trouble, but goblins willingly choose to enslave and slaughter the whole huge city of humans!

But Redcloak isn't all this bad and deserves a chance, maybe through negotiations, but Snarl? No way, he is a bad guy, he must die!

No, where is the difference?
The Snarl is a unique creature, so much unique that he can't be compared to others?
If it is not judgement by race then what it is?

If one can negotiate with Redcloak, why negotiating with Snarl is impossible?

[LadyEowyn]

I’m don’t think the Snarl is sapient enough to be negotiated with, but I’d say there’s a decent probability that the resolution of the story will involve it being…un-Snarled in some fashion (whether that means it ceasing to exist or it no longer being destructive) rather than just being locked in a more secure cage.

I’d see it as more akin to a hurricane than a person.

[Edreyn]

I’m don’t think the Snarl is sapient enough to be negotiated with, but I’d say there’s a decent probability that the resolution of the story will involve it being…un-Snarled in some fashion (whether that means it ceasing to exist or it no longer being destructive) rather than just being locked in a more secure cage.

I’d see it as more akin to a hurricane than a person.

Saw my post above about Ickabog? Turning Snarl less destructive is exactly the goal of "pacificaton".

[KorvinStarmast]

I’m don’t think the Snarl is sapient enough to be negotiated with, but I’d say there’s a decent probability that the resolution of the story will involve it being…un-Snarled in some fashion (whether that means it ceasing to exist or it no longer being destructive) rather than just being locked in a more secure cage.

Which is the side quest/mission that Thor has assigned to Durkon, hence the attempted negotiation with Redcloak by Durkon.

[Peelee]

So, goblins are not necessarily evil, beholders are not necessarily evil, lizardmen, dragons and so on, but snarls are?

How would you identify the difference?

Xykons are not necessarily Evil, but you're not expecting anyone to try to negotiate with him. Not that characters in-comic haven't thought of it.

[Jasdoif]

So, goblins are not necessarily evil, beholders are not necessarily evil, lizardmen, dragons and so on, but snarls are?

How would you identify the difference?

You might be interested in this:

Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural—if it exists at all—and away from biological creatures.

Your call how to apply "if it exists at all", of course.

[brian 333]

9 quatloos, 13 internets, and 666 gps in favor of the identity of The Vessel being the balor that Vaarsuvius stoned and Elan turned into Therkla's headstone. Hilarity ensues when Elan has to explain what the scar on the balor's chest means while attempting to keep it and The Artifact from turning them into Stone-Ground Adventurer Pulp, (made with Soylent Green.)

[Peelee]

9 quatloos, 13 internets, and 666 gps in favor of the identity of The Vessel being the balor that Vaarsuvius stoned and Elan turned into Therkla's headstone. Hilarity ensues when Elan has to explain what the scar on the balor's chest means while attempting to keep it and The Artifact from turning them into Stone-Ground Adventurer Pulp, (made with Soylent Green.)

Convert it all to gold and you've got a deal.

[Metastachydium]

…partly, I assume, because there's, like, a 0% chance the island devil is a balor.

[brian 333]

…partly, I assume, because there's, like, a 0% chance the island devil is a balor.

No big sword, but whatever it was, the stoned devil is my bet.

@Peelee: I don't t have any gold; my people rely upon the full faith and credit of anonymous clerical administrators. Would you accept a letter of credit?

[Peelee]

No big sword, but whatever it was, the stoned devil is my bet.

@Peelee: I don't t have any gold; my people rely upon the full faith and credit of anonymous clerical administrators. Would you accept a letter of credit?

My friend, I am a dragon.

Gold.

[Ruck]

I seem to remember there being some general idea the island devil was a Pit Fiend, but I looked it up and Pit Fiends are only Large. Whatever that is is clearly much, much bigger.

[Peelee]

I seem to remember there being some general idea the island devil was a Pit Fiend, but I looked it up and Pit Fiends are only Large. Whatever that is is clearly much, much bigger.

Yeah. He's a really, really big Pit Fiend.

[Ruck]

Yeah. He's a really, really big Pit Fiend.

Chasm Fiend? Abyss Fiend?