OOTS #1106 - The Discussion Thread

[Manty5]

I think it's a given at this point that Durkon's Lawfulness was what told him to go back to her husband.

But doesn't that imply as well that he expects her to act lawfully when she does go back? That is to say, not poisoning your husband, and taking whatever lawful options are available to her when she does get back. And if there are no lawful options... then suffering nobly would be her duty, in his eyes. That's the choice he made for himself, after all.

For all the talk of "oppression" being a justification to murder that happened in the last thread, why hasn't anyone considered that this would equally justify Durkon coming back to murder the high priest that oppressed him?

[factotum]

I don't know for sure about "trust", but if the requirement to have a honorable death had been in the likes of "respect authority, traditions and laws for your whole life" (and not only to die bravely during a fight), then Loki would have constructed the most Lawful society possible.
Which is a kinda bizarre outcome, for a god of Chaos (not completely impossible, being him the god of trickery, but still strange).

Loki isn't the one who created the most honour-bound society on the planet--that was Thor, at least according to Hel.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

For all the talk of "oppression" being a justification to murder that happened in the last thread, why hasn't anyone considered that this would equally justify Durkon coming back to murder the high priest that oppressed him?

Presumably because Durkon is male, and the "oppression justifies murder" argument was premised on OotS marriages being equivalent to those of Handmaid's Tale, rather than what they actually are, and therefore the justification only applies to women being treated like brood mares.

Grey Wolf

[Dr.Zero]

Loki isn't the one who created the most honour-bound society on the planet--that was Thor, at least according to Hel.

Right. I expressed myself badly.
"Mastermind behind the whole thing" is more what I was thinking, instead of "constructor/creator".

[wumpus]

On the other hand, "not living up to your alignment" doesn't mean you're not of this alignment, apparently. Just look at Eugen Greenhilt, who failed miserably at being either lawful or good (at least in comic).
I fail to remember even ONE instance of LG behavior from Eugene, both present day (impersonates an Angel to con paladins, belittles his son for not succeeding where he failed, plays favorite, acts constantly like a jerk) and in flashbacks (Performs dangerous experiments that end up killing his youngest son but never takes responsibility for it, get a blood oath only because he was on a drunken stupor, then abandon said blood oath without thinking out the consequances...).
The man is an irresponsible, egoistic mess, and yet, he's still waiting in front of the LG paradise.

So Giant's comment may have been hinting that Nale was wrong when he said he's lawful, or that he was a very bad example of lawfulness despite all his gloating about his perfect plans and ordered ways.

We know that "waiting outside of the [alignment] paradise" is only a function of the alignment written on your character sheet. We saw Roy being audited, not just for an eventual destination of celestia, arcadia, bytopia (all possible while living up to LG standards), but being "chucked into the neutral bin" was even on the table.

All we [second hand for me, still need to get the backstory books] know is the an auditor managed to get fairly far through Eugene's life without him getting "chucked into the neutral bin" but stopped before a final decision.

Even the Solars [or similar outsiders] are aware that V is in great danger of a final destination other than concordant opposition (does that still exist?). I don't think V's character sheet has changed (presumably if it had Rich would have used it for dramatic effect for V and Miko, but it would make the audit moot) but Hades appears reasonably likely.

So characters in OOTS have alignments, and at least think they live up to them but nothing is specifically forcing them to do so. I don't know if magic like "know alignment" and "holy word" works off what is on the alignment sheet or makes a snap judgment of the characters actions. From unclear memory, I *think* post-familicide V pings neutral on those spells, but the Solar isn't convinced.

Alignment in D&D requires a painfully black&white universe (such as the wargames it grew from), and Rich presumably expected to make plenty of attacks on it when OOTS was primarily a comic about D&D. OOTS has outgrown that idea, but don't expect Rich to fix the disaster of D&D alignments or even be motivated to consider such.

[brian 333]

One must also consider what we saw in the LG afterlife. Roy's Archon specifically stated that LG souls expected guilt and shame to accompany their consequence-free sex, and thus Roy was shown a bar with compliant celestials and given a room in his Mom's house.

Being LG, Durkon expects his life to be one of self sacrifice. He has said on multiple occasions that it's your duty to do your duty, especially if it makes you miserable. At some level Durkon envied Hilgya because she was in a position to suffer where everyone she loved could see and admire her for 'sticking it out.'

[Kish]

For all the talk of "oppression" being a justification to murder that happened in the last thread, why hasn't anyone considered that this would equally justify Durkon coming back to murder the high priest that oppressed him?

Multiple people have, in fact, argued that the High Priest of Thor was scum and deserved whatever he got, including at least one person expressing hopes that there would turn out to be a reason his death counted as dishonorable so that he would be enslaved by Hel.

After Durkon was vampirized but before Greg was revealed, I expected the fulfillment of the death and destruction prophecy to take the form of Vampire Durkon's higher mental stats and new Evil alignment combining to make him suddenly decide he deserved revenge for his exile and that any amount of collateral damage was acceptable for it.

[Dr.Zero]

On the other hand, "not living up to your alignment" doesn't mean you're not of this alignment, apparently. Just look at Eugen Greenhilt, who failed miserably at being either lawful or good (at least in comic).
I fail to remember even ONE instance of LG behavior from Eugene, both present day (impersonates an Angel to con paladins

It's a matter of perspective.

Is it more (L)G to respect the oath a group of paladins (toward which, anyway, you have no duty) sworn, oath which has its root coming from a stupid quarrel between former fellow adventurers who become intolerant toward each other at the end, or to con the aforementioned paladins to put an end to an epic lich who wants to dominate the world and spread destruction just for the lulz? (Right now I don't put on the plate the "saving the world" because I have no idea of Eugene's knowledge on the subject back at the time)

And being a deadpan snarker about Roy's idea to kill a lich with a big metal stick, aside being hilarious, was right on the point. So right on the point that Roy had to acquire effectively a house ruled (AFAICT) version of the Mage Slayer feat and a custom made (again, AFAICT) weapon of legacy to go on with his idea that "fighters don't suck" (which is like stating that I can be stronger than mike tyson and, to prove so, giving to myself an uzi 9mm, leaving mr tyson bare handed).

Anyway lets this whole thing behind us, because it might become another "Eugene alignment" thread.

So Giant's comment may have been hinting that Nale was wrong when he said he's lawful, or that he was a very bad example of lawfulness despite all his gloating about his perfect plans and ordered ways.

The fact is that Lawful according to common sense is sometimes terribly at clash with Lawful as defined by the rules, which include a LOT of stuff, because it tries to compress in a single definition a list of personality traits and behavioral attributes unrelated to each other.

Example: why a person who keeps his word, should respect authority and viceversa?
Why a person who wants to be reliable for a limited group of other persons (and hence being lawful within them) should hope in a strong organized civilization???

Better not to dwell too deeply in it, really.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Where in the strip has it ever implied at all that she would go to Hel for leaving her husband?

The specific deal is that those dwarves who die with honor go to Thor. An honorable death is a death in battle, based on the same comic where Durkon relates these rules, and every comic where they are discussed (Eugene wants all the dwarves to charge a dragon or split up and squeeze in a civil war).

As an adventurer she is almost guaranteed to die in battle. If she goes back and is murdered for betraying her family she's quite certain to go to Hel.

Actually, Rich has explicitly stated that it isn't just death in battle or liver disease. We even wrote a nice short short about some elder dwarves going out into the winter storms to get food for the delve, knowing that they'd die.

Plus, given that Durkon seems to have maybe one point in Kn: Religion, anything he says has to be taken with a grain of rock salt when it comes to religion. Guy doesn't even recognize Loki's title when he hears it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Guy doesn't even recognize Loki's title when he hears it.

Oh, that reminds me: can a god to grant "turn/command-like" abilities but over non-undead, such as Hilgya's domination of fire creatures, or was that just a charisma check?

Thanks,

Grey Wolf

[The MunchKING]

Oh, that reminds me: can a god to grant "turn/command-like" abilities but over non-undead, such as Hilgya's domination of fire creatures, or was that just a charisma check?

Thanks,

Grey Wolf

Yup, Fire Domain Clerics.

EDIT: Well technically any of the elemental Domains can do it to their elementals/opposing elementals, but Fire Clerics can Rebuke Fire Elementals like Hilgya.

[BrolySSG]

We even wrote a nice short short about some elder dwarves going out into the winter storms to get food for the delve, knowing that they'd die

Then those dwarves would die fighting the storm, same applies when a dwarf fights a tree

[Pampukin]

So, metaphysical, theological, anthopological disscusions, even a les miserables comment or two, and nobody adressed the fact that if Hilgya finds out about the dwarven council going down, she may not be inclined to help. Even if the world ends for it.
And then enters the baby in the picture. So now she faces a choice, revenge on those who wronged her all her life, and protecting the inmortal soul of her own child from the clutches of Hel. Who also, by the way, has her greasy claws on the soul of the man she once, if briefly, loved.
You know, if things play out dramatic enough, I might be okay with having her fill for Durkon if things go south.
Great comic as always tho.

[Jasdoif]

So, metaphysical, theological, anthopological disscusions, even a les miserables comment or two, and nobody adressed the fact that if Hilgya finds out about the dwarven council going down, she may not be inclined to help. Even if the world ends for it.

Sounds like a pretty flimsy premise to be calling a "fact". You really think the council's presence would be enough to change her mind about Durkon?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

if Hilgya finds out about the dwarven council going down, she may not be inclined to help. [...] revenge on those who wronged her all her life

The Dwarven council is not what wronged Hilgya. Her marriage was arranged by her clan, not by the council. The dwarven government (and its laws) are also not the purview of the council (there is a dwarven parliament for that). In fact, it sounds to me like other than meeting to counsel the god, it might not have any other actual function. So I don't think Hilgya will care that much one way or the other about the council needing saving.

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

The Dwarven council is not what wronged Hilgya. Her marriage was arranged by her clan, not by the council. The dwarven government (and its laws) are also not the purview of the council (there is a dwarven parliament for that). In fact, it sounds to me like other than meeting to counsel the god, it might not have any other actual function. So I don't think Hilgya will care that much one way or the other about the council needing saving.

Now, I could see a disproportionate response thing going on; plus it is the Council of Clans, she might recognize people from her and Ivan's clans there.

What I don't see is either of those things leading Hilgya going "nah, let's just forget about Durkon after all this time"; I don't think Hilgya would willingly let the clans have so much influence over her actions. Past that, if we're entertaining the notion of Hilgya taking the story for a dark turn (like letting the world end, as long as it takes people she doesn't like with it)....vampiric domination doesn't work on corpses, so Hilgya killing representatives to end their domination (and their lives) is technically an option. One that doesn't require Hilgya to wait for Durkon to end her life (and her child's life) with the rest of the world.

[Pampukin]

Sounds like a pretty flimsy premise to be calling a "fact". You really think the council's presence would be enough to change her mind about Durkon?

I didnt mean to say it was a fact, more like a thing that I noticed. Just my english failing me, second language and all.

Also did not check that it was her clan. I guess THAT is not going to be the big dramatic moment for this arc. Oh well, back to lurking! *Smokescreen*

[Nomen]

My current understanding about the honorable death thing likely works.
It is the manner in which you die that matters not how you lived your life before then.
You are being judged on the honor scale by creatures who may not be any wiser than the average human and who have there own biases.
Death in combat is honorable unless proven dishonorable.
Death by disease is dishonorable unless proven honorable.
Death by liver disease has somehow been argued as honorable.
If you risk your life to do something noble/cool and die in the process it will most likely count as honorable unless you die failing to do something cool.
If you die for a stupid reason outside of combat or liver disease it most likely won't count as honorable.
If you are die a dishonorable death and are a dwarf you will go to Hell, otherwise you will go to the deity which you worship or the general plane of your alinement.

I think if a dwarf wishes to avoid the whole honor issue they will want to forsake the land run by Oden's pantheon, and dedicate themselves to a god not of Oden's pantheon then when they die they will be the property of a god who is under no obligation to honor the bet.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think if a dwarf wishes to avoid the whole honor issue they will want to forsake the land run by Oden's pantheon, and dedicate themselves to a god not of Oden's pantheon then when they die they will be the property of a god who is under no obligation to honor the bet.

No. All dwarves are subject to Loki's bet. Who they worship doesn't change anything. The wording of the bet is quite clear: Hel gets all the dishonorable dwarven souls. There is not "unless they worship a non-Northern god" clause.

GW

[Rogar Demonblud]

Now, I could see a disproportionate response thing going on; plus it is the Council of Clans, she might recognize people from her and Ivan's clans there.

Oooh, that brings up an interesting possibility. Hilgya kills the representative of her clan, and ends up taking their place.

In fact, that could also explain the arranged marriage. It isn't part of dwarven culture per se, but tied into her clan being (in effect) nobility. And we all know what kind of jerks the aristocracy is in pretty much any story.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Oooh, that brings up an interesting possibility. Hilgya kills the representative of her clan, and ends up taking their place.

In fact, that could also explain the arranged marriage. It isn't part of dwarven culture per se, but tied into her clan being (in effect) nobility.

More like her family is part of the nobility of her clan, I'd say. A clan is a large multi-stratified social group, with a leader, a number of nobility-like members that only respond to the leader, and so on down the chain to the labourers at the bottom. But yeah, I could definitely see that working. It is certainly true that arranged marriages become more common the higher up the families involved are in the sociopolitical structure. And if her family is indeed the mover and pushers of her clan, they would probably be a viable contender for the clan chief position, and therefore by extension a seat at this council.

That said, not sure how that would help Hilgya herself. Like I said before, I get the impression that other than the occasional "tell the god of dwarven kings how you feel" the council is otherwise a powerless relic.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

That said, not sure how that would help Hilgya herself. Like I said before, I get the impression that other than the occasional "tell the god of dwarven kings how you feel" the council is otherwise a powerless relic.

Grey Wolf

Legal power is not everything. The Council might have de facto power simply because of traditions and ancestry and stuff.

Though I really doubt they accept murder as a way to climb the metaphorical ladder. These are not hobgoblins.

[a1chemi]

Oooh, that brings up an interesting possibility. Hilgya kills the representative of her clan, and ends up taking their place.

In fact, that could also explain the arranged marriage. It isn't part of dwarven culture per se, but tied into her clan being (in effect) nobility. And we all know what kind of jerks the aristocracy is in pretty much any story.

Seems unlikely that Hilgya's possible beef with yet to be introduced NPCs is going to upstage her and the Order's final battle with Durkula.

[KorvinStarmast]

Loki isn't the one who created the most honour-bound society on the planet--that was Thor, at least according to Hel.

Hel is not a reliable narrator in this case, and I have some question as to her understanding given how easily Loki played her.

Odin is the head of the Norse pantheon. I'll offer an opinion that the Norther Gods, as a group, had a significant input into how the dwarf society evolved, as did the dwarves themselves over the years.

[BlueDogXL]

I'm only kinda liking this arc right now. Personally I just want it to end soon, or even a tiny bit later. I'm just not feeling it. I guess you could chalk it up to Durkon being dead and the tough spot our heroes are in, idk.
Then again, there's only one Gate left and if the arc ends like the others we might have a slight problem keeping reality together.

EDIT: A word

[Kish]

I'm only kinda liking this arc right now. Personally I just want it to end soon, or even a tiny bit later. I'm just not feeling it. I guess you could chalk it up to Durkon being dead and the tough spot our heroes are in, idk.
Then again, there's only one Gate left and if the arc ends like the others we might have a slight problem keeping reality together.

So far, one gate has been destroyed in each odd-numbered book: one in Start of Darkness (-1), one in Dungeon Crawlin' Fools (1), one in War and XPs (3), one in Blood Runs in the Family (5). We're currently in book 6 and Rich has confirmed that book 7 will be the end of the OotS story, so it's likely Kraagor's Gate will survive book 6, which will be all about defeating Greg and getting Durkon back.

[Nomen]

No. All dwarves are subject to Loki's bet. Who they worship doesn't change anything. The wording of the bet is quite clear: Hel gets all the dishonorable dwarven souls. There is not "unless they worship a non-Northern god" clause.

GW

It's not about the wording of the bet, it's about removing your soul from the authority of the bet makers in the first place.
If there was a tournament and a group of friends agreed on how to share the winnings just sort of assuming that one of them would win, then they lost. Guess what agreement the winner will not be honoring.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It's not about the wording of the bet, it's about removing your soul from the authority of the bet makers in the first place.

They can't "remove their soul from the authority of the bet makers" just by switching gods, because they are still dwarfs. Again: the bet does not concern "followers of the Northern Pantheon" but "dwarves".

GW

[georgie_leech]

They can't "remove their soul from the authority of the bet makers" just by switching gods, because they are still dwarfs. Again: the bet does not concern "followers of the Northern Pantheon" but "dwarves".

GW

That is, if a Dwarf were to convert to the Southern Pantheon, say, it might be Tiger or Dragon bickering with Hel over who got the soul instead of Thor.

[Jasdoif]

That is, if a Dwarf were to convert to the Southern Pantheon, say, it might be Tiger or Dragon bickering with Hel over who got the soul instead of Thor.

Hmm....While I believe they'd have standing to bicker with Hel over what constitutes "honor"; gods don't meet in person across pantheons anymore. Unless a dwarven soul happened to be worth risking a new Snarl over, Hel's claim would go unchallenged.