Brother Tom, his moral alignment aside, does have a point. I agree that life doesn’t have an inherent meaning; however, throughout our lives we have opportunities to discover or create meaning for ourselves. And the main impetus for doing so is our knowledge that life isn’t forever, so we have limited time for such discovery and creation.
That said, I don’t think it follows that human sacrifice, even at an otherwise cool con, is the best application of that philosophy. :D
There’s a phrase from a bit of “obscure” lore from the Elder Scrolls series, “That all the Interplay is one flea of assertion on a wolf of naught …”, which is meant to refer to that fantasy world, but I think describes this one just as well. How can the universe even exist? How can anything within exist?
The empire of death is infinitely greater than the fragile republic of life. All the more reason to respect the heroic quality of existing at all.
One man’s hero is another’s nuisance.
All baryonic matter in the Universe pretty much falls into the error-margins. i.e. The Universe is a big empty void…… give or take a few irrelevant specks here and there.
The tiny little planet with all the noise and puffed up “life” on it all full of itself doesn’t even feature in the extended description. What is it even trying to do? Why does this planet have a rare skin-condition that it could clean up so easily, if not just due to poor hygiene?
That there are people who can’t die, such as the original Peacemakers and Harky, and that there is an afterlife (as proven by Mystics like Gravedust) prove death isn’t greater than life.
I also agree- life and existence without failure, end or destruction diminishes whatever worth or weight a person, idea or object has simply because it will always be there. The existence of death and destruction means you can’t take anything for granted and must act to both appreciate, utilize or preserve what we have.
The twist of Arkerra somehow being a WoW-like MMO raises this example: if quests, dungeons and raids had absolutely no risk of failure, would they still be worth doing? Would they still be fun where there was far, far less challenge? Without a reason to play carefully and skillfully, we’d not seek the best for our toons, whether in terms of gear, strategy or just plain ol’ playing. We wouldn’t care.
Nah, death (unless you believe in an afterlife) is the obliteration of all value. And in the meantime, since nothing lasts and existence is meaningless, the values one assigns to things are arbitrary and mainly expressions of self-comfort rather than any answer to the question of “meaning.” Of course, one can value things because they are brief (if nothing matters except to people, nothing matters enough to stop you from doing so), but one might as well value things because they are orange. There can be no implicit imperative to do anything to preserve anything, because for all that anything matters it might as well not be at all.
One is borne to and fro on blind currents of drive and need and appetite, but one is headed nowhere. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!
As far as death is the obliteration of all value, then *precisely* we should value people, ideas, things, etc. while we have them before they are ultimately destroyed by circumstance and time. My point is the proverbial “You don’t know what you have until it’s gone”: you don’t really appreciate the people who care for you until their presence is removed from your life; you want to watch that new movie that’s getting rave reviews but you keep on putting it off until you find out its run is over; you want to visit this place or location that has some sort of significance to you but you only decide to go when it’s been closed down.
It is the briefness of things that sharpens whatever value you find in them. It is the temporal nature of things that makes you realize that unless you act on and appreciate them now, you will one day be unable to act on and appreciate forever.
Furthermore, I did not say that the value of things is or can be found in their briefness. What I said is that without it, the value we place in things is reduced. I don’t value good food because one day it will be gone, whether consumed or spoiled; I value it because it’s delicious. The value lies elsewhere than in its short life, whether you believe in assigning arbitrary and subjective values or that there’s some real, intrinsic and objective value in an object.
And as far as you conclude with the biblical “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!” coupled with “nothing lasts and existence is meaningless” as well as “anything that matters… might as well not be at all”, then all the more reason to hold on (preserve) and enjoy the ride for as long as you can. In the face of ultimate oblivion, you might as well have all you can now and ultimately have nothing rather than have less than what you can now and still ultimately have nothing.
To be honest, the latter is actually in-line with Brother Tom and The Order of Countless Limbs’ beliefs when followed to its logical end and applied practically. That’s what they’re up to: “There can be no implicit imperative to do anything to preserve anything, because for all that anything matters it might as well not be at all.” Qiam bellow summed it up very well.
I’m sure neither of us believe in intrinsic meaning (indeed, what “intrinsic meaning” could be seems obscure on a modern metaphysics). All there is, apparently, is the “meaning” we find in things- that is, our desire for certain things for certain qualities or our esteem or affection for them. Now, how does brevity affect this?
Granted, as an autobiographical fact, some things may require more specific attention to be esteemed or desired, before they disappear, and this may be called ‘sharpening.’ But then again some people may find that brevity diminishes the chance to value something- one values old friends much better than passing acquaintances, for example, and loves an object of long study that they return to again and again in a much different and more profound way than a brief fad. So length as well as brevity cultivates affections- indeed, the latter’s power seems parasitic on, and weaker than, the former.
With brevity distinctly comes the threat of pain (however minor) when the object of affection is lost. This pain is all the greater when loss comes with the realization (however futile) that one could have gotten more out of the thing lost if one had done more. To avoid the pain of regret, then, which comes from the prospect of an end, one increases one’s enjoyment of it. Perhaps this is what you mean by the ‘sharpening’ of meaning- but it seems to me that one pays for pain with pain, for increased enjoyment of the object increases the pain of its loss. So Death is a tyrant, tainting our lives with dread, and exacting its toll regardless.
If the threat of pain is what gives Death its potency, then, is not non-attachment the better path to freedom from pain? In that case one may enjoy (or not) as one pleases without threat of loss or regret. Death, then, gives us if anything reason not to truly value anything. So in death all meaning is obliterated, and by death all meaning should (if one heeds the desire to be free from pain) now be obliterated.
Er… Don’t be too sure about that, for I myself am not certain whether I don’t believe or actually do. I’ve watched the conflict and interactions between objective and subjective values all my life and neither has held ultimate sway over everything at any time or for long. Meaning may seem to be mostly subjective and given, but I find it careless and sloppy to dismiss any of the said objective, intrinsic value as non-existent.
I don’t disagree much on how our appreciation of people and things rests on how much we’ve gotten to know them which in turn rests on how much time we’ve spent on or with them. It is simply what must be done to discover the truth and depth of a person, idea or object. It is the cost that must be paid for it.
That said, I must point out that you are holding whatever pain is experienced from loss as being equal to or greater than what enjoyment (a term I neither fully agree to or am comfortable using because, while there is a definite component of pleasure, it’s more than just that) and happiness it brought. I can’t fully agree from my own and other people’s experiences. I’ve known loss and grief myself and I’ve read very personal accounts of other people’s grief and loss. Definitely, there aren’t enough words to accurately describe the sorrow one feels at times. However, in dealing with grief, there is the phenomenon of- the choice to- let go. It is to come to terms with what happened despite how much you don’t want it. A good part of dealing with defeat, failure and grief is the realization that one’s life and experiences were better for having known that person, idea, object, etc., even if its presence in one’s life was just temporary.
Furthermore, there’s the experience and realization of the nature of both life and time: the past just keeps moving further and further away from us. On one hand, that- like death- seems to be a movement from what happiness and meaning we find in life; on the other, it applies to the bad times as well. We are more than encouraged but even have little choice but to move on. And as for the former, it goes back to one’s life being better for something that was there even though now it’s gone.
There’s also the fact that pain itself can be a worthwhile experience. I don’t just mean that in a “you appreciate good times more if you’ve experienced the bad times as well” kind of thing (and I certainly don’t mean it in a sado-masochistic way). Sorrow and loss can help people focus and realize what really matters to them. It can even give them strength and conviction. Where the suffering is chosen and undertaken for something, it can add to the value of the object in question.
On regret: I thus also find this term inappropriate. Many of the good things I’ve lost I don’t wish I’d never had (that is what regret is). Rather, the only things I regret are choosing to undergo bad experiences and things, the termination or destruction of which I certainly won’t mind. Similarly, it’s as the saying goes: “You don’t regret what you did as much as you regret the things you didn’t do.” As such, the phenomenon of regret belongs more in the viewpoint opposite to what you are now espousing.
Lastly, on the non-attachment you propose: First, I don’t think you can enjoy something without some attachment involved to begin with. To be truly not-attached to anything, to truly not care for it at all, is to be outside any capacity for appreciating it. You have to get involved. Second, in simply avoiding pain in that manner, you also lose out on experiences that may be at least equal (in your point of view) or even greater than the pain in terms of happiness, delight and meaning. Non-attachment risks nothing, but gains nothing as well. Such an act is more in line with resignation and surrender to death rather than an attempt to making the best of life before it ends.
Death may devour everything in the end, but I thus find it better to take in as much as you can while you can. And it certainly helps if you help others do the same as well. As we are all beings unto death, even if it all comes to naught, I’ll be glad if I get to greet death with a smile.
Roughly speaking, such novelty human values as “beauty” and “worth” generally correlate with rarity… i.e. susceptibility to nonexistence, both in the physical and chronological sense.
Something which is short lived and of low number is considered more “beautiful” and more “valuable” than an equivalent generic, common object which lasts pretty much forever and is tougher than 3-week-old toast.
For all intents and purposes that means something will be appreciated more within a given moment of time if it is killed… than if it is allowed to continue existing… and effectively that the best way to optimise beauty in the world is to wreck the fuck out of it.
That said, this is somewhat of a misdirected way of considering it.
Attention is drawn to change much as attention deviates from stasis (or rather familiarity with said stasis). Simple survival mechanism.
Destruction is pretty much the ur-example of change, and one might say one thing cannot become another without the first being “destroyed” in the process and the latter not having existed in the first place… (but that again is because of the delusion of “things”… of identifying collections of matters as integers or whatever).
I think I had other things to say… ah well, fuck it…. dun care any more.
… One of the joys (being a tad facetious) of being a Nihilist is that when I lose interest in blathering about something, I will just drop it and go do something else. No obligations, no problem, amirite?
Well, they used to have ASL interpreters for the deaf cultists, up until that one unfortunate incident where one of them got a crucial gesture wrong and accidentally summoned a jello shoggoth. Yeah. Turns out that while all deaths are equally respectable, some are more equal than others.
That Death is one bad conceptual representation of the cessation of bei- SHUT YO MOUTH!
I’m just talking about Death. We can dig it.
What is the power that shall bring this world’s final hour? DEATH!
Awwww yeah.
As much as I (somewhat) agree with Brother Tom’s philosophy (see above), you also have an equally good point. The conclusion could easily (perhaps more easily) have gone in the other direction (“We should preserve Life to discover what Life could mean.” or similar). That’s basically what Friedrich Nietzsche concluded.
In fact, it would be interesting to make a moral alignment reversed version of this cult for the purposes of another story or game world.
Quote, by me (have a custom limited edition trading card with that quote to prove it)
There aren’t really as many different living people as you might believe: they are actually people re-spawning to experience Life again (either by choice or because they failed the Test the last time), the rest are real-life NPCs
Oh, and unlike some games, you can have more than one character active at a time, but the only place for OOC is when you sleep, but even then most people stay totally IC (either by choice or because they have forgotten how to access the Game Lobby)
No one is commenting on “Death Eats All the Things?” I always liked that turn of phrase, even if it does make me think of angry man-children. Though, conceptually, shouldn’t it be “Death ENDS all the things?”
Yeah! Dang ghosts! All like, “boo hoo, your uncle killed me, avenge me,” but like, leave the living to the living, you know? Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark and it’s the fact that all the dead people won’t shut up.
Not that I’ve got anything against the Discworld one, far from it. I’m just unashamedly shallow in my choice of anthropomorphic personifications, and like to think that, behind the scenes, everything is run by a collection of perky yet practical girls with interesting makeup and questionable choices in headgear.
I think we need a redo of the 4th panel with Thoothinator? in the right pose for “ALL the things!”
not to actually take the original panels place. Just for fun.
To die is to have meaning.
Okay.
YOU GUYS FIRST
No no, we want to bestow this honor unto YOU!
Cultist Season.
Adventurer Season!
Adventurer Season!
Indeed!
Non, no. Really. You go first. You know, honor, politeness and all. So you first. :-3
I would love to go first, but I just remembered that I need to pick up my drycleaning.
Sometimes….dead is bettah.
Being deceased.
Being deceased!
Life is much bettah
When you’re all deadah
Take it from me!
I was in mid-composition of a whole parody song…but my heart isn’t in it now. All thoughts and prayers to my fellow Bostonians today.
Brother Tom, his moral alignment aside, does have a point. I agree that life doesn’t have an inherent meaning; however, throughout our lives we have opportunities to discover or create meaning for ourselves. And the main impetus for doing so is our knowledge that life isn’t forever, so we have limited time for such discovery and creation.
That said, I don’t think it follows that human sacrifice, even at an otherwise cool con, is the best application of that philosophy. :D
There’s a phrase from a bit of “obscure” lore from the Elder Scrolls series, “That all the Interplay is one flea of assertion on a wolf of naught …”, which is meant to refer to that fantasy world, but I think describes this one just as well. How can the universe even exist? How can anything within exist?
The empire of death is infinitely greater than the fragile republic of life. All the more reason to respect the heroic quality of existing at all.
If you were in Skyrim, I’d make you my drinking buddy and we’d get some mead.
(high-fives)
One man’s hero is another’s nuisance.
All baryonic matter in the Universe pretty much falls into the error-margins. i.e. The Universe is a big empty void…… give or take a few irrelevant specks here and there.
The tiny little planet with all the noise and puffed up “life” on it all full of itself doesn’t even feature in the extended description. What is it even trying to do? Why does this planet have a rare skin-condition that it could clean up so easily, if not just due to poor hygiene?
That there are people who can’t die, such as the original Peacemakers and Harky, and that there is an afterlife (as proven by Mystics like Gravedust) prove death isn’t greater than life.
I also agree- life and existence without failure, end or destruction diminishes whatever worth or weight a person, idea or object has simply because it will always be there. The existence of death and destruction means you can’t take anything for granted and must act to both appreciate, utilize or preserve what we have.
The twist of Arkerra somehow being a WoW-like MMO raises this example: if quests, dungeons and raids had absolutely no risk of failure, would they still be worth doing? Would they still be fun where there was far, far less challenge? Without a reason to play carefully and skillfully, we’d not seek the best for our toons, whether in terms of gear, strategy or just plain ol’ playing. We wouldn’t care.
Nah, death (unless you believe in an afterlife) is the obliteration of all value. And in the meantime, since nothing lasts and existence is meaningless, the values one assigns to things are arbitrary and mainly expressions of self-comfort rather than any answer to the question of “meaning.” Of course, one can value things because they are brief (if nothing matters except to people, nothing matters enough to stop you from doing so), but one might as well value things because they are orange. There can be no implicit imperative to do anything to preserve anything, because for all that anything matters it might as well not be at all.
One is borne to and fro on blind currents of drive and need and appetite, but one is headed nowhere. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!
As far as death is the obliteration of all value, then *precisely* we should value people, ideas, things, etc. while we have them before they are ultimately destroyed by circumstance and time. My point is the proverbial “You don’t know what you have until it’s gone”: you don’t really appreciate the people who care for you until their presence is removed from your life; you want to watch that new movie that’s getting rave reviews but you keep on putting it off until you find out its run is over; you want to visit this place or location that has some sort of significance to you but you only decide to go when it’s been closed down.
It is the briefness of things that sharpens whatever value you find in them. It is the temporal nature of things that makes you realize that unless you act on and appreciate them now, you will one day be unable to act on and appreciate forever.
Furthermore, I did not say that the value of things is or can be found in their briefness. What I said is that without it, the value we place in things is reduced. I don’t value good food because one day it will be gone, whether consumed or spoiled; I value it because it’s delicious. The value lies elsewhere than in its short life, whether you believe in assigning arbitrary and subjective values or that there’s some real, intrinsic and objective value in an object.
And as far as you conclude with the biblical “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!” coupled with “nothing lasts and existence is meaningless” as well as “anything that matters… might as well not be at all”, then all the more reason to hold on (preserve) and enjoy the ride for as long as you can. In the face of ultimate oblivion, you might as well have all you can now and ultimately have nothing rather than have less than what you can now and still ultimately have nothing.
To be honest, the latter is actually in-line with Brother Tom and The Order of Countless Limbs’ beliefs when followed to its logical end and applied practically. That’s what they’re up to: “There can be no implicit imperative to do anything to preserve anything, because for all that anything matters it might as well not be at all.” Qiam bellow summed it up very well.
And someday, if we Do Science enough, then maybe nobody will have to die!
Um… I don’t think that’s a good idea. A case can be made for immortality sucking.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18708_5-reasons-immortality-would-be-worse-than-death.html
Don’t mistake its irreverence (it’s a Cracked article after all) for lack of weight. It cites some pretty good points.
I’m sure neither of us believe in intrinsic meaning (indeed, what “intrinsic meaning” could be seems obscure on a modern metaphysics). All there is, apparently, is the “meaning” we find in things- that is, our desire for certain things for certain qualities or our esteem or affection for them. Now, how does brevity affect this?
Granted, as an autobiographical fact, some things may require more specific attention to be esteemed or desired, before they disappear, and this may be called ‘sharpening.’ But then again some people may find that brevity diminishes the chance to value something- one values old friends much better than passing acquaintances, for example, and loves an object of long study that they return to again and again in a much different and more profound way than a brief fad. So length as well as brevity cultivates affections- indeed, the latter’s power seems parasitic on, and weaker than, the former.
With brevity distinctly comes the threat of pain (however minor) when the object of affection is lost. This pain is all the greater when loss comes with the realization (however futile) that one could have gotten more out of the thing lost if one had done more. To avoid the pain of regret, then, which comes from the prospect of an end, one increases one’s enjoyment of it. Perhaps this is what you mean by the ‘sharpening’ of meaning- but it seems to me that one pays for pain with pain, for increased enjoyment of the object increases the pain of its loss. So Death is a tyrant, tainting our lives with dread, and exacting its toll regardless.
If the threat of pain is what gives Death its potency, then, is not non-attachment the better path to freedom from pain? In that case one may enjoy (or not) as one pleases without threat of loss or regret. Death, then, gives us if anything reason not to truly value anything. So in death all meaning is obliterated, and by death all meaning should (if one heeds the desire to be free from pain) now be obliterated.
Death eats all the things, indeed!
Er… Don’t be too sure about that, for I myself am not certain whether I don’t believe or actually do. I’ve watched the conflict and interactions between objective and subjective values all my life and neither has held ultimate sway over everything at any time or for long. Meaning may seem to be mostly subjective and given, but I find it careless and sloppy to dismiss any of the said objective, intrinsic value as non-existent.
I don’t disagree much on how our appreciation of people and things rests on how much we’ve gotten to know them which in turn rests on how much time we’ve spent on or with them. It is simply what must be done to discover the truth and depth of a person, idea or object. It is the cost that must be paid for it.
That said, I must point out that you are holding whatever pain is experienced from loss as being equal to or greater than what enjoyment (a term I neither fully agree to or am comfortable using because, while there is a definite component of pleasure, it’s more than just that) and happiness it brought. I can’t fully agree from my own and other people’s experiences. I’ve known loss and grief myself and I’ve read very personal accounts of other people’s grief and loss. Definitely, there aren’t enough words to accurately describe the sorrow one feels at times. However, in dealing with grief, there is the phenomenon of- the choice to- let go. It is to come to terms with what happened despite how much you don’t want it. A good part of dealing with defeat, failure and grief is the realization that one’s life and experiences were better for having known that person, idea, object, etc., even if its presence in one’s life was just temporary.
Furthermore, there’s the experience and realization of the nature of both life and time: the past just keeps moving further and further away from us. On one hand, that- like death- seems to be a movement from what happiness and meaning we find in life; on the other, it applies to the bad times as well. We are more than encouraged but even have little choice but to move on. And as for the former, it goes back to one’s life being better for something that was there even though now it’s gone.
There’s also the fact that pain itself can be a worthwhile experience. I don’t just mean that in a “you appreciate good times more if you’ve experienced the bad times as well” kind of thing (and I certainly don’t mean it in a sado-masochistic way). Sorrow and loss can help people focus and realize what really matters to them. It can even give them strength and conviction. Where the suffering is chosen and undertaken for something, it can add to the value of the object in question.
On regret: I thus also find this term inappropriate. Many of the good things I’ve lost I don’t wish I’d never had (that is what regret is). Rather, the only things I regret are choosing to undergo bad experiences and things, the termination or destruction of which I certainly won’t mind. Similarly, it’s as the saying goes: “You don’t regret what you did as much as you regret the things you didn’t do.” As such, the phenomenon of regret belongs more in the viewpoint opposite to what you are now espousing.
Lastly, on the non-attachment you propose: First, I don’t think you can enjoy something without some attachment involved to begin with. To be truly not-attached to anything, to truly not care for it at all, is to be outside any capacity for appreciating it. You have to get involved. Second, in simply avoiding pain in that manner, you also lose out on experiences that may be at least equal (in your point of view) or even greater than the pain in terms of happiness, delight and meaning. Non-attachment risks nothing, but gains nothing as well. Such an act is more in line with resignation and surrender to death rather than an attempt to making the best of life before it ends.
Death may devour everything in the end, but I thus find it better to take in as much as you can while you can. And it certainly helps if you help others do the same as well. As we are all beings unto death, even if it all comes to naught, I’ll be glad if I get to greet death with a smile.
I for one welcome a webcomic which makes people cite (allude to?) Huxley and Heidegger.
Roughly speaking, such novelty human values as “beauty” and “worth” generally correlate with rarity… i.e. susceptibility to nonexistence, both in the physical and chronological sense.
Something which is short lived and of low number is considered more “beautiful” and more “valuable” than an equivalent generic, common object which lasts pretty much forever and is tougher than 3-week-old toast.
For all intents and purposes that means something will be appreciated more within a given moment of time if it is killed… than if it is allowed to continue existing… and effectively that the best way to optimise beauty in the world is to wreck the fuck out of it.
That said, this is somewhat of a misdirected way of considering it.
Attention is drawn to change much as attention deviates from stasis (or rather familiarity with said stasis). Simple survival mechanism.
Destruction is pretty much the ur-example of change, and one might say one thing cannot become another without the first being “destroyed” in the process and the latter not having existed in the first place… (but that again is because of the delusion of “things”… of identifying collections of matters as integers or whatever).
I think I had other things to say… ah well, fuck it…. dun care any more.
… One of the joys (being a tad facetious) of being a Nihilist is that when I lose interest in blathering about something, I will just drop it and go do something else. No obligations, no problem, amirite?
Panel 4: Gaze deeply into the nostrils of Brother Thoothinator. See the emptiness inside.
Biggie as moralist? “You’re nobody ’til somebody kills you”
“signing Death’s praises.”
Well, they used to have ASL interpreters for the deaf cultists, up until that one unfortunate incident where one of them got a crucial gesture wrong and accidentally summoned a jello shoggoth. Yeah. Turns out that while all deaths are equally respectable, some are more equal than others.
“jello shoggoth”… that I want to see!
well, they look pretty much exactly the same as a regular shoggoths except the jello shoggoths are brightly colored and are roughly 60 proof.
There is only one thing we say to Death.
And what would it be ?
Not today.
It’s death yesterday, and death tomorrow, but never death today.
Cowabunga?
That Death is one bad conceptual representation of the cessation of bei-
SHUT YO MOUTH!
I’m just talking about Death.
We can dig it.
What is the power that shall bring this world’s final hour?
DEATH!
Awwww yeah.
EARWORM
You mean Shaft?
takes an awful lot of jumping to get from “Life has no inherent meaning” to “We should kill everyone ASAP”
As much as I (somewhat) agree with Brother Tom’s philosophy (see above), you also have an equally good point. The conclusion could easily (perhaps more easily) have gone in the other direction (“We should preserve Life to discover what Life could mean.” or similar). That’s basically what Friedrich Nietzsche concluded.
In fact, it would be interesting to make a moral alignment reversed version of this cult for the purposes of another story or game world.
“We should automatically reject any preconceptions about what we should or shouldn’t do based on an absence of obligation… except maybe this one!”
So, this is like their Steve Jobs of death cult representation. Wonder what the “one more thing” is …
This sounds like a perfect into to a ritualistic mass suicide.
*Intro
I wouldn’t be surprised if Rev. Jim Jones said something similar when he got his cult in Jonestown, Guyana to kill themselves in 1978.
Wrong type of cult. Now, a ritualistic mass homicide…
He said “rub one … out”
Death is … autoerotic!
I like Brother toothinator alot and agree with his eating phiolosophy. We should definitly see more of this wise shark in the future.
Maybe we could start a collection to get him new robes. His current ones are a little shabby.
All the things. All of them.
Eat ALL the things!
is it bad I like brother tom?
Where Tom will cross the line is when he will say that will take death up by the hand and forced its decision on on life. That is where he is wrong.
I wonder how the kid is taking in all of this?
*knock knock*
DeadEx, I have some praises for death that I need you to sign for?
WeDieToDeliver
Nihilism sooo well defined.
Ve believes in nussing, Ivatanski, nussing. And tomorrow ve come back und ve cut off your chonson.
better to rub one another out than to rub out one with another I guess
We disagree.
Yeah Phil’s right – reverse that, zero!
Wait, does “rub out one with another” mean have sex, or to kill someone with some company helping you out?
(Yes, there’s a “little death” joke in here somewhere.)
“Life is but a test… For the Dead!!”
Quote, by me (have a custom limited edition trading card with that quote to prove it)
There aren’t really as many different living people as you might believe: they are actually people re-spawning to experience Life again (either by choice or because they failed the Test the last time), the rest are real-life NPCs
Oh, and unlike some games, you can have more than one character active at a time, but the only place for OOC is when you sleep, but even then most people stay totally IC (either by choice or because they have forgotten how to access the Game Lobby)
valar morghulis
valar dohaeris
No one is commenting on “Death Eats All the Things?” I always liked that turn of phrase, even if it does make me think of angry man-children. Though, conceptually, shouldn’t it be “Death ENDS all the things?”
Panel 4 should probably say “singing death’s praises.”
Oh, good catch. Hopefully the Creators don’t miss this due to all the other comments, with their wordiness and all.
*waves arms futilely*
Yeah! Dang ghosts! All like, “boo hoo, your uncle killed me, avenge me,” but like, leave the living to the living, you know? Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark and it’s the fact that all the dead people won’t shut up.
hehehe.
Anyone else hope Death in this universe is the Discworld one?
I always hope for the Sandman one.
Not that I’ve got anything against the Discworld one, far from it. I’m just unashamedly shallow in my choice of anthropomorphic personifications, and like to think that, behind the scenes, everything is run by a collection of perky yet practical girls with interesting makeup and questionable choices in headgear.
Death eats ALL THE THINGS then goes to the MOTHERFUCKING BANK like an ADULT
GROCERY SHOPPING
We have the same avatar… Does that make us related?
Of course!
Okay, now we know that guy is evil. see
As a duly appointed representative of the light, spirits, nature, et al, I must inform you that it is not the worship of death that we find abhorent.
It is the fact that you keep hogging all the virgins.
Virgins are a terrible thing to hoard.
I think we need a redo of the 4th panel with Thoothinator? in the right pose for “ALL the things!”
not to actually take the original panels place. Just for fun.
YES
EAT ALL THE THINGS!!
Typo error.
In the fourth panel.
“signing” All the context suggest this word should be “singing”.
I can’t see how this is a joke or pun and it wouldn’t fly in this type of dialogue anyway so I assume this is a true typo.
Don’t know why it wasn’t caught at the time or if anybody is listening but if it isn’t too late to bother there you go.