When Belkar dies, will we see his afterlife

[Peelee]

When the oracle does that weird green speech balloon thing. Anything you'll remember while passing through the memory charm (not counting being banished past it).

Off hand comments the oracle makes when not doing that still might be true, he is an oracle after all, but he'd be under no obligation to tell the truth. Though because he seems to assume his little charm is completely foolproof he probably isn't lying in any of his offhand comments, there would be little to no point.

Spoiler: Crazy Theory

Show

That is, unless he did in fact know Roy would get past the memory charm when he was banished and so he tried to plant seeds of a specific interpretation of the prophecy about Belkar, for... some reason. Maybe fate isn't fixed and he wants to make sure Belkar never gets raised, or prophecies are sort of a toss up between the interpretations until one of them happens or something. All highly unlikely I think.

Awesome; that's actually a great definition for this context.

Now, assuming that the other predictions the Oracle has made aren't true, what's the point of the memory charm? And, coming from the other direction, with the memory charm in place, what's the point of the Oracle making intentionally false predictions without the green glowies?

[Ruck]

How about the last panel?

The one where he talks about being willing to do something that he doesn't actually do?

The current book has covered, what, a week of in-world time?

It's still shown him doing plenty of things, none of which I would describe as the acts of a sadistic monster, and at least one of which-- #969-- I would definitely say the old Belkar wouldn't have done. (I'd also argue the old Belkar wouldn't have cared enough about Durkon to be so relentless in trying to expose Greg for who he really is.)

edit: I know #969 is evidence that Belkar still pings evil. But I don't think the old Belkar would have turned down the lunch offer and certainly wouldn't have done so out of guilt. I'm not arguing that he's a new person or even that his alignment has changed. I'm arguing against the idea that he hasn't changed in even the slightest.

[RatElemental]

Awesome; that's actually a great definition for this context.

Now, assuming that the other predictions the Oracle has made aren't true, what's the point of the memory charm? And, coming from the other direction, with the memory charm in place, what's the point of the Oracle making intentionally false predictions without the green glowies?

Well, if you want a crazy theory for why the oracle would lie while "off the record," other than just to screw with people for the small amount of time they'll remember the lies, see my crazy theory spoiler.

I labeled it crazy for a reason though, I don't think it's anywhere near likely, and for all intents and purposes we as readers can probably take just about everything the oracle has said at face value.

[martianmister]

The one where he talks about being willing to do something that he doesn't actually do?

The one where he talks about to do someting he actually would do.

[Kish]

edit: I know #969 is evidence that Belkar still pings evil. But I don't think the old Belkar would have turned down the lunch offer and certainly wouldn't have done so out of guilt. I'm not arguing that he's a new person or even that his alignment has changed. I'm arguing against the idea that he hasn't changed in even the slightest.

Who said "he hasn't changed in even the slightest"?

[NerdyKris]

When the oracle does that weird green speech balloon thing. Anything you'll remember while passing through the memory charm (not counting being banished past it).

Off hand comments the oracle makes when not doing that still might be true, he is an oracle after all, but he'd be under no obligation to tell the truth. Though because he seems to assume his little charm is completely foolproof he probably isn't lying in any of his offhand comments, there would be little to no point.

Spoiler: Crazy Theory

Show

That is, unless he did in fact know Roy would get past the memory charm when he was banished and so he tried to plant seeds of a specific interpretation of the prophecy about Belkar, for... some reason. Maybe fate isn't fixed and he wants to make sure Belkar never gets raised, or prophecies are sort of a toss up between the interpretations until one of them happens or something. All highly unlikely I think.

He said the second prophecy in the green speech. Roy could have walked out the front gate and remembered it. That was the whole purpose of the prophecy. Bypassing the memory charm only allowed Roy to know what evil act Belkar committed that set off the mark, it has nothing to do with knowing about the prophecy.

[KorvinStarmast]

True, I was wrong on that. But they still have the stupid "die in battle" thing, for some reason.

If you look up Norse Mythology, there is a theme in that mythos that only the noblest/bravest warriors will be retrieved by Valkyrie as they die in battle. They are taken to Valhalla where they party and fight and party and fight until the Gotterdamerung.

I am pretty sure Rich is riffing off of that element of the RW mythology for that pantheon of Gods.

[RatElemental]

He said the second prophecy in the green speech. Roy could have walked out the front gate and remembered it. That was the whole purpose of the prophecy. Bypassing the memory charm only allowed Roy to know what evil act Belkar committed that set off the mark, it has nothing to do with knowing about the prophecy.

As others have pointed out, the prophecy specifically mentions taking his last breath, and there are ways of being "alive" that don't involve breathing. And not just vampirization, there are intelligent golems, liches, and even some those things Xykon mentioned while talking down V's soul splices. It's all the "unofficial" comments that would have been forgotten that heavily suggest Belkar won't be around at all potential loophole or not. By which I mean on the material plane, but Snarl-death is a distinct possibility for him.

[Ruck]

Who said "he hasn't changed in even the slightest"?

That's how I interpreted the "he's the same sadistic monster he's always been..." comment. He isn't the same, in that he's developed a capacity for empathy, for loyalty (to Mr. Scruffy, at least, although I'd argue he has it for Durkon to after he sacrificed his life to save him), for guilt over taking advantage of someone, etc.

[Kish]

So, no one said "he hasn't changed in even the slightest," even what you're putting in quotes is at best a paraphrase (what you initially responded to was "No, Belkar is a sadistic monster and hasn't really stopped," if you bothered to scroll up and look at it), and you're beating on a strawman.

(I think there's an excellent chance Belkar will never murder an innocent or torture a captive again, though the fact that I expect him to die and stay dead within a few in-comic weeks is a significant part of the reason why, but let's not make arguments about what we think people meant when they said something different. If you think Belkar has stopped--that is, that if five minutes from now the group discovered that Greg and Xykon had annihilated each other, and Belkar wandered off on his own and never saw the rest of the Order again, he would never again choose to do anything that would earn the description "sadistic monster"--then you disagree with the person you responded to. If you don't believe that, then you don't.)

[TheNecrocomicon]

As others have pointed out, the prophecy specifically mentions taking his last breath, and there are ways of being "alive" that don't involve breathing. And not just vampirization, there are intelligent golems, liches, and even some those things Xykon mentioned while talking down V's soul splices. It's all the "unofficial" comments that would have been forgotten that heavily suggest Belkar won't be around at all potential loophole or not. By which I mean on the material plane, but Snarl-death is a distinct possibility for him.

Basically, this.

Sorry I've been occupied for a few days, the "going into a beam of light and speaking in green speech bubbles" mode was indeed the criterion I was using for "official" prophecy by the Oracle. Him speaking normally is just him saying whatever he wants instead of going "on the record". What motivated me to sorta-resurrect this thread in the first place is that people seem to be obsessing over the off-the-cuff lines that imply permanent death for Belkar, as opposed to the prophecy which allows a massive loophole in the form of only talking about taking "his last breath ever" -- and other prophecies made in this same series have been subject to massive loopholes before.

There are three ways I figure this could go down:

A) Belkar might indeed die permanently, but unless this happens taking down Xykon/Redcloak/etc. in a climactic final battle of the series, any death beforehand means there will be a permanent change to the dynamic of the Order around whom this series revolves -- which is currently driving the drama around Durkon/Lurkon -- and probably having to introduce or at least fully develop another main character with a book and a half to go. (Not to mention Mr. Scruffy and Bloodfeast having to find and adopt a new master, if they don't die alongside Belkar.) I just don't see it happening or making sense from a narrative standpoint.

B) Belkar might die non-permanently, but we already had a main character in the afterlife and a mad scramble to resurrect them, and it was Roy no less. Belkar getting the same treatment would feel and be repetitive and cheap, and I don't see the other Order members being as willing to risk themselves struggling to resurrect him they way that they did for Roy as their leader. Plus non-permanent death would mean Belkar would draw breath once again after being resurrected, unless ...

C) Belkar might carry on as sentient undead. This would satisfy the "take his last breath ever" requirement that the prophecy revolves around, and yes, there are plenty of forms that the non-breathing undead could take. I just think that vampirification is the most likely since ready access currently exists in the form of Lurkon and his remaining spawn, and Malack's aborted attempt at turning Belkar (before fighting and turning Durkon) could just have been clever foreshadowing. While being a vampire is constant torture for lawful good Durkon, chaotic evil Belkar might just enjoy it and the power boost that it brings.

[hroþila]

The only reason the memory charm exists is that the Oracle doesn't want the legit stuff he says on top of what he's officially asked about (and paid for) to be remembered by his clients. It doesn't make much sense to then dismiss those things he says off the record as "not really prophecies".

[Peelee]

The only reason the memory charm exists is that the Oracle doesn't want the legit stuff he says on top of what he's officially asked about (and paid for) to be remembered by his clients. It doesn't make much sense to then dismiss those things he says off the record as "not really prophecies".

Indeed, this. "Official prophecy" just means "the ones the asker remembers." All his prophetic statements should be taken as true.

[Sir_Norbert]

Rather, all his prophetic statements should be taken as things the author wants us to believe are definitely going to come true. We have no knowledge of how the Oracle's prophetic gift actually works, except that the author allows him to say things about the future, and all the ones that have been resolved so far have come true. We don't know whether this one will come true or not until it actually happens.

Sure, you can say: "If it's not going to come true, why did the author introduce the prophecy into the story?" But there could be other reasons. The Oracle (or his divine source) could be lying or mistaken, and either way there could be an interesting reason for it that we don't know yet. This is an author with a long track record of surprising us and making the most unexpected twists actually work.

Sure, I think it's most likely the prophecy will simply come true. I just wanted to point out that "the Oracle said so" is not a sufficient reason for claiming absolute certainty.

[dps]

Belkar is also "not long for this world".

Well, d'oh, he's like, what, 3' tall? Not long at all.

[Peelee]

Rather, all his prophetic statements should be taken as things the author wants us to believe are definitely going to come true. We have no knowledge of how the Oracle's prophetic gift actually works, except that the author allows him to say things about the future, and all the ones that have been resolved so far have come true. We don't know whether this one will come true or not until it actually happens.

Sure, you can say: "If it's not going to come true, why did the author introduce the prophecy into the story?" But there could be other reasons. The Oracle (or his divine source) could be lying or mistaken, and either way there could be an interesting reason for it that we don't know yet. This is an author with a long track record of surprising us and making the most unexpected twists actually work.

Sure, I think it's most likely the prophecy will simply come true. I just wanted to point out that "the Oracle said so" is not a sufficient reason for claiming absolute certainty.

If the Oracle can be wrong, mistaken, or lying, then we have no reason to believe anything that he says. Sure, it may ne the case, but I'd argue it's shoddy writing then, and i have cone to expect that this story is not shoddily written.

[NerdyKris]

Agreed. Unless we're given any indication of an unreliable narrator, assuming a character delivering information is outright lying to the reader pretty much renders any discussion meaningless, as you could argue anything you want, and just dismiss all evidence to the contrary as just being a red herring.

[Kish]

I think "the Oracle may be lying" is a valid, if ultimately, in my opinion, doomed, perspective.

I think "the Oracle is a truth-teller with some loopholes right where I stop wanting to believe him" lacks.

I think the claim that "other prophecies made in this same series have been subject to massive loopholes before" has a massive [citation needed] under it. With a note that I mean a citation for the statement made there, not for other statements that someone thinks are related. Yes, I know the Oracle spent a strip trolling Belkar before the prophecy that Belkar would kill one of the people on his list came true in the most literal way possible. Yes, I know Roy was unhappy with the answer that Xykon was in his throne room. No, neither of those makes "other prophecies made in the same series have been subject to massive loopholes" true.

[Bulldog Psion]

Somewhere, Mr. Burlew is rubbing his hands and snickering in glee at the way those few sentences "launched a thousand threads."

[TheNecrocomicon]

The Oracle has repeatedly demonstrated a predilection for weasel words and vagueness when either talking or prophesying, and furthermore there must be some significance to his drawing on some form of divine or magical power to provide prophecies "on the record" (floating, beam of light, green aura, green speech) as opposed to the regular chit-chat when he's just bantering with the characters.

I only ask that people look beyond the absolutely literal interpretation to consider possibilities beyond what we are obviously meant to believe. Remember, this is a story where "Durkon will return home posthumously" and "Durkon will bring ruin to the dwarves" has already ended up meaning "Durkon will return home and bring ruin as a vampire", and it took several hundred strips for this to come to fruition, so we already know Rich likes to build enough room into prophecies to permit plot twists far in advance.

Both of the Oracle's comments in question about Belkar, "not long for this world" and "will draw his last breath -- ever" were made to Roy in #572 when Roy was dead and could remember everything as he wasn't subject to the memory-wiping enchantment on the area (which the Oracle knew). In neither case does the Oracle literally state "Belkar will die".

Belkar might get banished to some other world, and/or there are forms of life he could take that do not require breathing. Sentient undead do not breathe, and Belkar would have to die to become one (Captain Obvious here). Various extraplanar beings, if I recall, do not breathe (or do not need to) and are not of this world. Hell, for all we know, Belkar might ascend to become a literal Sexy Shoeless God of War; gods don't need to breathe either, so even that would satisfy both of the Oracle's comments, on or off "the record" (also, tiebreaking Godsmoot vote, anyone?).

I am not stating that the Oracle is outright lying to the reader or the characters, only that he leaves holes in his "truth" so big that you could barrel-roll the Mechane through them.

[Kish]

Aside from the fact that the Oracle said why he does the green glowies thing, which has already been cited in this thread, and thus saying "he must have some reason" fails to point to "he must have some reason which will specifically be a reason for Belkar to stay alive," could you please make up your mind whether you're arguing that the green-glowies prophecy is in some way more true than the no-green-glowies ones, or not? Because your latest post seems to be claiming both.

[TheNecrocomicon]

Aside from the fact that the Oracle said why he does the green glowies thing, which has already been cited in this thread, and thus saying "he must have some reason" fails to point to "he must have some reason which will specifically be a reason for Belkar to stay alive," could you please make up your mind whether you're arguing that the green-glowies prophecy is in some way more true than the no-green-glowies ones, or not? Because your latest post seems to be claiming both.

I consider his green-glow-trance-mode to be him making an official, word-for-word prophecy, backed by whatever underlying divine or magical power is involved. Regular talking could just be anything, whether comments informed by prophecy or just messing with the characters' heads.

I am simply trying to allow for the fact that other people seem to believe that every single word that comes out of the Oracle's mouth is straight prophecy.

And even so, my point stands, despite the pedantics: the Oracle has never yet literally stated that Belkar would die, only that he was not long for this world and that he would draw his last breath ever. As I and others have already repeatedly pointed out, these have several possible meanings (and others I haven't thought of) above and beyond the obvious possibility that Belkar will simply die.

This is not arbitrary wishful thinking. The prophecies surrounding Durkon stated that he would bring ruin to the dwarves, and also that he would return home "posthumously". That would, at first interpretation, seem to suggest that he would die and be buried there ... and yet, here we are, with Durkon hijacked by a vampire and bringing ruin to his homeland after his death. Thus it strikes me that it is extremely likely that the vague wording of Belkar's future fate is no accident on Rich's part, and that we're supposed to believe it means conventional death when the end result will be something else entirely.

[Jasdoif]

The prophecies surrounding Durkon stated that he would bring ruin to the dwarves, and also that he would return home "posthumously". That would, at first interpretation, seem to suggest that he would die and be buried there ... and yet, here we are, with Durkon hijacked by a vampire and bringing ruin to his homeland after his death.

First, the Oracle didn't give the prophecy about Durkon and the dwarves;

Spoiler: On the Origin of PCs

Show

that came from one of Odin's priests.

Anyway, where's your proof that Durkon won't be buried there?

[Pyrous]

This is not arbitrary wishful thinking. The prophecies surrounding Durkon stated that he would bring ruin to the dwarves, and also that he would return home "posthumously". That would, at first interpretation, seem to suggest that he would die and be buried there ...

The Oracle said that Durkon would die before going back to dwarven lands. That he would be buried there was Durkon's wishful thinking.

[NerdyKris]

The Oracle's prophecies are fairly straightforward. They don't really use weasel words. The only one you could argue is the posthumously one, but Durkon is still dead and his body is returning to Dwaven lands. That it's walking there by virtue of an evil spell instead of being carried in a coffin is beside the point. Durkon is returning after his death. For all we know, he may never be raised.

Haley solved her affliction by not questioning an unexpected event.

Vaarsuvius said the four right words to the right person at the right time for the wrong reasons.

Belkar asked if he would kill any of the following (not all of them), and he did, by killing the Oracle.

Roy's prophecy was screwed up by Roy, not the Oracle. The Oracle even tried to get him to fix his wording so it wouldn't send them in the wrong direction.

So we've had no indication that the Oracle lies or intentionally misleads people with his prophecies.

[TheNecrocomicon]

First, the Oracle didn't give the prophecy about Durkon and the dwarves;

Spoiler: On the Origin of PCs

Show

that came from one of Odin's priests.

Anyway, where's your proof that Durkon won't be buried there?

The Oracle said that Durkon would die before going back to dwarven lands. That he would be buried there was Durkon's wishful thinking.

Sure. But prophecy is prophecy, whether that's backed by the divine power of Tiamat or Odin or any of their peers.

You're missing the point: that was merely an example I was using of how Rich left himself a massive backdoor for Durkon to return home posthumously, other than the obvious implication that he would simply die and be buried there. Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time very few if any people must have guessed he was going to come home bringing ruin as a vampire.

With that tendency of Rich's storytelling being established around deaths of members of the Order, I think he has deliberately left a similarly huge loophole as to Belkar's supposed death. The Oracle, in his divine-powered precognitive trance in #572, stated Belkar would "draw his last breath -- ever -- before the end of the year" after stating off the record that he was "not long for this world". This is after the Order's earlier visit, where he stated in #329 that Belkar "shouldn't bother funding his IRA" and should "savor his next birthday cake". None of those are a literal statement that Belkar will die, and pointedly leaving out that key fact not once but four times under direct questioning strikes me as a highly suspicious pattern.

[NerdyKris]

The prophecies don't have "backdoors" just in case Rich wasn't sure what they'd be. They were all written with the express intention of foretelling future story points that were already planned. They mean exactly what he wanted them to mean when he wrote them.


Also a whole ton of people guessed the Durkon returning as undead plotline. Like so many. Constantly.

[TheNecrocomicon]

So if so many people guessed the plot twist about Durkon, and it was so transparent, why is the groupthink so much more adamant that Belkar's fate is the obvious one and not a future twist as well? Obviously the prophecies around Durkon were a setup for the events currently transpiring in the comic. So why is it such heresy to suggest a similar pattern around the statements made on Belkar?

I guess I just need to bow to the weight of superior numbers and wait to see how the prophecies around Belkar will play out.

[Jasdoif]

But prophecy is prophecy, whether that's backed by the divine power of Tiamat or Odin or any of their peers.

Melee attack rolls are melee attack rolls, whether they're backed by the base attack bonus of Roy or Vaarsuvius or any of their peers, too; that doesn't mean Vaarsuvius' performance with a melee attack roll is equivalent to Roy's performance with a melee attack roll.

You're missing the point: that was merely an example I was using of how Rich left himself a massive backdoor for Durkon to return home posthumously, other than the obvious implication that he would simply die and be buried there.

I think there's another point there you're missing: you seem to be assuming that the existence of a convoluted way for a prophecy to be construed to pass means an obvious way for a prophecy to pass is off the table.


If Durkon were to die, come back as/in a vampire, return to his "beloved dwarven homelands", be destroyed, come back as himself via resurrection, die, and be buried in his ancestral tomb....Events after which instance of death could fulfill the prophecy? Both, right? The existence of the more convoluted answer ("posthumous" as in "after dying") doesn't negate the more straightforward answer ("posthumous" as in "while dead").

If Roy were to be told that Xykon would be within 1000 feet of Girard's Gate, prior to/instead of being within 1000 feet of Kraagor's Gate, then Xykon came with range of Soon's Gate, then much later Xykon were to arrive within 1000 feet Girard's Gate without any time to interact with the Gate....Was the prophecy given to Roy fulfilled? Yes, right? That the prophecy Roy got was more restrictive than the question Roy genuinely thought he was asking didn't render the prophecy invalid.

So, if Belkar lost the ability to breathe without dying before the end of the year, and then died before the end of the year...wouldn't the prophecy still have been fulfilled? And if so, doesn't that mean any and all theorizing over whether/how Belkar's prophecy has been fulfilled is tenuous until the end of the year, without needing the prophecy to be inaccurate or convoluted?

[Asphid]

I think there's another point there you're missing: you seem to be assuming that the existence of a convoluted way for a prophecy to be construed to pass means an obvious way for a prophecy to pass is off the table.

I didn't get the impression that Necrocomicom was actually trying to take any interpretation of the prophesy off of the table. I could be misconstruing arguments, or combining posters (it's after midnight and I've had a rather eventful night), but what I took from the posts was that both the simple "straight to the point" interpretation and the possibility of the "convoluted" path are both theoretically feasible given the Oracle's propensity for doublespeak and loose interpretation.