08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Discuss the comic here!
User avatar
Krulle
Transcribes Goblins
Posts: 6874
Location: banned
Contact:

08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Krulle » Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:38 am

Yum - Yuck.

Permalink: http://www.goblinscomic.org/01072016-2/
► Show Spoiler
The first patreon >1k$/page reward is also up: http://www.goblinscomic.org/thuntonian-lore-1/

edit:
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Simon
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 130

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Simon » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:19 am

It's nice to see them offering the moss/explaining their eating technique. They could have just let him starve (or maybe just get hungry) or not told him about how they avoid the bad flavour. I'm hoping by the end of the dungeon they become friends (or not enemies) so I think things like this where they sort of help each other out is great :)

User avatar
Guus
Floods your Ears
Posts: 2096
Location: Beneath sea level

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Guus » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:48 am

I like the YumYuck-tactic. It's so obvious that I am a bit ashamed I didn't think of it myself. I also like MinMax confusion about the body parts everywhere.
I don't like the fact that MinMax has to overly state that YumYuck moss is gross. He could've skipped the "it starts out tasting good..." part and the message would've been the same and less forced I think.
All in all I like the page, it promises some movement in the story.
You might be right, but is it productive?

Morgaln
Pipes Up Sometimes
Posts: 198

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Morgaln » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:00 am

I... don't get this blog post. There are so many things that make no sense:
How can hate and anger be passionless? Passion and emotion are inseparably entwined. You can't have one without the other. By the words of the blog, "a demon can't care one or the other about the mortals themselves", so how is it possible for them to hate? Or can they only hate inanimate objects?
Why would a demon demand a sacrifice? We know from the demon guarding the Orb of Bloodlight that a soul needs to be willingly given. Sacrificing the virgin to the demon would mean it can't keep the soul.
Why does sex decrease the chance that someone is "innocent"? What do people need to be innocent of to be able to suffer stronger than others?
How does hearing a language turn you evil? Will you suddenly lose all moral inhibitions and rape and slaughter your way through everyone crossing your pass? Oh wait, that isn't evil, Kore and Goblinslayer are/were good after all. So what does evil even mean in a world where people who are objectively good and register as good on detection spells can do whatever they damn please?
Does talking about damming a river feel evil to people? After all, it's homophone to damning something, and the evil feeling lies not in the usage but in the origin of the sounds. Also, are demons British or American? Or in other words, does talking about a bloody sword feel evil? Or does the universe know whether you're cursing the sword or describing it? But then again, it should be the linguistic roots that matter, not the intent.

User avatar
SpeaksManyLanguages
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 329
UStream Username: dbg_
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by SpeaksManyLanguages » Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:24 am

Yup. Different swear words in other languages don't corellate well enough with this.

Also, about the energy thing. Demons don't need food because hell is lashing with energy. And they «don't need light because the room is lit itself». The energy is everywhere. But how does that cope with demons getting into prime material plane? There's no hellish energy around everywhere no more. So they must get food now. They have it "by existing" only in hell.
FMK realities list
[The user formerly known as SpeaksWithMistakes]

User avatar
BuildsLegos
Converses Frequently
Posts: 649
UStream Username: BuildsLegos
Location: So rorery in OKC

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by BuildsLegos » Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:19 pm

Morgaln wrote:I... don't get this blog post. There are so many things that I misunderstood:
How can hate and anger be passionless? Passion and emotion are inseparably entwined. You can't have one without the other. By the words of the blog, "a demon can't care one way or the other about the mortals themselves", so how is it possible for them to hate? Or can they only hate inanimate objects?
Why would a demon demand a sacrifice? We know from the demon guarding the Orb of Bloodlight that a soul needs to be willingly given. Sacrificing the virgin to the demon would mean it can't keep the soul.
Why does sex decrease the chance that someone is "innocent"? What do people need to be innocent of to be able to suffer stronger than others?
How does hearing a language turn you evil? Will you suddenly lose all moral inhibitions and rape and slaughter your way through everyone crossing your pass? Oh wait, that isn't evil, Kore and Goblinslayer are/were good after all. So what does evil even mean in a world where people who are objectively good and register as good on detection spells can do whatever they damn please?
Does talking about damming a river feel evil to people? After all, it's homophone to damning something, and the evil feeling lies not in the usage but in the origin of the sounds. Also, are demons British or American? Or in other words, does talking about a bloody sword feel evil? Or does the universe know whether you're cursing the sword or describing it? But then again, it should be the linguistic roots that matter, not the intent.
Fixed words are bolded.

I passionately hate every smoker on Earth because they share their vile (and harmful) poison without asking permission, but I also hate Asylum for going out of their way to make movies as shitily as possible. The difference is, Asylum barely warrents hatred, passionate hatred would be overkill. Similarly, feeling angry for a friend saying something stupid is fine, but passionate anger is better fitting for saving an animal from torture by kicking the perpetrator where the sun doesn't shine. Emotion and passion are "inseparably entwined" in the same way warm and boiling water are identicle. Besides, Thunt's demons don't feel emotion, they eat it; does the food you eat control your emotions?

The demon that Dies & co encountered was proposing a seemingly fair trade because that's her lot in eternal life as a captured monster. Most demons are free to act more like a mafia: give us what we want so you can remain safe. "Protection" money is still given "willingly".

I can't defend the sex thing, as that part of society never made a lick of sense to be to begin with. But the traditional idea of "purity" is obviously apart of Thunt's lore.
Way to completely misread the language paragraph. Thunt specifically states that the words themselves aren't evil, only sound and feel the part. Evil people happen to be more prone to using demon-inspired words because it fits them. As for dam vs. damn, let that be a side-effect of English being needlessly convoluted. Admittedly, Thunt should clear up that little oddity all the same.
"I miss good ol' Jar Jar."
— aurilee

Someguy
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 15

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Someguy » Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:03 pm

On Thuntonian-Lore:-

Highlights

Angels

Angels also have no souls of their own and are a lot like demons. Though instead of feeding off of mortal suffering, they feed off of mortal joy. This is why they tend to help out mortals in need and produce ÔÇ£miraclesÔÇØ. Angels donÔÇÖt really capture and collect souls, like demons do. This is merely because a captured soul is harder to keep happy. ItÔÇÖs better to visit the prime material plain, create some kind of joy and move on. And just as a demon canÔÇÖt care one way or another about the mortals themselves, neither can an angel. They simply want to feed.

Comic Notes

1. Complains of Names still has his soul. His soul wasÔǪ ermÔǪ ÔÇÿdentedÔÇÖ a bit when he became part demon, but heÔÇÖs still got one. The full extent of his transformation will crop up in the comic at some point.

Speculation

Kore still is a Paladin despite his atrocities because he is part-Angel and the joy his angel part feeds on is the sanctimonious schadenfreude similar to the likes of Monseigneur Claude Frollo (The Hunchback of Notre-Dame) & Deacon Vorbis (Discworld: Small Gods).

Morgaln
Pipes Up Sometimes
Posts: 198

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Morgaln » Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:13 pm

BuildsLegos wrote:
Morgaln wrote:I... don't get this blog post. There are so many things that make no sense:
How can hate and anger be passionless? Passion and emotion are inseparably entwined. You can't have one without the other. By the words of the blog, "a demon can't care one way or the other about the mortals themselves", so how is it possible for them to hate? Or can they only hate inanimate objects?
Why would a demon demand a sacrifice? We know from the demon guarding the Orb of Bloodlight that a soul needs to be willingly given. Sacrificing the virgin to the demon would mean it can't keep the soul.
Why does sex decrease the chance that someone is "innocent"? What do people need to be innocent of to be able to suffer stronger than others?
How does hearing a language turn you evil? Will you suddenly lose all moral inhibitions and rape and slaughter your way through everyone crossing your pass? Oh wait, that isn't evil, Kore and Goblinslayer are/were good after all. So what does evil even mean in a world where people who are objectively good and register as good on detection spells can do whatever they damn please?
Does talking about damming a river feel evil to people? After all, it's homophone to damning something, and the evil feeling lies not in the usage but in the origin of the sounds. Also, are demons British or American? Or in other words, does talking about a bloody sword feel evil? Or does the universe know whether you're cursing the sword or describing it? But then again, it should be the linguistic roots that matter, not the intent.
Fixed words are bolded.

I passionately hate every smoker on Earth because they share their vile (and harmful) poison without asking permission, but I also hate Asylum for going out of their way to make movies as shitily as possible. The difference is, Asylum barely warrents hatred, passionate hatred would be overkill. Similarly, feeling angry for a friend saying something stupid is fine, but passionate anger is better fitting for saving an animal from torture by kicking the perpetrator where the sun doesn't shine. Emotion and passion are identicle in the same way warm and boiling water are the same. Besides, Thunt's demons don't feel emotion, they eat it; does the food you eat control your emotions?

The demon that Dies & co encountered was proposing a seemingly fair trade because that's her lot in eternal life as captured monsters. Most demons are free to act more like a mafia: give us what we want so you can remain safe. "Protection" money is still given "willingly".

I can't defend the sex thing, as that part of society never made a lick of sense to be to begin with. But the traditional idea of "purity" is obviously apart of Thunt's lore.
Way to completely misread the language paragraph. Thunt specifically states that the words themselves aren't evil, only sound and feel the part. Evil people happen to be more prone to using demon-inspired words because it fits them. As for dam vs. damn, let that be a side-effect of English being needlessly convoluted. Admittedly, Thunt should clear up that little oddity all the same.
Fixed the part you put wrongly into my mouth because I didn't misunderstand anything:
As quoted from the blog post: "While a demon can experience hate, anger and lust, only a creature with a soul can passionately experience those emotions." Hate is an emotion. A very strong one. Therefore, Hunt's demons can feel emotions. By your definition, the difference is that they feel them less strongly. So I guess that means people who don't feel strongly about anything aren't alive, because passion is a criterium for life in that blog? What about dogs? Insects? Plants? How do they fit into this? Are they not alive either?

What kept the demon Dies encountered from doing the exact same thing as the free demon you invented? She could have acted just like the mafia too; it's not like she was forced to spill that a soul has to be given willingly. But you are missing the point of what I was saying. Since souls have to be given willingly per established lore, a demon wouldn't be interested in a village sacrificing one of their number. Only a self-sacrifice would give them the soul they need. Therefore using this as the reason behind the practice of sacrificing virgins (which usually have to be dragged kicking and screaming) doesn't make much sense.

I never said these words are evil; I only ever said they feel evil, quoting directly from the blog post again, and I pointed out that this makes not much sense again. Swear words are cultural; what is a swear word in one culture is a completely normal word in others (e.g. bloody). Most swear words started out as words meaning completely different and harmless things (e.g. bitch, cock, ass, which all are animals). Some of them are words or sentences that are made form words that are completely acceptable in other context (e.g. cocksucker, dickhead, son of a bitch, Jesus Christ). And yet, these words are said to make anyone who uses them feel evil and uncomfortable. So why are they used in completely neutral fashion at all? This is not something specific to English; you'll find examples of all of these in every language, because swear words evolve and fall in disuse like any other words. There aren't words that are objectively bad, because words by themselves are just sound combined in a particular way. It's the meaning that is applied to that sound, which differs from language to language, from culture to culture, sometimes even from individual to individual.

User avatar
Sessine
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 373

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Sessine » Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:47 pm

Don't forget, nobody in the comic is speaking English. Nobody in D&D speaks English, ever. It's all in Common (unless it's some other specific racial language) -- by convention, everything is being "translated" for players in this world... or in this case, readers. Homophones in English are probably not homophones in Common.

Mind you, as with all translations, puns and other wordplay present a problem. We just have to think: "Uh, MinMax just said something in Common which is equivalent to Sarah puked it."

Anyway. The words in Common that feel dirty because they are half-copied from the evil demonic tongue are NOT the English swearwords we are reading.
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Glemp
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 965

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Glemp » Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:10 pm

Sessine wrote:Don't forget, nobody in the comic is speaking English. Nobody in D&D speaks English, ever. It's all in Common (unless it's some other specific racial language) -- by convention, everything is being "translated" for players in this world... or in this case, readers. Homophones in English are probably not homophones in Common.

Mind you, as with all translations, puns and other wordplay present a problem. We just have to think: "Uh, MinMax just said something in Common which is equivalent to Sarah puked it."

Anyway. The words in Common that feel dirty because they are half-copied from the evil demonic tongue are NOT the English swearwords we are reading.
Right. Think the Black Speech from Lord of the Rings, one that's been overheard and mistranslated for centuries into something diluted with human syllables yet similar enough to warrant attention from powers more than human. Like, a demon would hear swear words like an English speaker would hear this - the sounds and accent sound demonic and make you pay attention, but there are no coherent words whatsoever.

User avatar
RocketScientist
Global Moderator
Posts: 5206
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by RocketScientist » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:54 pm

Maybe the virgins had to volunteer for the sacrifice in order for it to appease the demon(s)? Like maybe somebody told them a huge reward awaits the heroic virgin sacrifices in the afterlife of their choice. Or somebody told them they had a brain cloud and might as well make their death mean something. (Joe vs. the Volcano reference)
Image Image Image

wheatleygone
Remains Silent
Posts: 7

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by wheatleygone » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:54 pm

*finds three doors*

"There must be hundreds or even thousands of them."

:|

User avatar
Sessine
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 373

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Sessine » Sat Jan 09, 2016 1:49 am

wheatleygone wrote:*finds three doors*

"There must be hundreds or even thousands of them."

:|
*looks under moss in three randomly picked spots in a gigantic room, finds three doors*

"Of course! These must be the only doors here."

Is that better? ;)
► Show Spoiler

BlueAmaranth
Of Few Words
Posts: 78

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by BlueAmaranth » Sat Jan 09, 2016 2:29 am

I don't think the lack of swearing in Goblins required an in-universe explanation. Plenty of stories don't include swear words, so (with the exception of the occasional clunky swear-lite) I just took it as Thunt's preference and didn't give it further thought. Justifying it with worldbuilding stuff raises more questions than it answers, I think.

User avatar
Arch Lich Burns
You'll Never Hear the End of It
Posts: 14617
UStream Username: burnsbees
Location: Behind you
Contact:

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Arch Lich Burns » Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:23 am

How do we know it is common, not drudic, syvian, elven, goblin, orcish, gnome, dwarf, underconmon, ect? Or various regions of common which has alternate swear words? Just because everybody speaks it does not mean there are not different dialects. Why is crap okay to say? Besides it is pretty obvious that thunt is using english, not common.

User avatar
Guus
Floods your Ears
Posts: 2096
Location: Beneath sea level

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Guus » Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:45 am

Does every existing language have the exact same swear words? Or at least similar? That'd be pretty funny :lol:
You might be right, but is it productive?

User avatar
BuildsLegos
Converses Frequently
Posts: 649
UStream Username: BuildsLegos
Location: So rorery in OKC

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by BuildsLegos » Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:44 am

Morgaln wrote:Fixed the part you rightly put into my mouth because I still don't understand anything:
As quoted from the blog post: "While a demon can experience hate, anger and lust, only a creature with a soul can passionately experience those emotions." Hate is an emotion. A very strong one. Therefore, Hunt's demons can feel emotions. By your definition, the difference is that they feel them less strongly. So I guess that means people who don't feel strongly about anything aren't alive, because passion is a criterium for life in that blog? What about dogs? Insects? Plants? How do they fit into this? Are they not alive either?

What kept the demon Dies encountered from doing the exact same thing as the free demon you invented? She could have acted just like the mafia too; it's not like she was forced to spill that a soul has to be given willingly. But you are missing the point of what I was saying. Since souls have to be given willingly per established lore, a demon wouldn't be interested in a village sacrificing one of their number. Only a self-sacrifice would give them the soul they need. Therefore using this as the reason behind the practice of sacrificing virgins (which usually have to be dragged kicking and screaming) doesn't make much sense.

I never said these words are evil; I only ever said they feel evil, quoting directly from the blog post again, and I pointed out that this makes not much sense again. Swear words are cultural; what is a swear word in one culture is a completely normal word in others (e.g. bloody). Most swear words started out as words meaning completely different and harmless things (e.g. bitch, cock, ass, which all are animals). Some of them are words or sentences that are made form words that are completely acceptable in other context (e.g. cocksucker, dickhead, son of a bitch, Jesus Christ). And yet, these words are said to make anyone who uses them feel evil and uncomfortable. So why are they used in completely neutral fashion at all? This is not something specific to English; you'll find examples of all of these in every language, because swear words evolve and fall in disuse like any other words. There aren't words that are objectively bad, because words by themselves are just sound combined in a particular way. It's the meaning that is applied to that sound, which differs from language to language, from culture to culture, sometimes even from individual to individual.
Thunt is begging to us to "get it" with his lightbulb anology. The difference between survival and living has been a cornerstone theme in several video games; survival is a life of earning every little thing, life is survival already solved.

It's really cute that you even conceeded that virgins are *usually* forced into the role, when Thunt's description practically begs any thinking person to figure out that in his world, virgins sacrifices are always consensual. In fact, it's especially weird that you even aknowledge the long-standing trope of virgin sacrifices and yet it's somehow my invention because I compare the business to mafia strong-arming, sure. Furthermore, did you not notice the demon's chains? Who or whatever made the dungeon trapped her there.

I only enmphasized the "only sound/feel evil" part to highlight how wrong you are with this part:
Morgaln wrote:How does hearing a language turn you evil? Will you suddenly lose all moral inhibitions and rape and slaughter your way through everyone crossing your pass? Oh wait, that isn't evil, Kore and Goblinslayer are/were good after all. So what does evil even mean in a world where people who are objectively good and register as good on detection spells can do whatever they damn please?
Not clear enough?
Morgaln wrote:How does hearing a language turn you evil? Will you suddenly lose all moral inhibitions and rape and slaughter your way through everyone crossing your pass?
Zoom!
Morgaln wrote:How does hearing a language turn you evil?
Enhance!
Morgaln wrote:How does hearing a language turn you evil?
At the risk of never coming back, we need to go subatomic.
Morgaln wrote:How does hearing a language turn you evil?
"I miss good ol' Jar Jar."
— aurilee

User avatar
Arch Lich Burns
You'll Never Hear the End of It
Posts: 14617
UStream Username: burnsbees
Location: Behind you
Contact:

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Arch Lich Burns » Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:12 am

....Seriously that is your argument? To put words in others mouths to get your point across? You did not explain why you think he is wrong, just quote mining and false quotes. You did not even go to the root of the problem why cursing is somehow bad, yet killing and raping somehow isn't. One would think demons would feed better on actions instead of some curse words, after all the actions bring the most suffering, but instead it is relatively harmless words that somehow give them power, and hearing or saying them somehow makes you a worse person than one whom kills innocents.

Morgaln
Pipes Up Sometimes
Posts: 198

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Morgaln » Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:25 am

BuildsLegos wrote:
Morgaln wrote:Fixed the part you rightly put into my mouth because I still don't understand anything:
As quoted from the blog post: "While a demon can experience hate, anger and lust, only a creature with a soul can passionately experience those emotions." Hate is an emotion. A very strong one. Therefore, Hunt's demons can feel emotions. By your definition, the difference is that they feel them less strongly. So I guess that means people who don't feel strongly about anything aren't alive, because passion is a criterium for life in that blog? What about dogs? Insects? Plants? How do they fit into this? Are they not alive either?

What kept the demon Dies encountered from doing the exact same thing as the free demon you invented? She could have acted just like the mafia too; it's not like she was forced to spill that a soul has to be given willingly. But you are missing the point of what I was saying. Since souls have to be given willingly per established lore, a demon wouldn't be interested in a village sacrificing one of their number. Only a self-sacrifice would give them the soul they need. Therefore using this as the reason behind the practice of sacrificing virgins (which usually have to be dragged kicking and screaming) doesn't make much sense.

I never said these words are evil; I only ever said they feel evil, quoting directly from the blog post again, and I pointed out that this makes not much sense again. Swear words are cultural; what is a swear word in one culture is a completely normal word in others (e.g. bloody). Most swear words started out as words meaning completely different and harmless things (e.g. bitch, cock, ass, which all are animals). Some of them are words or sentences that are made form words that are completely acceptable in other context (e.g. cocksucker, dickhead, son of a bitch, Jesus Christ). And yet, these words are said to make anyone who uses them feel evil and uncomfortable. So why are they used in completely neutral fashion at all? This is not something specific to English; you'll find examples of all of these in every language, because swear words evolve and fall in disuse like any other words. There aren't words that are objectively bad, because words by themselves are just sound combined in a particular way. It's the meaning that is applied to that sound, which differs from language to language, from culture to culture, sometimes even from individual to individual.
Thunt is begging to us to "get it" with his lightbulb anology. The difference between survival and living has been a cornerstone theme in several video games; survival is a life of earning every little thing, life is survival already solved.

It's really cute that you even conceeded that virgins are *usually* forced into the role, when Thunt's description practically begs any thinking person to figure out that in his world, virgins sacrifices are always consensual. In fact, it's especially weird that you even aknowledge the long-standing trope of virgin sacrifices and yet it's somehow my invention because I compare the business to mafia strong-arming, sure. Furthermore, did you not notice the demon's chains? Who or whatever made the dungeon trapped her there.

I only enmphasized the "only sound/feel evil" part to highlight how wrong you are with this part:
Morgaln wrote:How does hearing a language turn you evil? Will you suddenly lose all moral inhibitions and rape and slaughter your way through everyone crossing your pass? Oh wait, that isn't evil, Kore and Goblinslayer are/were good after all. So what does evil even mean in a world where people who are objectively good and register as good on detection spells can do whatever they damn please?
Not clear enough?
Morgaln wrote:How does hearing a language turn you evil? Will you suddenly lose all moral inhibitions and rape and slaughter your way through everyone crossing your pass?
Zoom!
Morgaln wrote:How does hearing a language turn you evil?
Enhance!
Morgaln wrote:How does hearing a language turn you evil?
At the risk of never coming back, we need to go subatomic.
Morgaln wrote:How does hearing a language turn you evil?
Quote from the blog (emphasis mine): " This language is so old, so drenched in nightmarish horror, that simply hearing a demon speak it, can cause mortals to go insane or become evil"

User avatar
Sessine
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 373

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Sessine » Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:27 am

Arch Lich Burns wrote:How do we know it is common, not drudic, syvian, elven, goblin, orcish, gnome, dwarf, underconmon, ect? Or various regions of common which has alternate swear words? Just because everybody speaks it does not mean there are not different dialects. Why is crap okay to say? Besides it is pretty obvious that thunt is using english, not common.
It's true that we can't just go by the D&D rule books. Language is one area where DMs very often make house rules, and we do know that Thunt has made plenty of house rules. However, we have evidence right here in this blog post that on this question he is following the usual D&D practice. The characters are not speaking English: "Over time a few of these bastardized, pseudo demonic words have become part of the common tongue."



What's most interesting to me is the reminder in the introduction that "Thuntonia" has been accumulating world-building details for thirty-five years. By now, everything has been so thoroughly interwoven that it isn't possible to change much in the way of basic assumptions without damaging the world's consistency. But some of the assumptions were made a very long time ago, by a much younger Thunt.

Thunt must have decided very near the beginning that devils and demons are the same thing. I can see him taking one look at the artificial distinction Gygax had made, comparing that to traditional folklore, and going, "Pfft, no! This is ridiculous. Not buying it. House rule -- in my game, demon and devil are two names for the same kind of creature." So then he turned to what he'd heard about demons from other sources for inspiration on what these creatures were actually like... and invented ways to paste that into the planar / alignment scheme of D&D so that, for instance, spells would work, and there'd be at least some handwavium connecting everything. He did a pretty good job; we're seeing a small part of it here in this blog post. But if someone squints at it hard enough, obviously there are going to be some logical holes, just like there are in the Gygax schema he was tossing out.

When did the bit about swearing creep in? Who knows? My guess is that it goes back quite a long way. A younger Thunt, for whom parental rules against "bad words" still loomed rather large, might have thought it would be funny to include a reason that, in his world, bad words were quite literally bad words. It wouldn't have originally been intended to be a big deal, only a clever joke. Which isn't to say that there's not some major plot detail coming that now depends on this, of course. Once an assumption has been built into a world, it doesn't matter how it got there. That's how the world works, and it has to keep on working that way.



As for the "sacrificing a virgin" thing... folklore about demons does mention it pretty often. I can see a much younger Thunt thinking, "Yeah, I'd better explain that." Having sex... hm, that's silly. Why would demons care about whether a mortal has had sex? Well, okay, the real-world cultural tradition that created the demonic lore he was working from had been pretty stupid about sex. So that was the real reason it cropped up so often. But 1980s-90s Thunt didn't want his world to be that stupid. So, "virgin" had to be a proxy for something else.

One betraying clue that this part was invented quite a long time ago is that he settled for "But if the person being sacrificed to the demon was a virgin, there was a greater chance that they were innocent and ÔÇ£pureÔÇØ [and therefore capable of greater suffering]." First, there's that lingering assumption that there's some correlation between virginity and purity... or putting it another way, that having any experience of sex dirties up a soul. That's a remnant of the same stupidity he was trying to get rid of.

But, fine. Say we forget the purity thing, and just say virginity is statistically correlated with youth. That's true enough. Innocence? That's another word for ignorance. Too new in the world to have blundered up against any of its harsher realities, not having had to make any hard choices, never having made any mistakes. Only a young person would think that being young and ignorant means your suffering must be worse and therefore tastier to a demon.

Once you've lived a while, you know that's not true.
► Show Spoiler

illocust
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 12

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by illocust » Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:45 am

I'm just assuming it's an imperfect metaphor to explain a complex idea. There are holes but that happens when you take any metaphor to far. Maybe they don't make perfect sense, but things in the real world don't either. Why is gravity a thing? Why would two objects be attracted to one another as opposed to repelled? At some point of digging down you always get to the stage of things work like that because that's how things work.

I find Thunt's concept of angels very interesting. Why if they don't care do they choose to perform miracles rather than torture? It would seem easier to keep one soul for all eternity than to fly around gathering happiness from a bunch of different souls. Is it a deal they made with some sort of Thuntonian god. You give me extra power and in exchange I'll help you out and only feed off of happy emotions?

Or is it more like carnivores vs. herbivores. They both eat food, but they are set up to process different types (happy emotions vs. negative emotions, plants vs. meat).

Maybe it's just a survival thing. After watching a bunch of demons you know get hunted down by mortals over the millenia, it's considered lower risk to perform miracles that don't make the mortals want to kill you.

User avatar
Guus
Floods your Ears
Posts: 2096
Location: Beneath sea level

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Guus » Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:13 am

I understood that as angels being able to feed only off joyful energy, while demons can feed of anything. Because torture is easier, demons choose torture by default. Funny thing is, that means that in theory a demon could decide to feed like an angel. That could be an interesting character :)
You might be right, but is it productive?

User avatar
Arch Lich Burns
You'll Never Hear the End of It
Posts: 14617
UStream Username: burnsbees
Location: Behind you
Contact:

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by Arch Lich Burns » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:12 pm

By now, everything has been so thoroughly interwoven that it isn't possible to change much in the way of basic assumptions without damaging the world's consistency.
Wrong, refining the world and what makes it work won't damage anything of the consistancy and perhaps makes it more consistant.

User avatar
BuildsLegos
Converses Frequently
Posts: 649
UStream Username: BuildsLegos
Location: So rorery in OKC

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by BuildsLegos » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:43 pm

Morgaln wrote:Quote from the blog (emphasis mine): " This language is so old, so drenched in nightmarish horror, that simply hearing a demon speak it, can cause mortals to go insane or become evil"
So I misread "hearing" as "speaks", and I'm very sorry for that. But still, Thunt is invoking Lovecraftian themes with this detail and you're still only showing your own weakness by not understanding that. Also, thank you for giving up on the rest of your points.
Arch Lich Burns wrote:....Seriously that is your argument? To put words in others mouths to get your point across? You did not explain why you think he is wrong, just quote mining and false quotes. You did not even go to the root of the problem why cursing is somehow bad, yet killing and raping somehow isn't. One would think demons would feed better on actions instead of some curse words, after all the actions bring the most suffering, but instead it is relatively harmless words that somehow give them power, and hearing or saying them somehow makes you a worse person than one whom kills innocents.
I really don't get how what I did is putting words in another person's mouth. The bolded text was a comedic touch founded on how I perceived his critzisms and I even made it clear the first time that I was adding the bolded text; a better complaint would be that it was a bad joke. And for quote mining, I fail to see how that's automatically bad. As you can see in that very exchange, these arguements can get over-sized and trimming quotes down to the essentials helps to at least subdue the effect, which I didn't even do to the fullest. And then you go ahead and dream up your own misunderstanding, as if it was ever stated that demons feed on words. Did you even read the blog post?
"I miss good ol' Jar Jar."
— aurilee

BlueAmaranth
Of Few Words
Posts: 78

Re: 08 January 2016: Under the Moss

Post by BlueAmaranth » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:51 pm

BuildsLegos, don't you think the way you've been responding to Morgaln has been condescending and rude? So you disagree with each other on whether the blog post made sense. It's not that big of a deal.

Post Reply