Housepets!

I can't believe Rick really has to explain something like this... i mean, i thought it was obvious. Someone here takes jokes too seriously

rickgriffin wrote:

Aticston wrote:far too many words

I know what omniscient means. It is a joke. A joke that is not going to arrest the sequence of events in the story for the exact reason that I made the joke. I even put the reason that I would not have it arrest events of the story in the punchline of the joke.

It is why I said they're "technically" omniscient. In the framing of their roles, there is no reason that they should not be, but I overlook it because being less-than-omniscient makes more sense when you have multiple parties interacting and having personalities. So while they should be "technically" omniscient, for the purposes of the story, we are going to ignore that.

That is the joke.

I got the joke, its just the joke opens up a whole can of worms in the process

By making the joke "Why should I explain the story, we are all omniscient, you already know the story" is in itself a joke, but in the process you just proclaimed that all the "Special" characters (Pete, Cerberus, Bahamut, Dragon, Kitsune) are all knowing, all seeing. And like I said, opens up a whole can of worms. Unless you are willing to reduce what omniscient actually means in the comic (See my watchman example) you have the risk of it running away and destroying the working element of the story. Like I said, if they are all knowing, all seeing, they did nothing to prevent pete from breaking into heaven, they did nothing to stop him from grabbing joel's fate. They -ALL- knew why Pete was there, and instead of stopping him, they -LET- him do damage. Yes Cerberus stopped him, but it was too late, and at that, it was done while these group of superpowers had full knowledge of -WHY- Pete was on his way to heaven, etc etc etc circular logic etc.

Like I said, unless you are willing to completely reduce what Omniscient means in the comic, you will risk running a Superman and Flash scenario, where all powerful beings are boring to watch, cause they are either:

A) Invincible, and boring (Flash)

B) Can only be beaten by a singular plot device, and only that device, which again makes the character boring (Superman and Kryptonite)

Case in Point. Victor Von Doom. He is not only so powerful he commands one reality, but every other reality other then earths. And after years, and years, and years of this, the writers finally had enough and declared Doom was boring as hell to read and write about, so they started poking holes in his Omnipotence. He started having mental breakdowns, the powers that hold all these universe's and realities together started to change, and his grip was slipping all over. The most unlikely heroine of all time, Squirrel Girl, beat Dr. Doom so badly, and SO severely, that if he see's her coming, he -INSTANTLY- gives up cause he knows its worthless to try and stop her.

It made the character interesting again, because he wasn't all knowing, all seeing and all powerful anymore. He had visible flaws, and while the extent of his powers before -WERE- before infinite (He's the only character in Marvel's universe that is not only not scared of Galactus and the Celestials, he has the means, devices and power before to kill them without a second thought), they have since been reduced into making him a character, while powerful, one that is not all knowing and invincible. And it makes him fun to read about again.

EDIT: and while you yourself -HERE- have said they are "Technically" omniscient, but actually are not, that's not been said in the comic as of yet. You've said it here, as it is now, in the forums, but not in the comic. "You're omniscient, you tell me" "Technically we are all, but that makes it hard to tell a story", while using the word technically to say that they "aren't" omniscient, but it is instantly defeated with the next lines of "But it makes it hard to tell a story"

Couple that with Pete's lines just prior to that of "You're omniscient, you tell me", it obliterates the subtility of the "Technically" part, cause when he says "Technically" he implies that they aren't all knowing, all seeing, but then that's been defeated with Pete's line prior of "You're omniscient, you tell me" and Bahahmut's line directly following of "But it makes it hard to tell a story" is that they -ARE- all seeing, and all knowing, because they already know what Pete did and why he did it.

Again, don't throw around terms like omniscient, it turns good characters into boring ones. Changing the lines too "You know everything that goes on inside heaven, you tell me" limits the scopes say Bahamuts abilities. While he can see everything in heaven, outside of it he can't. So him, and the others, wouldn't have known why Pete was in heaven, they wouldn't have had a clue what business he had there, which -THEN- makes the plot elements prior better of Kitsune going "Besides, I can already guess why you are here", keyword is guess, which then does make the events seem logical, that the other powers didn't stop Pete in time because they didn't know why he was there, that if their powers were limited to the scope of heaven and heaven's domain only, they couldn't tell what Pete was planning to do.

This drastically scales back what Omniscient means, because in this case, it only applies to beings in the domain of heaven, and ONLY heaven. That mechanization's and idea's, thoughts and events outside of heaven are beyond their scope, which explains entirely how Pete was able to enter heaven, and break into the room of fates to try and steal Joel's fate.

I'm not reading all that, sorry. But Rick just explained that, for the reasons explained by Bahamut's last line, He's going to ignore the fact that they're omniscient, rendering them all effectively not omniscient and avoiding all of their problems. In real life, omniscience presents the problems you list because there's no real reason to not use the omniscience, but in a fictional work, even if a character has omniscience, whether or not they use the omniscience depends on the author's discretion. So instead of limiting the definition of omniscience, he's kept the definition but isn't letting them use their omniscience.

What part of "we are going to ignore the fact that they ought to be omniscient and treat them like they are not" are you not understanding?

EDIT: There are a ridiculous number of things I ignore on purpose in order to just make this entire world continuity function. I will seek out and hang a lampshade on each of them, and I have done so in the past. I don't have any special attachment to leaving those matters out because this is a humor comic so I might as well make fun of the world I created while I'm at it. It's not a sacred cow.

rickgriffin wrote:What part of "we are going to ignore the fact that they ought to be omniscient and treat them like they are not" are you not understanding?

EDIT: There are a ridiculous number of things I ignore on purpose in order to just make this entire world continuity function. I will seek out and hang a lampshade on each of them, and I have done so in the past. I don't have any special attachment to leaving those matters out because this is a humor comic so I might as well make fun of the world I created while I'm at it. It's not a sacred cow.

Ignoring the fact they are omniscient, still makes them omniscient. That's like saying "Ignoring the fact a bike has two wheels, it has two wheels"

yes, but it's more like popping the two tires because the omniscience isn't going to be used.

Aticston wrote: Ignoring the fact they are omniscient, still makes them omniscient. That's like saying "Ignoring a bike has two tires, it has two tires"

Except knowledge is an emergent quality of an individual, not an observable set of points fixed in a purely empirical backdrop. It's not like saying 2+2=5, it's like saying that a banana is orange, round and citrusy: possible incorrect labeling, but if a person was adamant about it he can still be consistent about its entirely arbitrary designation.

It's like saying "We'll ignore the fact that they could use their cell phones to call the police at any moment" in, let's say, any given story ever made since 2000. There are many reasons that people might not use their phones, not explored in the story itself, because the matter is not significant to the events of the plot (even if it may turn out to be stupid, which I'm not worried about because this is a humor comic and I'm playing it for laughs).

If they say they're omniscient and they're clearly not omniscient, and I have not made any rules of the setting that actually requires them to be omniscient instead of whatever-they-are, then you can basically surmise that the function of omniscience in this case does not rest on the literal meaning of the word but rather how it is appended to god-like beings in a state of a universe of an higher order, who I portray in a way that is consistent with characters who are in a story about events that happen on the earth in a timely manner for reasons that should not make a lick of sense were they not framed in the exact way I'm telling them.

Did you complain about Greek mythology, which held that Zeus was omniscient and yet somehow could be tricked by various heroes and villains, if at all temporarily? No, it doesn't make sense, and yes they knew what omniscience meant too, because in OTHER stories he actually acted omniscient.

The judge is WHO?! Careful, Rick: I wouldn't want you getting a cease-and-desist from Square-Enix. (I am WELL aware that they don't have copyright on the name, but he looks QUITE similar to his incarnation in FFX.)

my wings aren't that color

also I'm not a Cylon

unlike Dissension

who is a Cylon

The helmet was something I thought up many, many years ago for a completely different angel to wear, because I thought the horizontal slit visor was interesting

I demand a full congressional investigation into the underlying mechanics of Mr. Rick P. Griffin's fictional milieu.

The lack of rigor in display here is unacceptable. UNACCEPTABLE I SAY

rickgriffin wrote:The helmet was something I thought up many, many years ago for a completely different angel to wear, because I thought the horizontal slit visor was interesting

LIES.

Q is omnipotent, but dealt things in a mortal way. Best way to describe it ~ even gods like to act as mortals, so it doesn't hurt for them to do things in Heaven in a very normal way if they find it interesting.

GameCobra wrote:Q is omnipotent, but dealt things in a mortal way. Best way to describe it ~ even gods like to act as mortals, so it doesn't hurt for them to do things in Heaven in a very normal way if they find it interesting.

Q only interferes cause he knows what happens in the future, so he meddles with the timeline and wants to see what happens next if he alters the course of history - IE - He can't see the changed future until its actually changed.

And at that, Q's omnipotence is only applicable to a degree of events. He can only tell the past, present and future on particular planes of existence, the realm of the Q for example, they can't tell the past, present and future for Q's or other beings like the Q, only mortal realms

GameCobra wrote:Q is omnipotent, but dealt things in a mortal way. Best way to describe it ~ even gods like to act as mortals, so it doesn't hurt for them to do things in Heaven in a very normal way if they find it interesting.

Ergh, Q, easily one of Trek's worst characters.

He wasn't very well written and only there to introduce the same wacky plot lines TOS had with their sufficiently advanced aliens.

On the other hand I don't think anybody could write a truly omnipotent being well. That would either exceed human imagination or be pretty boring.

And so we've come full circle: genuine omnipotence is not conceivable and even more so not depictable by a writer, so you have to use literary tricks like breaking the fourth wall and lampshading the process.

Alright?

Q solely existed to have a draconequus based off of him.

By the most basic concepts of storytelling, a truly omniscient or truly omnipotent character would ruin everything that makes a story good. "This doesn't make sense but let's ignore it because it makes the comic good" is something Rick uses a lot and this is no difference. I don't think it's any more reasonable to ask why omniscient characters don't act like it than it is to ask why pets can talk.

Sleet wrote:Q solely existed to have a draconequus based off of him.

Q now has him hung up on his christmas tree.

But really though, omnipotent gods are awesome in universes when given the right criteria. It's just hard given how you have to get into alot of nitpicking and working with the universes laws and enviroment without them doing something silly. in Housepets, if it was abused to such extents, Rick could finish the arc tomorrow if given the chioce.

Also, there's the matter that omnipotency may also have the issue in that it ain't as strong as we think: things can be thought of, but not acted fast enough. I seen it happen, and while not unlikely in this universe, i expect some gods have better powers than others in some cases and not everyone is as omnipotent as we think.

Part of what makes a character a character is non-omnipotence. It's okay to have something be omnipotent, but the more true it is to that omnipotence, the less like a traditional character it is. A good author can make characters that choose to not use their abilities to their fullest (they just don't care, or they find it amusing, or whatever), but generally that's hard to do.

My question is why this is even an issue. Rick has delved into the supernatural and superhuman a few times already and has proven time and again that he is capable of writing a good story without falling prey to the many pitfalls of these topics. Indeed he seems well aware of the usual failures of authors when writing on these subjects and consciously avoids them.
He has even handled the extremely tangled web of grape and peanut's relationship well (which in my opinion was far more of an accomplishment simply because I've never seen an author tackle that situation well).

Why are we at all concerned? By the end of this arc it will likely be a non-issue. I have confidence that the Rick I have been following these past couple years is capable of handling this universe he has created in a way that is both satisfying plot-wise and enjoyably humorous all along the way. To assume otherwise shows extreme lack of faith (undeservedly even) at best and extreme egotism at worst.

It's just important to some of us, is all.

Also, I can't WAIT to know what his explanation is going to be. This ought to be RICH. So far, he's given me no reason to think of him as anything but a maniacal, powergaming troll who needs to be put in his place.

One of the basic rules of comedy. Don't be predictable. Everyone knows that one. I doubt Rick would have a truly omniscient being.


MOVING ON.... I wonder if Kitsune will be called in as a witness, being the DM and all that...

It would be interesting it he was, and that would also mean that the game is on hold for now, right?

JeffCvt wrote:It would be interesting it he was, and that would also mean that the game is on hold for now, right?

Considering the U&U game needs three players I think its been on hold since Pete was arrested. (which is why I'm kind of surprised Kitsune didn't stop Pete) I wonder if Kitsune might get punished as well for this. I'm just curious as to what Petes punishment is going to be, since it would be rather pointless to have this arc if he wasn't going to get found guilty.

they probably aren't affected by time in the same way we are.

Good gravy, gais. I go away for a few days, miss the first couple strips of the new arc, and we get into a huge, pointless argument about omniscience and how it affects the story (i.e. not at all).

Do I need to put all of you in time-out? 'Cause I will. Don't think my lack of a tangible, authoritative position on this forum will stop me.

...

Oh, hey. Pete's back.

Obbl wrote:My question is why this is even an issue.

And you're absolutely right, 'cause it's NOT an issue. I mean, i'm the one who is against the world talking about plots, casts and others. I'm the one who love to say that Heavy Rain, plot based, have maybe one of the worst stories i've ever seen, Falling Skies is an awful tv series, Peace Walker is NOT a Metal Gear Solid because of it's horrible plot and cast, ecc.

But for god's sake, we are talking of a humoristic webcomic, who don't search for logic, realism or puzzle elements, it's not Metal Gear. Something is obviously placed only for humor purpose. Instead of making a gag-a-day Rick decided to insert a from-time-to-time main plot, that's ALL. That's why i said "someone here take things too much seriously", because it's exactly like this. Or maybe is just trolling, there is a possibility after a certain nonsense post like the bicycle thing. But he's doing it so wrong i can't even describe it.

_Stu_ wrote:

Obbl wrote:My question is why this is even an issue.

And you're absolutely right, 'cause it's NOT an issue. I mean, i'm the one who is against the world talking about plots, casts and others. I'm the one who love to say that Heavy Rain, plot based, have maybe one of the worst stories i've ever seen, Falling Skies is an awful tv series, Peace Walker is NOT a Metal Gear Solid because of it's horrible plot and cast, ecc.

But for god's sake, we are talking of a humoristic webcomic, who don't search for logic, realism or puzzle elements, it's not Metal Gear. Something is obviously placed only for humor purpose. Instead of making a gag-a-day Rick decided to insert a from-time-to-time main plot, that's ALL. That's why i said "someone here take things too much seriously", because it's exactly like this. Or maybe is just trolling, there is a possibility after a certain nonsense post like the bicycle thing. But he's doing it so wrong i can't even describe it.

The Bicycle quip was because you can't change what something is or does by choosing to ignore it.

In this case, if omniscient is part of these very creatures nature, you can't just willfully ignore it, as its part of their basic function. Its like you or me proclaiming "I don't need to breath anymore!" and then holding your breath, eventually you will have to breath again because you can't just stop breathing. Nor is holding your breath you stopping breathing, your lungs are still exchanging air with your breath held.

Which is why I said "Ignoring the fact a bike has two wheels, it has two wheels", cause you can pretend the bike doesn't have two wheels, when in the end, it will always have two wheels. If you take a wheel off the bike, its still a bike because that is its very nature of design.

That's where my chief complaint comes in, Rick is saying "They are omniscient, but they aren't going to use it" which makes no sense, they already -did- use it, otherwise Pete and Bahamut wouldn't have made that quip about them already knowing what happened, because being omniscient is imperative of their very nature, like us breathing

Aticston, speaking as a guy who likes to pick out the problems in stories, Rick ignoring their omniscient for the sake of the story and to info dump to us about the Game and the Nerds is at the very bottom of the problems with this comic (most of which are nitpicky). Lets not make a mountain out of a molehill here.

So actiston don't wanna know anything about this arc because This innocent joke makes it impossible (?) to tell the story for logic purposes (?!).

It's so clear now.


?!

Aticston, the point of the arc is not revealed yet, and THAT is what matters.
Pete's on trial, all right, but there is far enough room to make us see what the implications are for King (and his friendship with Fox and Bailey?)...and quite probably that is what we want to see. Including Pete's fate, of course.
Insofar, one of the things that make this comic so precious is the surprise factor. WE do not know what's going to happen, and that's what matters. The super-duper omnisomething beings can do what they want, but it's US mortal readers who don't know heck. Got it?
If things in the comic went like trying to adhere to an unscrutable reality, Rick could simply give us a long arc of blank pictures with some apparition of King or someone else from the mortal plane.
But this is a humor comic, where 4th wall can be broken, and where omniscience is just a pretext, not the focus of the story, all right?
Remember when King got all 'THE WUT??' when he learnt about Heaven? Man, learning there is an afterlife should change your life, but whoops, Joel's life was ALREADY changed by some omnipotent being, PLUS he knew of the Game already, so what's learning about a trivial thing like Heaven?
That's Rick, he knows how to convey emotions and humor without losing the focus from the comic. Or he'd have to work on double panels every day and 4-panels comics on sat and sun just to fill in every detail.

Aticston wrote:The Bicycle quip was because you can't change what something is or does by choosing to ignore it.

In this case, if omniscient is part of these very creatures nature, you can't just willfully ignore it, as its part of their basic function. Its like you or me proclaiming "I don't need to breath anymore!" and then holding your breath, eventually you will have to breath again because you can't just stop breathing. Nor is holding your breath you stopping breathing, your lungs are still exchanging air with your breath held.

Which is why I said "Ignoring the fact a bike has two wheels, it has two wheels", cause you can pretend the bike doesn't have two wheels, when in the end, it will always have two wheels. If you take a wheel off the bike, its still a bike because that is its very nature of design.

That's where my chief complaint comes in, Rick is saying "They are omniscient, but they aren't going to use it" which makes no sense, they already -did- use it, otherwise Pete and Bahamut wouldn't have made that quip about them already knowing what happened, because being omniscient is imperative of their very nature, like us breathing

The thing is though, omniscient is usually a logical form of thinking, not breathing. They used it, but that don't mean it's going to be forever in their blood to do it every single breathing moment of their lives. If omniscient has a different form of being used, it would have to be expanded as well into the story, but it's not like they are a living, breathing %100 fuel injested gods of everything they rule, there are still limits. When omniscient is usually pointed out in fiction, it's either in the form of intellect or physical power and even both. When someone is naturally omniscient in a story, it's best to assume they naturally think of it just as much as a normal human being thinks, but on a much larger scale. Therefore, they can slip up. While we can always believe them to have unlimited powers (and maybe even believe they never screw up with them) we still believe, as humble viewers and mortal readers, they can still screw up.

Long story short: Being born to be god doesn't mean you're always going to act like a god.

Alicston, you're looking for logic in a webcomic primarily based around humor in which the main characters are cute, fuzzy, talking animals. Think about that for a second.

I hate when my dorkiness warrants its own investigation.

So there are at least 3 other players in this game (assuming Kitsune doesn’t count as part of the 4) very interesting. I really want to know why in the world they are all playing this game.

Dissension wrote:Could it be 'cause they were bored and had nothing better to do?

That is what I'm assuming of course I would just like to know for sure.

If all involved in the game are counting, then the other four could include avatars, making the 4 he refers to Kitsune, Dragon, King, and Tarot.
If it doesn't include avatars, then there are at least two unnamed players, which also means two players who we can viably speculate on the avatars of.

Eh... I'm not sure if I'll ... enjoy the next few strips. I'll hope it doesn't become too geeky.

1. Pete

2. Spirit Dragon

3. Great Kitsune

4. Teoxihuitl?

5. "Spookmaster"?

Wanderer wrote:Eh... I'm not sure if I'll ... enjoy the next few strips. I'll hope it doesn't become too geeky.

don't hold Rick's extreme geekiness against him.