What Would Happen if Oko and Tibalt Met?
Lore forum
Posted on Jan. 24, 2022, 8:14 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
I have noticed that Oko and Tibalt, despite being different colors, are very similar, as they are both edgy brooding bishonen who embody the classic trickster archetype, in terms of both personality and abilities, and they also both enjoy tormenting others for fun; they do not have any grand plans, they simply like to cause chaos and sow dissent for their own amusement.
Therefore, I naturally am wondering what would happen if those two ever met each other, as that could make for a potentially interesting story, although there is the possibility that they would not get along well with each other, since they are very similar in that they both are egotistical.
What does everyone else here say about this? What would happen if Oko met Tibalt?
Tibalt and Oko are nothing alike one another--at least, not where it matters. Though they are both tricksters, their motivations are diametrically opposed to one another in a way that is completely incompatible. Their identities are based in very different historical archetypes, which permeate the characters to their very core.
Tibalt's trickery comes from the demonic tradition. These are characters who want power for themselves and others to suffer. They delight in the pain of others and their idea of a trick involves other individuals physically suffering.
Oko comes from a very different tradition--that of the Fey. Like the fey of literature, he engages in tricks that are not directly fatal, such as turning a king into a stag. Fey are driven by an element of curiosity and whimsy--their pranks are less "let's be cruel" and more "I wonder what happens if I do this?" Oko, specifically, believes his pranks are making the world a better place--he wants to make people more free.
Assuming the writers of Magic know their own characters and the historic and literary basis for each, Tibalt and Oko could never team up--they simply are too fundamentally different to ever even consider working together.
Granted, Assuming the writers of Magic know their own characters and the historic and literary basis for them is probably a little too much to ask.
January 24, 2022 9:52 p.m.
Omniscience_is_life says... #4
Caerwyn while I agree that Oko and Tibalt are very dissimilar, I think they would team up temporarily in a way that serves both of their motives for mischief; for Tibalt, a source of power to exploit; for Oko a fascinating new toy to play with.
Since Tibalt would ultimately get frustrated by Oko's little pranks (if no one dies, what's the fun?), and Oko would get bored after two or three things explode, the pair would most certainly realize their differences and duke it out. But until then, I don't think a temporary alliance would be out of the picture.
January 24, 2022 10:04 p.m.
Caerwyn I dunno, being forced to dance in a ring of mushrooms until death, stealing and enslaving children, leading people off cliffs and into swamps, and more are the tales of warning about fairies. Once in a while, you'll get a decent type to milk your cows and sweep your floors, so as a whole they're less malicious, but far from all whimsical and tricksy.
I think the difference comes down to philosophy, shown here by mana color. Tibalt wants to watch the world burn, and that's not a metaphor. The devils of Innistrad seem to be more destructive and less "corruptor-y" than folklore devils. Oko does hit the right notes of being powerful, dangerous, and unpredictable common to the less pleasant fairies of folklore.
January 24, 2022 10:15 p.m.
legendofa - I would argue you are confusing negative effect with malice. Fey in literature simply have their own, completely distinct morality, alien to humans. They do things like kidnap children not because they are malicious, but because that is their very nature--generally this involves them having made a deal for the firstborn and coming to collect on that deal, or just a simple desire to switch a regular child with a fey one to see what happens.
Now, mortals might die as a result of finding themselves caught up in Fey magics, but that rarely is the result of any directed malice. To the extent the Fey are depicted as schemers vying for power, that is almost exclusively between themselves--bad things tend to happen the humans who get caught in the crossfires of inter-fey scheming, but those schemes are rarely shown as being out to actively hurt the humans.
Demons and devils, on the other hand, are depicted as acting with active malice. Though demons and devils are traditionally depicted as equally bound to their racially-engrained rules as the fey, their motivations for their actions are profoundly different, resulting in massive discrepancies which are evident in both Tibalt and Oko.
January 24, 2022 10:52 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #7
To expand on what Caerwyn started, Tibalt actually began life as a Human on Innistrad. Like Ob Nixilis, Tibalt changed after his spark ignited. However, unlike Ob Nixilis (Who's figure and form changed because the energies of Zendikar corrupted him), Tibalt was nearly instantaneous.
Tibalt was a Human masochist who enjoyed torturing and slaughtering (and other, less "friendly" acts to list here) people and animals. He would drag torture out for days at a time, fueling his sadism and sadistic nature.
Tibalt reminds me of the real-world serial killer, Dave Parker Ray - aka the Toy-Box Killer who had a van that he traveled around America in, kidnapping young women and torturing them for days, weeks or even months before allowing them to die.
Perhaps this part is embellished folklore, but I've read claims that when he was finally caught because a victim escaped, the police and FBI naturally stepped in. Apparently, the rumor goes, one female officer walked into the van and was so horrified by the scene that she eventually took her own life, just to make the images stop.
Dial that up a bit, and you have Tibalt. Absolutely nothing like the wonky, zaney Cesar Romero-esque styling of Joker in 1966 Adam West-Burt Ward Batman movie.
January 25, 2022 1:55 a.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #8
But to answer the question, with my personal take on it, is that Oko would find Tibalt's machinations entertaining and invigorating in the sense that he is attracted to the whimsical nature of such debaturaty. However, Tibalt would likely find Oko rather annoying and would drag out a pseudo-form of torture by driving Oko insane, thusly dragging him down to his own level.
I could see Tibalt relishing the idea of corrupting, twisting and distorting Oko's mind to the point that he becomes nothing more than a rambling hysterical mess of his former self, just to set him loose to watch as he polymorphs everything at random to sow absolute chaos.
TLDR - Tibalt would use Oko
- "Absolutely nothing like the wonky, zaney Cesar Romero-esque styling of Joker in 1966 Adam West-Burt Ward Batman movie. --- that is Oko."
Forgot to finish the sentence, lol
January 25, 2022 1:59 a.m. Edited.
I think any alliance between the two would be short lived. Oko would get bored and try to screw with tibalt. Or tibalt would try to corrupt oko. Either way the alliance would fall apart into a hilarious storyline. I hope it happens.
January 25, 2022 9:12 a.m.
I also see a double sided planeswalker card in it which would be awesome
January 25, 2022 9:13 a.m.
Caerwyn Okay, I'd like to check some specific examples and definitions. Would you consider redcaps or powries (what Murderous Redcap is based on) to be simply scheming, or non-malicious? Would you consider a Will-o'-the-Wisp a type of fairy, in folklore? Also, my understanding of the child-switching isn't just out of curiosity, but also to enslave the children they kidnapped. I'll get a source for that.
I just want to make sure we're defining the terms the same way. I would consider the above examples to be both malicious and fairy-ish, rather than demonic/diabolic.
January 25, 2022 12:24 p.m.
legendofa - I should probably clarify, I am referring specifically to the traditional idea of "Fey", to include higher orders of Fey, like those found in Spencer and Shakespeare, and lower orders, such as pixies and the like. Goblins and goblinoid creatures, which are sometimes referred to as Fey, depending on the source, tend to have a very different set of motivations not relevant to Oko or this context generally.
As I already said, fey childnapping is hardly malicious. Often this is because the fey made a deal with the parent and they come to collect on the deal--they are simply following the natural order of things, for a race that literally is incapable of breaking its contracts. Or you have other legends where they take the child because human milk is needed for a changeling to survive, so they are taking the action to save one of their own. Or any number of other reasons found in the literature.
All of this only looks malicious because you are viewing it from the human perspective of "stealing another's child and enslaving it is bad"--but the literature seems rather clear that the Fey do not see their actions as bad, but merely a part of the natural order.
January 25, 2022 1:41 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #13
I need to express that I have reservations on the claim that Fey childnapping isn't malicious. Granted, the viewpoint through the lens of the Fey is accurate. It is, within respect, no different from us Humans breeding puppies and selling said puppies.
True story, I once worked a renovation gig where I would have been paid $350 a week (working only Sat/Sun) to help refurnish after a basement fire. The family just so happened to breed purebred Saint Bernards. They had a, ahem stock of newly bred puppies reaching the maturity time to be sold. The puppies ranged from $2,500 to $3,500 depending on if it was the runt or the pride or the middle. They had a runt, named Happy, who absolutely fell in love with me. I was the only person he charges up to and I would spend my downtime playing with him. I almost made the deal to forgo payment and accept the puppy instead. But, as a renter of an apartment, such a large dog was not one I could justify.
But I say this story because it is literally the same exchange - a child for a service, albeit a dog child (puppy) and not a human child (toddler).
With that said, there is a degree of difference here in that a dog is, while an intelligent animal, not exactly on the same level as a Human, capable of morality and rational cognitive forethought. And while a Human may seem rather dull to a Fey, we are still above the majority - or rather all - races. It's why we are the apex of the world, and not say dolphins or octopus or dogs.
We have the privilege of examining the lens itself, rather than merely looking through it. To suggest the payment of a child isn't malicious in of itself, I feel, is wrong. To accept payment is wrong. We have a word for this.
Human trafficking. One of, if not the, worst crime Humanity can offer.
So while the Fey may view this as a normal contract, we shouldn't. And stepping aside from the paradigm itself, on a fundamental moral aspect, it's simply atrocious.
I don't normally disagree with you, Caerwyn. In fact I believe the only time I ever have was on Secret Lairs and the Commander ability "Eminence", but even then I held my own reservations to acknowledge that you are accurate in that Secret Lairs are an unfair cashgrab that alienates low-income buyers, and that Eminence is horrendously unbalanced which makes it far too powerful, a la Energy Counters.
But on this topic, I must fully disagree. We as Humans should see the selling and trading of our own children as malevolent, deplorable and vile. And to suggest that it isn't because it is "within the Fey's nature" is a very dangerous walk down Occam's Razor, because the implications are vast.
- The Nazis were justifiable in their genocide because it was in line with their views.
- The treatment of the Uighur Muslims in China is justifiable because it is in line with the CCP.
- The destruction of +$3B of property by BLM and Antifa protests is justifiable because of police brutality
We can't make a negative a positive because those engaging in the negative VIEW themselves as being in the positive. Once we do that, all of society breaks down because everyone wants to view themselves as the heroes.
And that's why it's dangerous.
And that's why I must, respectfully, disagree.
January 25, 2022 2:11 p.m.
TypicalTimmy - Your real world examples are, respectfully, completely irrelevant to the conversation. It is well-established in Magic, as well as real-world history and literature that human beings are capable of malice. Nor, at any point, do I say that the Fey are free from culpability--just free from malice. So, unless it is your position that your examples are perpetrated by the fey, they really have no bearing on discussing Oko's motivations.
Generally speaking, literary fey cannot act with malice because they cannot form "The intention or desire to do evil or cause injury to another person; active ill will or hatred." (OED definition of Malice).
Their underlying intent is not malicious, it is generally some form of curiosity, desire to create a more whimsical world, or the necessity of acting in accordance with compulsions to fulfil contracts/promises/tell the truth far more binding than can ever be placed on humans. The fey simply are in a way that Humans, who have far more agency and ability to choose their own actions, are not.
Oko fits more with these Middle English and Early Modern English fey on which Eldraine was based. He wants to create a world with no masters where everyone can be free--and his pranks are generally in furtherance of that goal. They might lead to disasters results, but he does not really think about that when he does it--he thinks about wanting to make the world a more whimsical, free place.
Consequences do not really seem to be in his consideration--often he does not even bother to stick around, planeswalking away rather than see the ultimate results of his pranks. Thus, not only does he not really act with malice, there is indication to believe his racial makeup leaves him physically incapable of thinking of consequences in a malicious way.
Also, just to address the childnapping. Though numerous justifications exist for the childnapping by fey, there still is an underlying consensus that the Fey do so because they must, not because they choose to. Childnapping to them is less a crime, and more akin to birds flying south for the winter--they have to do it, it is encoded in their very being. Again, they are not human, and simply lack the agency humans have in their decision-making.
January 25, 2022 3:03 p.m.
TheoryCrafter says... #15
I concur that any team up would be short lived. However, I think the question should be not when they turn on one another, but if they both will stick around long enough for that to happen. If they do I think it will turn into more of a competition of who can achieve their own objective first.
Will they try to hurt each other then? Yes, but it would be difficult considering Oko's not sticking around leaves him with at least some immunity(like Tyvar Kell in the Kaldheim story) to Tibalt's "guilt trips" and Tibalt's fiercely independent mind giving him at least some immunity to Oko's mesmerizing ability
The story involved would work as a dark comedy, but could only work if neither really learns from the consequencesof their actions. In the end it would look like a very warped "Seinfeld" episode.
January 25, 2022 7 p.m.
TheoryCrafter says... #17
Jace, the Living Guildpact
Legendary Planeswalker- Jace
Mythic Rare
+1Draw two cards. Then discard two cards.
0Scry X where X is the number of Gate lands you control
-8Each Opponent gets an emblem with "Play with your hands revealed."
3
Normally I don't explain my cards but in this case I decided to make an exception. The cards are not only meant to play well but to tell a story. The first loyalty ability tells of Jace investigating the maze and then wiping his own memory. The second loyalty ability tells of his sentence of completing community service to help along the completion of the maze. The third and last loyalty ability shows how Jace became and conducted himself as The Living Guildpact.
For my challenge to you, reimagine Jeska, Thrice Reborn. I hate the fact the only way you can play the card outside of Commander and its variants if you have Oath of Gideon already on the battlefield.
January 26, 2022 12:13 p.m.
TheoryCrafter says... #19
Sorry. Gonna reboot. Any chance a moderator can delete these messages? This I embarrassing.
January 26, 2022 12:19 p.m.
Caerwyn This is probably going to be my last comment here. I enjoy the discussion and I think your points have merit, but I don't want to drag the thread any further off topic.
In many Middle Ages stories, fairies are very well aware of the harm that they bring to people. While it may be some biological imperative (a point I don't believe I've seen before), they still do it, take no measures to reduce it, and are generally aware enough to know that it causes pain. This isn't a predator-prey relationship, and even less of migratory birds (when was the last time a goose kidnapped a child?). It's parasitic, and the parasite acts with complete knowledge that it causes harm and does nothing to mitigate that harm, occasionally appearing to enjoy it.
January 26, 2022 8:46 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #21
Nils Holgersson was taken by geese, right? /joke
Parasitic relations are still natural. Fleas don't bother about the diseases they can bring, the common cuckoo doesn't have conscience crises over the other birds that their younglings will push out of their nests. You wouldn't call that murder, but you might, if you're a bird. If birds could express themselves in a way we could understand, I bet these cuckoos would be gleeful about the fate of the other eggs, and smarmy about other birds raising their kids like the idiots they are. The only difference is that Fey are commonly portrayed with near-human intelligence, speaking human language, and therefor you seem to be holding them to a human moral compass, and the only thing Caerwyn is saying, is that you shouldn't do that, because they aren't human.
January 26, 2022 11:50 p.m.
Okay, last comment from me. Maybe.
So only humans are capable of malice? If a creature is intelligent, able to communicate, and performs an action that it knows harms another, I would argue that's malice, or at best callous apathy, which is a very minor distinction outside of a courtroom.
If Sean mac Whatever kidnaps a leprechaun and extorts it for gold, would the leprechaun see that as malicious? Or is the human sense of morality as alien to fairies as their morality apparently is to humans?
January 27, 2022 12:51 a.m.
Omniscience_is_life says... #23
legendofa I think the key distinction is intent; while a fey might know its actions "hurt" another creature, it certainly doesn't see that as a bad thing--it probably thinks whatever or whomever it's pranking likes the joke too.
January 27, 2022 1:11 a.m.
I just can't let this discussion go... Pranking is one thing. Murder, theft, kidnapping, and whatever causing livestock to sicken and crops to wither is (biological warfare?) is something else entirely.
I should say here that I know that plenty of folklore fairies are entirely benign, and even helpful and generous. Which I think again displays a human-ish morality. Most are harmless until/unless you interact with them one way or another, some are benevolent, and some are basically socio- or psychopathic.
January 27, 2022 1:18 a.m.
Omniscience_is_life says... #25
But that's just the thing: no matter what we as humans might see a fey's actions as, in their mind it's just a prank. If a human dies trying to reach the illusion of a lost lover that you created--darn! It was funny while it lasted, but now you need a new toy. I think that's the mentality in play here, and that's why the actions can't really be pegged as actively "malicious" as it were.
January 27, 2022 2:07 a.m.
I guess the best course of action at this point is to interview a fairy. Does anyone here have access to one?
Omniscience_is_life says... #2
I think it's a funny what-if, and I could imagine the pair teaming up to double their mischief. They would quite possibly have a massive falling-out due to their ostensible lack of teamwork skills, and likely destroy many things in the process. It would be funny.
January 24, 2022 8:34 p.m.