Why will the Belksters death be permanent?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

My theory is that Belkar will either be unmade by the Snarl, or he'll somehow work his way up to the Chaotic Good afterlife and spend his days "...sipping single-malt scotch and smoking cigars rolled from poorly-worded legal documents" with Shojo (and possibly Mr. Scruffy).

Mr. Scruffy is True Neutral, being an animal. That is probably not going to change.

[Angelalex242]

Eh. Trivial requests like bringing the soul of one animal to Arborea is relatively easy for the Eladrin. They can manage.

[SaintRidley]

I think Belkar dying shortly a full book before the final, with the rest of the Order never recognizing his heroic sacrifice, will be tragic and mar the rest of the comic.

This comic just doesn't go dark that way.

The comic that had one of its protagonists engage in a little casual genocide doesn't go dark like that.

Spoiler

Show

[Ramien]

They will once he's dead. But what's to say Belkar will want to accept resurrection?

Then who's going to take care of the Scruffinator?

Now, if Mr. Scruffy died too, that might be a different story.

Spoiler

Show

Personally, I'd like to see Belkar get an entrance interview like Roy did, except with a bit of a different twist.
Demon: Says here you've got a pet cat you are fond of.
The Scruffinator's not just a pet!
Demon: Do you often sit with your cat on your lap, petting it while you discuss your plans of world domination? No? I think you might be going soft...
*much stabbing and blood and hurting:
Decapitated Demon's head: My mistake, enjoy the Abyss.

[fallensaviour]

Mr. Scruffy is True Neutral, being an animal. That is probably not going to change.

i thought housecats were the exception and clocked in at chaotic evil?

[137beth]

i thought housecats were the exception and clocked in at chaotic evil?

Shh, that's a secret. You don't want to let the cat out of the bag

[evileeyore]

Shh, that's a secret. You don't want to let the cat out of the bag

Not without a soft, unprotected face to fling it at.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

i thought housecats were the exception and clocked in at chaotic evil?

That's what the commoners want us to think, but they are biased against them.

[Maryring]

Belkar's death will be permanent because he's a horrible person who murders people for fun. And the OOTS doesn't like people being murdered for fun. €

[cbarrett76]

So I go back to the wording of the Oracle that says something like "will draw his last breath" Oracles tend to like to be a little shifty in what they say. They want you to draw wrong conclusions. I think it more likely that Belkar will "draw his last breath" and become undead of some kind that does not breathe.

I suspect Belkar will die at the story climax and then the story will be over. We'll never see why Durkon doesn't raise him.

Though I think destroyed by the Snarl and respected as a global hero for it, to highlight the contrast with the Order of the Scribble erasing Kragor's sacrifice, would be a pretty reasonable story structure too.

[Peelee]

So I go back to the wording of the Oracle that says something like "will draw his last breath" Oracles tend to like to be a little shifty in what they say. They want you to draw wrong conclusions. I think it more likely that Belkar will "draw his last breath" and become undead of some kind that does not breathe.

That's been a common theory for a long time now. The common proponent against it, of course, is that Belkar would still be of this world. Remember, the Oracle made several comments, and all of them must be satisfied.

That being said, where do you get the idea that all oracles ever want you to draw the wrong conclusions? Right off the bat, the Oracle that foretold that Oedipus would kill his father did not speak in any uncertain terms, and what came to pass was exactly what the oracle said. It's not the oracle's fault that the king acted in a way that made it all come to pass. Even then, assuming that all oracles ever wanted to be shifty and have people draw wrong conclusions, it certainly seems as if this oracle is different, as the Adult Black Dragon sure seems to have gotten a definitive, straightforward answer, as well as the druid whose wife was cheating on him with his animal companion. Hell, even Belkar got a straightforward answer to his query (he asked if he would kill any of a list of people, including the Oracle. The Oracle answered, "yes." Belkar later killed the Oracle. I don't know how much more straightforward he could have been without Belkar phrasing his question better).

[Rodin]

That's been a common theory for a long time now. The common proponent against it, of course, is that Belkar would still be of this world. Remember, the Oracle made several comments, and all of them must be satisfied.

That being said, where do you get the idea that all oracles ever want you to draw the wrong conclusions? Right off the bat, the Oracle that foretold that Oedipus would kill his father did not speak in any uncertain terms, and what came to pass was exactly what the oracle said. It's not the oracle's fault that the king acted in a way that made it all come to pass. Even then, assuming that all oracles ever wanted to be shifty and have people draw wrong conclusions, it certainly seems as if this oracle is different, as the Adult Black Dragon sure seems to have gotten a definitive, straightforward answer, as well as the druid whose wife was cheating on him with his animal companion. Hell, even Belkar got a straightforward answer to his query (he asked if he would kill any of a list of people, including the Oracle. The Oracle answered, "yes." Belkar later killed the Oracle. I don't know how much more straightforward he could have been without Belkar phrasing his question better).

To be fair, this Oracle does have a history of shifty answers. When asked where Xykon was, he answered "In his throne room". Perfectly accurate, but entirely useless. Ditto his response to Belkar's poorly worded question.

The Oracle seems to vary between straight answers, mystic answers which you don't figure out until too late (Vaarsuvius), and outright trolling prophecies. Really, it's anybody's guess which Belkar's is. And that's ruling out classic prophecy screw-yous, like lying about a prophecy to make it come true (Cassandra from Red Dwarf did this).

Prophecies are fun!

[Wermut]

Well, if you want to follow a s strict interpretation of what the Oracle has said, Undead are still in this world, so being Undead doesn't solve all his problems.

Since the oracle tends to give ambiguous answers neither "He should savor his next birthday cake." nor "Belkar will draw his last breath-ever-before the end of the year." really rules out undead. Storywise it could even be interesting if Belkar would turn undead to even out the odds. Ressurection seems not to be an option with the wording "last breath-ever".

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Since the oracle tends to give ambiguous answers neither "He should savor his next birthday cake." nor "Belkar will draw his last breath-ever-before the end of the year." really rules out undead. Storywise it could even be interesting if Belkar would turn undead to even out the odds. Ressurection seems not to be an option with the wording "last breath-ever".

There is also "your pal isn't long for this world", which means that if he is undead, he will not be undead on this world. Personally, I tend to view all the euphemism for death as meaning "Belkar will die and not come back in anyway".

[Kish]

Since the oracle tends to give ambiguous answers

Insupportable.

(And please don't point to the strip he spent trolling Belkar as "proof" of this. That was trolling Belkar. The actual fulfillment of the prophecy in question was as straightforward as could be; Belkar caused the death of the Oracle by stabbing him with his daggers.)

[warrl]

There is also "your pal isn't long for this world", which means that if he is undead, he will not be undead on this world. Personally, I tend to view all the euphemism for death as meaning "Belkar will die and not come back in anyway".

Perhaps only certain forms of undead (vampires, ghosts, liches, ???) involve the actual soul of the deceased, and others only involve the body.

So Belkar's body could become undead. But Belkar himself would be gone.

One could argue about whether Belkar's undead body could breathe or not. (If no breathing, no speaking. Which would immediately clue everyone in the party, even Elan, that it wasn't really Belkar.)

[137beth]

Perhaps only certain forms of undead (vampires, ghosts, liches, ???) involve the actual soul of the deceased, and others only involve the body.

So Belkar's body could become undead. But Belkar himself would be gone.

One could argue about whether Belkar's undead body could breathe or not. (If no breathing, no speaking. Which would immediately clue everyone in the party, even Elan, that it wasn't really Belkar.)

Yes, it could mean that. I think it is more likely that the prophecy will come true in the obvious way, i.e., Belkar will die and not come back at all.

[Kish]

Would it really make a difference?

That is, if Belkar dies, Belkar's soul is gone forever, and then Xykon casts a spell and Belkar's corpse shambles after Roy moaning "Braaaaaaains," would that really be meaningfully different from Belkar just staying down?

[Peelee]

Would it really make a difference?

That is, if Belkar dies, Belkar's soul is gone forever, and then Xykon casts a spell and Belkar's corpse shambles after Roy moaning "Braaaaaaains," would that really be meaningfully different from Belkar just staying down?

Exactly as I'd have said, had I been on earlier. Only thing I can add to this is, assuming Belkar dies and returns as a sapient undead that has no ties with Belkar's soul, that character is by definition not Belkar. At that point, you're just having a brand new character enter the fold, and the only connection between him and Belkar would be cosmetic. How is this a good argument for those who like Belkar and want him to stay around?

[martianmister]

Would it really make a difference?

That is, if Belkar dies, Belkar's soul is gone forever, and then Xykon casts a spell and Belkar's corpse shambles after Roy moaning "Braaaaaaains," would that really be meaningfully different from Belkar just staying down?

Yes. For me, at least...

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Would it really make a difference?

That is, if Belkar dies, Belkar's soul is gone forever, and then Xykon casts a spell and Belkar's corpse shambles after Roy moaning "Braaaaaaains," would that really be meaningfully different from Belkar just staying down?

I would absolutely there is no difference. Thank you for making this point.

People have come with theories involving Belkar going to a plane besides this one where he doesn't need to breathe or eat* (or fund his IRA, I suppose) but I view that as even more unlikely than him becoming Undead.

*Aside from going to one of the afterlives, I mean.

[Reddish Mage]

Insupportable.

(And please don't point to the strip he spent trolling Belkar as "proof" of this. That was trolling Belkar. The actual fulfillment of the prophecy in question was as straightforward as could be; Belkar caused the death of the Oracle by stabbing him with his daggers.)

Indeed, although the Oracle's answers are not always useful (its arguable whether they ever actually have proven useful), they have been right on the money.

[veti]

Indeed, although the Oracle's answers are not always useful (its arguable whether they ever actually have proven useful), they have been right on the money.

Correct. They're not ambiguous. What they are is useless. Belkar was right about that - the Oracle will go out of his way, if necessary, to make sure nothing useful can be inferred from what he says. The only person who's come close to benefitting from their prophecy is Haley, and even she didn't explicitly refer to the prophecy when it happened, meaning she may never have thought of it then.

(OK, there's also the black dragon. But the Oracle's relationship with reptilians, particularly evil draconic ones, may be altogether more cordial than with mammalian clients. And we don't know what, specifically, she asked.)

Roy knows this, so he asked a tortuously convoluted question that (he thought) must give useful information. But the Oracle still didn't tell him what he wanted to know - only what he asked.

So why is the Oracle so keen on telling Roy, in particular, about Belkar's impending demise, even though he hasn't been asked about it? The only thing I feel confident to infer is that Roy won't have the opportunity to do anything about it, or to benefit from the information in any way.

[Gnoman]

Roy knows this, so he asked a tortuously convoluted question that (he thought) must give useful information. But the Oracle still didn't tell him what he wanted to know - only what he asked.

The Oracle tried VERY VERY hard to get Roy to rephrase the question in a way that the right answer could be given. Obviously, the ORacle can only answer the question that is asked.

[veti]

The Oracle tried VERY VERY hard to get Roy to rephrase the question in a way that the right answer could be given. Obviously, the ORacle can only answer the question that is asked.

Completely not true. The Oracle could have given Roy any information he chose to give. If he were limited to the questions he's asked, we wouldn't even be having this thread. The Oracle disapproved of Roy's semantics, so he briefly mocked him, then gave the answer that he didn't have to distort any further.

[Kish]

Sure, he could have told Roy, "Xykon's going to Azure City," outside of the question.

And then Roy would have forgotten it when he left the Sunken Valley.

If the Oracle's answers were always useless, whether Haley would have her speech back is debatable (she never explicitly says, either way, whether "I'm not looking the gift horse in the mouth 'cause the Oracle said not to" is part of her motivation for turning off her brain and going on her date with Nale). The fact that Roy would not have learned Xykon's name or location the way he did is not.

[veti]

Sure, he could have told Roy, "Xykon's going to Azure City," outside of the question.

And then Roy would have forgotten it when he left the Sunken Valley.

Again, that's entirely the Oracle's call. He's not limited in giving out information that can be remembered outside. He can turn that on at will.

If the Oracle's answers were always useless, whether Haley would have her speech back is debatable (she never explicitly says, either way, whether "I'm not looking the gift horse in the mouth 'cause the Oracle said not to" is part of her motivation for turning off her brain and going on her date with Nale). The fact that Roy would not have learned Xykon's name or location the way he did is not.

Roy had to torture that information out of him.

[evileeyore]

Again, that's entirely the Oracle's call. He's not limited in giving out information that can be remembered outside. He can turn that on at will.

You are completely misapplying what occurred in that strip.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

You are completely misapplying what occurred in that strip.

It seems that what Veti is saying is that the Oracle could, in theory, at any point give a free prophecy so that the person would remember it. The Oracle could have chosen to give him a prophecy "on the house". He didn't, probably because he doesn't care about Roy all that much, but he could have.

[veti]

You are completely misapplying what occurred in that strip.

How so? What that strip shows is that there's no magic compelling the Oracle to answer precisely the questions he's asked, no more and no less, in the Special Green Speechbubbles - he can say whatever he likes.

If he gives uninformative answers - and the evidence is overwhelming that he does, consistently, do that - it's not because he's forced to. It's just because he's a git who actively hates the 'poor sad pathetic lonely unclean annoying disgustingly-hairy mouth-breathing ape-people' that he's taking money from.