# Thread: Theories on Belkar's death

1. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by Winter
Well, obviously here; He could not influence the future to save his life:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html

(And I think a d'uh is in order as well )
Firstly, he really lost one Expert level and felt pain for a while. And most likely there are things he values more than that - like, making sure that prophecies he made in his oracular trance come true, because that is what his entire existance is based upon. Of course, if there was another way how to simply evade the loss with the prophecy still coming true, he would surely used it, like the time he evaded Xykon.

I do not have that feeling. I think what you claim simply makes no sense. "How" the Oracle works does not play any role here, the problem we have is one of how basic logic and how or-relations work (you can of course use your own definition, but I'm not sure if that brings something constructive to the table).
I'll explain it in another way. You know that a man has to deliver five letters to the mail service. He may use any or all five of 5 mail boxes in the area - A, B, C, D, or E. You have seen him trying A, B, C, but these boxes were broken and useless. In order to put any number of letters to the (functional) box D, he needs to pay \$100. The box E is free, but it's elswhere and you can't see it, but the man can walk there and check it with ease. Next time you meet him he says he had to pay \$100 for his mail delivery. Now, what is the reasonable assumption to the question whether E is broken or not?

2. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by Winter
Well, obviously here; He could not influence the future to save his life:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html

(And I think a d'uh is in order as well )
Okay, look, I basically agree with you about the rest of your discussion regarding 'or' issues and logic, but there are two things here:

1) Of course he can change the future in the sense that if he has determined that something will happen he can then take steps to remedy the situation. We have seen that to be 100% true. No argument there: it seems what I would charitably call 'somewhat unlikely' that he would have arranged that resurrection for exactly then if he had not seen the stabbing event in his trance - ergo, something of what happens in the future does change as a result.

However, it seems to be implied that it is equally clear that if he sees something happening in one of his trances, that event will come to pass - this he cannot change. Therefore, he still gets stabbed by Belkar even though he makes a half-hearted attempt to avoid it.

He can take steps based upon the his trance information that help him to deal with the consequences of what will come, but he cannot prevent it, the event, itself from occurring.

I would therefore at the very least consider the "d'uh" to be perhaps surplus to requirements.

2) The verb you are looking for is 'deduce'; there is no 'deduct' - except in a totally different sense...

3. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by Mordokai
No, I'm not

And last time I checked, your name wasn't Winter
You didn't quote Winter, so I figured you were speaking in general ("I love how you guys ignored my post"), the blame being of course on modern English for not differentiating second person singular vs plural. ;)

Ok, I'll bite. What excatly does that prove?
The fact that the comic shows him several times taking specific measures to adapt to what he saw in the future "proves" that the Oracle isn't a powerless spectator forced to accept whatever he sees in the future, like you stated he was.

Actually, I recall having to say the same things in an extremely similar conversation taking place on this forum a while ago on the exact same topic... IIRC I think it was Forikroder arguing against everyone else.

4. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by Caractacus
However, it seems to be implied that it is equally clear that if he sees something happening in one of his trances, that event will come to pass - this he cannot change. Therefore, he still gets stabbed by Belkar even though he makes a half-hearted attempt to avoid it.
This is just the definition of what "Change the future means". Yes, as a being with a free will he of course can use that free will to do things that change the future.
So let me rephrase it: He cannot change prophecies. It's more what I intended to say and I think we agree to comic clearly shows he can't (or he would have).

2) The verb you are looking for is 'deduce'; there is no 'deduct' - except in a totally different sense...
Sometimes it still shows some people are not native speakers. Thanks, I learned something.

---

Originally Posted by 2323mike
I'll explain it in another way. You know that a man has to deliver five letters to the mail service. He may use any or all five of 5 mail boxes in the area - A, B, C, D, or E. You have seen him trying A, B, C, but these boxes were broken and useless. In order to put any number of letters to the (functional) box D, he needs to pay \$100. The box E is free, but it's elswhere and you can't see it, but the man can walk there and check it with ease. Next time you meet him he says he had to pay \$100 for his mail delivery. Now, what is the reasonable assumption to the question whether E is broken or not?
First we need to get straight that what I outlined is basic logic. Whatever you want to explain "another way" does not make a wrong logical conclusion right.
This is relevant here because we have a simple logic relation that determines if the prophecy is true (or not). You cannot argue with the rules how logic works.

That aside, I address your explanation: It does not have to do anything at all with the prophecy about who Belkar will kill and what we can deduce about the last case from the fact that the first three cases were FALSE and the fifth TRUE. Your example simply has no bearing at all here.

To make it somewhat worse: Even in your example you cannot deduce anything about E! What you do know from asking him is that he actually did use the fourth box D and paid 100, but you do not know if he even walked to E, you do not know if he walked there and found it occupied, empty, broken, stolen, or even in the state where he could deliver the mail but did not for some reason unknown to us and preferred to pay 100.
No, wait a second: We do not even know that! Maybe he walked to E and found it also costs 100 to put the mail there, so he preferred to use "pay 100 and use E" instead of chosing "walk back, pay 100, use D".

5. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by Winter
First we need to get straight that what I outlined is basic logic. Whatever you want to explain "another way" does not make a wrong logical conclusion right.
This is relevant here because we have a simple logic relation that determines if the prophecy is true (or not). You cannot argue with the rules how logic works.
My statement was not based on the "basic logic", but on the Oracle's actions and behaviour.

That aside, I address your explanation: It does not have to do anything at all with the prophecy about who Belkar will kill and what we can deduce about the last case from the fact that the first three cases were FALSE and the fifth TRUE.
Fourth, or not? V is still alive.

Your example simply has no bearing at all here.
If you say so.

To make it somewhat worse: Even in your example you cannot deduce anything about E! What you do know from asking him is that he actually did use the fourth box D and paid 100, but you do not know if he even walked to E, you do not know if he walked there and found it occupied, empty, broken, stolen, or even in the state where he could deliver the mail but did not for some reason unknown to us and preferred to pay 100.
No, wait a second: We do not even know that! Maybe he walked to E and found it also costs 100 to put the mail there, so he preferred to use "pay 100 and use E" instead of chosing "walk back, pay 100, use D".
Well, if you change the initial assumptions of course you may twist the outcome. I stated clearly that the box E is free (a.k.a. no problem for Oracle if B kills V). And of course it's also reasonable behaviour to go and check the box rather than pay the price outright, especially if said checking bears no problem to the man (a.k.a. the Oracle has no problem to look to the point of V's death).

If we were strictly following "basic logic" we couldn't make any assumptions about future plot at all (beyond, perhaps, that Oracle's prophecies will come true). But I prefer to make some. So, \$10 says Belkar will not be the cause of Vaarsuvius's death. Interested?

6. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by 2323mike
Fourth, or not? V is still alive.
Yes, and? I keep saying we cannot deduce anything from the fact the prophecy is already true. Vaarsuvius might survive the story or not, but Belkar's prophecy is no handle to make predictions.

If you say so.

Well, if you change the initial assumptions of course you may twist the outcome. I stated clearly that the box E is free (a.k.a. no problem for Oracle if B kills V). And of course it's also reasonable behaviour to go and check the box rather than pay the price outright, especially if said checking bears no problem to the man (a.k.a. the Oracle has no problem to look to the point of V's death).
You give us initial knowledge in your example that we do not have in the case of the prophecy. Therefore, those two things are entirely different sets.
In one case, we only have a logical relation and no further knowledge, in your case we have external knowledge. Therefore, your the set used in your example does not tell us anything about the set the Belkar-prophecy is.

If we were strictly following "basic logic" we couldn't make any assumptions about future plot at all (beyond, perhaps, that Oracle's prophecies will come true). But I prefer to make some. So, \$10 says Belkar will not be the cause of Vaarsuvius's death. Interested?
Sure we can. We just cannot base it on the prophecy being true already or not.

We can make predictions about what might happen to Vaarsuvius based on what any character in the comic did or said (including the Oracle) or even use external clues as comments by the author or knowledge about narrations in general.
What we simply cannot do (and what some people try to defend) is to base anything of that on the prophecy itself. And that is all I argue for.

7. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by Winter
...
In one case, we only have a logical relation and no further knowledge, in your case we have external knowledge. Therefore, your the set used in your example does not tell us anything about the set the Belkar-prophecy is.
...
What we simply cannot do (and what some people try to defend) is to base anything of that on the prophecy itself. And that is all I argue for.
But we do not have only the prophecy to make predictions about the particular topic (I do agree that only the prophecy itself would not be enough). But we can also operate with at least these facts (or reasonable assumptions):

1. The Oracle can't (or, rather, is not supposed to) prevent his prophecies from coming true by his actions.

2. The Oracle does not enjoy death or pain, and prefers not to go through them if he has the option.

3. The Oracle can see V's fate and death if he wants.

4. The Oracle would not be negatively affected if Belkar caused V's death.

These, along with what happened so far, are my "external knowledge" I used for making my statement about whether Belkar will cause V's death.

But we are have already drifted very far from the original post so I think there is no need to continue.

8. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by 2323mike
1. The Oracle can't (or, rather, is not supposed to) prevent his prophecies from coming true by his actions.
Irrelevant for E. The Oracle does not care about Vaarsuvius living or dieing.

2. The Oracle does not enjoy death or pain, and prefers not to go through them if he has the option.
Irrelevant for Vaarsuvius.

3. The Oracle can see V's fate and death if he wants.
And very apparently he did that. Sadly, he did not tell us anything about it but a begun sentence which lets us assume is going to die within the story (or... not; not is also possible).

4. The Oracle would not be negatively affected if Belkar caused V's death.
Yes, therefore, it is irrelevant for determining if Belkar will cause Vaarsuvius death.

These, along with what happened so far, are my "external knowledge" I used for making my statement about whether Belkar will cause V's death.
So far, we were not even talking about that. But I like to chime in again in what I usually say in this thread: The axioms you base your predictions on are not good enough for that prediction.

9. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by Winter
But I like to chime in again in what I usually say in this thread: The axioms you base your predictions on are not good enough for that prediction.
Okay, one last attempt from my part. We are at the point an in-comics week before strip #566. The Oracle wants to avoid death at Belkar's hands (2.) so he looks into V's future (3.) and sees Belkar will not cause V's death. Having no option to avoid his death (1.), he sets up the village and gives a lousy shot trying to bluff Belkar by claiming his prophecy already fulfilled.

If Oracle saw Belkar will cause V's death (3.), he could have taken much more effective measures to ensure his survival (2.) of the confrontation with Belkar (or avoid confrontation altogether), because the prophecy would still come true eventually (1.) and what we saw in strips #566-> would not make sense.

Statement (4.) merely covers the very low-probability scenario when Oracle cooses to die in order to try preventing Belkar from causing V's death.

10. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

I've been reading this thread quite avidly, and wish to present an alternative line of thought.

What happens if the oracle had said "no" to Belkar's question?
If Belkar is not to cause V.'s death, and if Belkar does not (or is not allowed by the party to) kill the oracle, the prophecy remains true. One would expect the oracle to say 'no' in this case; provided the oracle has any control over his prophecies.
That is, of course, if Belkar (for some reason) could kill the oracle despite the "no" answer.

But if Belkar were to kill V regardless, a 'no' is not an option. In such a case why would the oracle not say so when asked by Belkar, so as to avoid his death?
It could be the oracle finds more delight in harming Belkar than he is hurt by the temporary death.

But if Belkar were to kill the oracle regardless, again, a 'no' is not an option. In such a case, harming Belkar through triggering the mark of justice is giving the murderer his just desserts (deserts?). The bluffing might be an instinctive desire for avoidance, or stalling for the town to have been there just long enough and be just large enough to work.

And in the case that the oracle is not in control of his visions. This scenario plays out like the one in which Belkar would kill the oracle regardless. But it adds one possibility, which is Belkar killing the oracle (and triggering the mark and the "character growth" that followed) is necessary for Belkar to kill V.

11. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by 2323mike
2. The Oracle does not enjoy death or pain, and prefers not to go through them if he has the option.
We can't be sure that it wasn't worth it this time. Activating the little bastard's MoJ must have been pretty enjoyable, while any unpleasant physical stimulus becomes a lot more bearable when you know with certitude that you absolutely don't have to care about it.

(Pain is merely a signal that something not good is going on... if you know it's a false alarm, you can work on ignoring it.

For example, personally, I know I can endure pain pretty well. I will also gladly swallow a spoonful of anything that's certifiably good for my health, no matter how horrible the taste. My taste buds wouldn't recommend it, a stupid/limited recommendation that's solely based on taste, but my brain, provided with the substance's ingredients and effects, knows better.)

So, I would venture a guess that the pain that accompanies the two-minute trip through the afterlife's revolving door isn't all that hard to get over. Especially if there's a nice reward at the end, like in this case. :D

12. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by 2323mike
Okay, [...]
Finally a line of reasoning that makes sense.

From what the Oracle said, it seems likely Vaarsuvius will actually die in the story and that it has remotely something to do with Belkar (which is no surprise as everything can have remotely something to do with something Belkar or anyone else of the Order did). Yet, it does not seem likely that Belkar will directly cause the death of the Elf, or the Oracle would have taken a better stab at preventing with that information to get stabbed.

So far so good and I agree to this line of interpretation and held it myself for quite a while. The problem I see here has nothing anymore to do with the misapplication of logic but that it is an interpretation that is based on pretty flimsy facts: an Oracle with an apparently low bluff skill, three words of a started sentence and border conditions about what the Oracle might or might not be able/allowed to say about future predictions (possible "etc").
Yes, I do follow that interpretation but we should not overestimate the carrying capacity of that speculation. While I think it is right I would also not be surprised at all if it all came out differently and Belkar does have a lot (if not actually causing!) the death of the elf. I'd estimate the correctness of this theory to lie between 30 and 50%. As such it's not bad but still pretty flimsy.

13. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

I postulate that during the fight over Girard's Gate it will be destroyed. Cut to O-Chul and Lien discovering that the monsters in Kraagor's tomb got loose and smashed his gate.

So then the Snarl sticks its tangled nose out of Girard's Gate, and Belkar dives in and fights the Snarl hand-to-hand, and they both kill each other.

No lesser death would be worthy of Belkar.

14. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Given that the Oracle could have avoided his death (by being temporarily unavailable, as he was for Xykon), we can assume that the Oracle had a good reason to be at home for Haley, Celia, Belkar and Roy's Ghost; even though it would be at considerable pain and experience loss to himself.

If we ignore his interactions with Belkar for the moment, the Oracle's discussions with Haley and Celia in 566 and 567 were not particularly informative, beyond telling them he isn't actually a cleric. After he is resurrected, the only information he passed to Roy was that Belkar would die by the end of the in-comic year (in 572), even going so far as to put it 'on the record' for free.
But is this information worth the pain and xp cost to the Oracle? For a moment, let's assume no, it's not.

If we include his interaction with Belkar (specifically being killed by and thus activating the Mark of Justice), which directly led to Belkar's subsequent visions and the 'turning over of a new leaf', then this is the most important thing to have happened. So the Oracle, looking forward, could have seen Belkar's death is a death that will not take place without Belkar 'playing the game of Society' as Shojo puts it in 606 during the MoJ coma vision.
To take this assumption one step further, this means Belkar will die heroically (which the old Belkar would never have done), and given the nature of the peril at hand, probably saving the world - and thus also the resurrected Oracle. Continued existence after the world is saved would more than make up for the pain and xp loss of being temporarily killed by Belkar.

It would be interesting turn of events if Belkar's heroic death is caused by him volunteering to stand against the irresistible (perhaps while the rest of the party gets away), and V stands with him - an act of atonement for V, but not something that s/he would have done without Belkar's lead; and thus Belkar would have indirectly 'caused' V's death as well, but only because he'd directly caused the Oracle's death so many strips ago.

Although I'd prefer that he didn't - the sexy shoeless god of war is one of my favourite characters.

15. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Belkar literally becomes a sexy, shoeless, god of war.

16. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by NZNinja
Given that the Oracle could have avoided his death (by being temporarily unavailable, as he was for Xykon), we can assume that the Oracle had a good reason to be at home for Haley, Celia, Belkar and Roy's Ghost; even though it would be at considerable pain and experience loss to himself.

If we ignore his interactions with Belkar for the moment, the Oracle's discussions with Haley and Celia in 566 and 567 were not particularly informative, beyond telling them he isn't actually a cleric. After he is resurrected, the only information he passed to Roy was that Belkar would die by the end of the in-comic year (in 572), even going so far as to put it 'on the record' for free.
But is this information worth the pain and xp cost to the Oracle? For a moment, let's assume no, it's not.

If we include his interaction with Belkar (specifically being killed by and thus activating the Mark of Justice), which directly led to Belkar's subsequent visions and the 'turning over of a new leaf', then this is the most important thing to have happened. So the Oracle, looking forward, could have seen Belkar's death is a death that will not take place without Belkar 'playing the game of Society' as Shojo puts it in 606 during the MoJ coma vision.
To take this assumption one step further, this means Belkar will die heroically (which the old Belkar would never have done), and given the nature of the peril at hand, probably saving the world - and thus also the resurrected Oracle. Continued existence after the world is saved would more than make up for the pain and xp loss of being temporarily killed by Belkar.

It would be interesting turn of events if Belkar's heroic death is caused by him volunteering to stand against the irresistible (perhaps while the rest of the party gets away), and V stands with him - an act of atonement for V, but not something that s/he would have done without Belkar's lead; and thus Belkar would have indirectly 'caused' V's death as well, but only because he'd directly caused the Oracle's death so many strips ago.

Although I'd prefer that he didn't - the sexy shoeless god of war is one of my favourite characters.
Although you are probably missing the most likely explanation for why the oracle would be in the valley. Namely he knows that momma dragon is showing up, and since he gets his powers from Tiamat he probably has to help her. If we are arguing future effects for why the oracle would do a thing, we also have to consider that answering the black dragon wiped out a quarter of their race, something a follower of Tiamat would never sanction.

17. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by NZNinja
Given that the Oracle could have avoided his death (by being temporarily unavailable, as he was for Xykon), we can assume that the Oracle had a good reason to be at home for Haley, Celia, Belkar and Roy's Ghost; even though it would be at considerable pain and experience loss to himself.
I believe that he could not have avoided his death by being away.

The one line of reasoning that so far has proven sufficiently elastic to accommodate all events involving the Oracle seems to be that if he sees an event in his trance state, it will happen as seen. he can take other steps, but the vision will occur. Thus, what we can surmise is that he either:

a) saw Xykon arriving or found out by seeing him PLAN to go there, or

b) found out about Xykon's intentions in a manner not including trancing, but not

c) by seeing Xykon killing him and then deciding not to be there.

18. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by Caractacus
I believe that he could not have avoided his death by being away.

The one line of reasoning that so far has proven sufficiently elastic to accommodate all events involving the Oracle seems to be that if he sees an event in his trance state, it will happen as seen. he can take other steps, but the vision will occur. Thus, what we can surmise is that he either:

a) saw Xykon arriving or found out by seeing him PLAN to go there, or

b) found out about Xykon's intentions in a manner not including trancing, but not

c) by seeing Xykon killing him and then deciding not to be there.
What we know for sure is that any prediction he tells us is not a lie and will happen.

But the precise rules regarding the Oracle's ability to decide or plan for the future have never been touched in the comic. Maybe there are pieces about his prophecies he cannot change. Or maybe he only says things that he isn't going to change. Either way, that particular future could have been dodged while still leaving Belkar's prophecy technically fullfilled, even if only by a very stretched interpretation. I'm guessing that the Oracle allowed Belkar to kill him because triggering Belkar's greater mark of justice nudged the future in a direction the Oracle approves of.

19. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by JavaScribe
What we know for sure is that any prediction he tells us is not a lie and will happen.

But the precise rules regarding the Oracle's ability to decide or plan for the future have never been touched in the comic. Maybe there are pieces about his prophecies he cannot change. Or maybe he only says things that he isn't going to change. Either way, that particular future could have been dodged while still leaving Belkar's prophecy technically fullfilled, even if only by a very stretched interpretation. I'm guessing that the Oracle allowed Belkar to kill him because triggering Belkar's greater mark of justice nudged the future in a direction the Oracle approves of.
Well, I still disagree with this assessment as it has what I consider to be odd 'outs' to keep the argument above water:

[H]e only says things that he isn't going to change?

Does he get to review them before he speaks? Is he broadcasting with a lag time to allow editing?

"[T]he Oracle allowed Belkar to kill him because..."

He could have had a goblin/orc/any sentient monster be in that room with him and found a way to make Belkar kill him instead (any form of Charm spell or equivalent could have made such a creature attempt to attack Belkar or even just steal his purse - imagine how Belkar would react - before anyone could stop him. (And we know that the others can be sufficiently slow because of what DID happen.) The Oracle could even resurrect the goblin/orc etc again afterwards if this would otherwise trouble him.

Heck, by restructuring the Tests to get into the Valley and having one involve a fight with sentient monsters and having that area technically inside a village or town would have been possible for him.

[T]he precise rules regarding the Oracle's ability to decide or plan for the future have never been touched in the comic

Well, yes, that's why we are discussing it. But then again, allowing himself to be killed does at least hint a smidgeon in the direction of 'can't change a prophecy made in the real trance'...

[]That particular future could have been dodged while still leaving Belkar's prophecy technically fullfilled, even if only by a very stretched interpretation.

I think you answered this one for me - most were pretty stretched. Though the Roy one is not too implausible.

I'm guessing that the Oracle allowed Belkar to kill him because triggering Belkar's greater mark of justice nudged the future in a direction the Oracle approves of.

Well, fine, that's what guessing is for. But by telling the ABD how to find V he got about a quarter of Black Dragons wiped out - which is not ideal from Tiamat's point of view. Rowr.

20. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Belkar will die from a heart attack during an orgy with Haley, Hermione Granger, and Mrs. Butterworth:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0335.html

21. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by Guigarci
I've been reading this thread quite avidly, and wish to present an alternative line of thought.

What happens if the oracle had said "no" to Belkar's question?
He didn't say no however. He said yes. All lines of inquiry on the other side are irrelevant.

22. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Since OotS is a stick figure comic, can he die the same way as on the Teen Girl Squad?
Spoiler

23. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Do you guys really think that Belkar will kill V? I find it highly unlikely. Roy has already died, Belkar is down to his final days, and Durkon is likely to die to fulfill his own prophecy from the oracle. Would Rich throw in the death of a fourth major character? By that point, death would loose it's impact. Not to mention, I don't think Belkar is even interested in killing V anymore...

24. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by WoolenSocks
Do you guys really think that Belkar will kill V? I find it highly unlikely. Roy has already died, Belkar is down to his final days, and Durkon is likely to die to fulfill his own prophecy from the oracle. Would Rich throw in the death of a fourth major character? By that point, death would loose it's impact. Not to mention, I don't think Belkar is even interested in killing V anymore...
I doubt Belkar will kill Vaarsuvius.

However, I don't consider either "Rich wouldn't kill off Vaarsuvius as well as Belkar, Durkon, and temporarily-Roy" or, "Belkar doesn't want to kill Vaarsuvius anymore" (because Vaarsuvius is not a living creature who has ever interacted with Belkar, apparently) good arguments for why not.

25. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by WoolenSocks
Do you guys really think that Belkar will kill V?
None of the data we have so far lets us make qualified decision either for nor against. So it's open.

What I think: I doubt it will happen but I would also not really be surprised if circumstances arose where it actually did happen.

26. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by WoolenSocks
Do you guys really think that Belkar will kill V? I find it highly unlikely. Roy has already died, Belkar is down to his final days, and Durkon is likely to die to fulfill his own prophecy from the oracle. Would Rich throw in the death of a fourth major character?
Except Roy came back so it really doesn't count. Death in D&D is less permanent than death in Dragon Ball Z.

By that point, death would loose it's impact.
I'm assuming you never read any of Shakespeare's works.

27. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

I don't think Belkar will kill V at all. The question Belkar asked just said "Will I be responsible for the deaths of ANY of the follow: the horse, the paladin, Roy, V, or you (the oracle)" ((yes I'm paraphrasing))

And since Belkar killed the Oracle, prophecy fufilled.

As for his death... well... I almost wonder if Belkar will stop PRETENDING to care about people and have an actual transformation into a genuine person (unlikely) and the old Belkar will "die". But I don't think that is likely... to metaphysical for a character like Belkar.

I would not be surprised to see him giving his life for Mr. Scruffy though... I could see him diving on top of the cat to save his life.

28. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by GunnDancer
I don't think Belkar will kill V at all. The question Belkar asked just said "Will I be responsible for the deaths of ANY of the follow: the horse, the paladin, Roy, V, or you (the oracle)" ((yes I'm paraphrasing))

And since Belkar killed the Oracle, prophecy fufilled.
Firstly, the prophecy was worded such that he could have killed any combination of the above to fulfill it. So while Belkar's prophecy could indeed have been fulfilled by killing the Oracle, V's fate is still up in the air.

Secondly, whether or not Belkar actually does kill V wasn't even my original point. The reason I brought it up was to provide an example of how Belkar could mess up enough for the Order to not raise him other than soul destruction by the Snarl.

29. ## Belkar is immortal

Belkar is immortal.

My reasoning:

1. Everyone knows that adventures go on forever and unless there is a plot wrapup and then a passage of time the characters aren't acctually affected by time at all.
2. OOTS is certainly an infinite adventure, just like a real one.
3. Belkar is not a human so the whole Socrates is mortal thing doesnt work
4. Belkar is a crutial part of the adventureing party from a bardic standpoint, he ballances out the other charicters and keeps the boring blood baths comic as well as keeping the adventure in a constant state of upheavle due to his short attention span.
5. Since Belkar is an important part of the adventuring party he can't die until the adventuring party splits up
6. When the adventuring party splits up they have either failed (something that doesn't seem likely) or they have completed the quest.
7. Since Belkar isn't affected by the passage of normal time and he must live if the adventure continues and the adventure must continue forever then Belkar too must live forever.
8. Since Belkar lives forever he is immortal.

The one exeption to the text above is that Belkar gets killed by one of the ways disscussed and then a knobby kolbold enters the party who plays essentially the same roll as Belkar and could be his reincarnation.

30. ## Re: Theories on Belkar's death

Originally Posted by Redgoblin
Although you are probably missing the most likely explanation for why the oracle would be in the valley. Namely he knows that momma dragon is showing up, and since he gets his powers from Tiamat he probably has to help her. If we are arguing future effects for why the oracle would do a thing, we also have to consider that answering the black dragon wiped out a quarter of their race, something a follower of Tiamat would never sanction.
Aaah yes, I had forgotten about that. Although... by giving V's location to the ABD, V's prophecy was fulfilled - attaining ultimate arcane power by saying the right four words to the right being at the right time for all the wrong reasons; "I... I must succeed."

That this later caused the death of a quarter of the black dragons lends credence to the unchangeable prophecy theory; although it remains to be seen what the fiends have up their collective sleeves - perhaps their deaths were necessary in order to prevent even greater future slaughter?

Speculation: it isn't fun if it doesn't lead you in pointless circles.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•