Within 1000 feet?

[Procyonpi]

it's occurred to me that Roy's wording to the oracle (which gate will Xykon come within 1000 feet of first) might have been a bad choice of words, for more reasons than because he left out the Azure city gate.

Girard's gate is protected by illusions. What are the chances that Xykon gives up on (slash gets bored with) Girard's gate and goes looking for Kraagor's gate instead?

Mind you, I still think the narrative would be better if Girard's gate gets destroyed first (I'm taking it as pretty much a given that at least 4 out of the five gates get destroyed), because Kraagor's gate, with it's huge monsters, would make a much better climactic battle setting than Girard's gate, with its illusions. But it's still a possibility. What do people think?

[ThePhantasm]

That's a possibility, I guess, but the whole theme of this book seems to be centered around this desert land and such a shift in the story would a) make the desert adventure so far a waste of time and b) change the overall "feel" of the story a bit too soon.

[Ancalagon]

I think you are pretty correct with that assumption to be a option but somehow I doubt this story arc will "climax" in Xykon standing in the desert, looking around, shrugging, and leaving.

So the option is a very valid one but story-structure and drama will lead to something more dramatic and complex and also (from a reader's as well as the author's point of view) satisfying.

[Grey Watcher]

People have, periodically, pointed out that Roy's wording might mean that nobody actually FINDS Girard's Gate, so, yes, it is possible. However, I think it'd make a cleaner story-arc (both in online reading and in the eventual book format) to bring Girard's Gate to a more definitive ending ("KRACKAKOOM!"), and raise the stakes as high as possible for a final confrontation at Kraagor's Gate by make it it the last surviving one.

[Dr.Epic]

Honestly, I think Nale will be the Order's nemesis at that gate. We really haven't seen the Guild in some time and they need to be defeated sooner or later.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The whole reason to know which gate Xykon will get close too first is to set a trap. Xykon doesn’t actually have to see the gate for an ambush to work. So it doesn’t matter if Xykon actually finds Girard’s Gate so long as the trap can be sprung.

[Kish]

Xykon can be very focused indeed when he actually cares about something. I would say the chances of him getting to within a thousand feet of Girard's Gate and then giving up and moving on to Kraagor's Gate before Girard's Gate has been destroyed are negligible.

[chionophile]

People have, periodically, pointed out that Roy's wording might mean that nobody actually FINDS Girard's Gate, so, yes, it is possible. However, I think it'd make a cleaner story-arc (both in online reading and in the eventual book format) to bring Girard's Gate to a more definitive ending ("KRACKAKOOM!"), and raise the stakes as high as possible for a final confrontation at Kraagor's Gate by make it it the last surviving one.

Agreed. Plus, a final confrontation at Kraagor's Gate would allow Durkon to die in a similar manner to Kraagor, and to do so at Kraagor's Gate. Seems poetic to me.

[Procyonpi]

The whole reason to know which gate Xykon will get close too first is to set a trap. Xykon doesn’t actually have to see the gate for an ambush to work. So it doesn’t matter if Xykon actually finds Girard’s Gate so long as the trap can be sprung.

:elan: : Dramatic structure dictates that any ambush at Girard's gate cannot be successful unless Kraagor's gate has already been destroyed. The dramatic climax must come as close a possible to the doomsday scenario before it is averted.

[Kish]

Redcloak, Girard, and Miko walk into a bar. The resulting flamewar burns up the entire multiverse.
I think you forgot Celia.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

:elan: : Dramatic structure dictates that any ambush at Girard's gate cannot be successful unless Kraagor's gate has already been destroyed. The dramatic climax must come as close a possible to the doomsday scenario before it is averted.
The point being not about dramatic tension but that Xykon actually seeing the gate is immaterial to the goal of Roy’s question for the Oracle.

[NerfTW]

Agreed. Plus, a final confrontation at Kraagor's Gate would allow Durkon to die in a similar manner to Kraagor, and to do so at Kraagor's Gate. Seems poetic to me.

Durkon is probably going to die BEFORE Kraagor's gate, because there's also the prophecy about him bringing death and destruction when he returns home. For both prophecies to be true, he has to die prior to returning to his home, most likely to be raised.

The destruction prophecy very likely refers to the final battle with Xykon. Durkon might not survive the battle, but he can't die in it first because after the final battle, there's no reason to go "OH, and an army is attacking the dwarves!" or some such twist. The destruction prophecy still needs to be dealt with during the story, or there was no reason for it.

Assuming, of course, that there isn't some twist where Kraagor's gate is hit first, making the final confrontation at Girard's gate instead. But that would require Durkon to die twice.

[factotum]

Durkon is probably going to die BEFORE Kraagor's gate, because there's also the prophecy about him bringing death and destruction when he returns home. For both prophecies to be true, he has to die prior to returning to his home, most likely to be raised.

The destruction prophecy very likely refers to the final battle with Xykon. Durkon might not survive the battle, but he can't die in it first because after the final battle, there's no reason to go "OH, and an army is attacking the dwarves!" or some such twist. The destruction prophecy still needs to be dealt with during the story, or there was no reason for it.

Assuming, of course, that there isn't some twist where Kraagor's gate is hit first, making the final confrontation at Girard's gate instead. But that would require Durkon to die twice.


There's also the "Returns home posthumously" prediction. Kraagor's Gate is somewhere near, if not even IN, the dwarven homelands, so seems likely Durkon will arrive there dead.

[RMcMurtry]

There's nothing in the Oracle's prediction of Durkon returning home posthumously preventing him from dying yet being present and able at Kraagor's gate. This is D&D. Death for a high level PC is a temporary problem. The Giant hasn't had a chance to make a lot of jokes on how gamers deal with a ring of wishes yet, so that's a possibility. Or Hilgya could make a return appearance, wanting Durkon's heir to know his/her father and so raising him.

[NerfTW]

But again, why make the prophecy at all if it's going to occur AFTER the events of the story? There's no purpose to it.

Durkon's final return home will very likely be posthumously, as stated by the Oracle. That does not prevent him from being raised, but it prevents him from leaving and returning again. So most likely either he will remain in his homelands or they will be completely destroyed, preventing him from ever returning "home" another time.

I don't doubt that Durkon will be somehow raised after his posthumous return home, but the question was "finally", so he can't leave and come back without making the prophecy some "Oh, well, AFTER the story, 20 years later, Durkon dies and comes back", which would not be very dramatic.

[Debatra]

But again, why make the prophecy at all if it's going to occur AFTER the events of the story? There's no purpose to it.

Durkon's final return home will very likely be posthumously, as stated by the Oracle. That does not prevent him from being raised, but it prevents him from leaving and returning again. So most likely either he will remain in his homelands or they will be completely destroyed, preventing him from ever returning "home" another time.

I don't doubt that Durkon will be somehow raised after his posthumous return home, but the question was "finally", so he can't leave and come back without making the prophecy some "Oh, well, AFTER the story, 20 years later, Durkon dies and comes back", which would not be very dramatic.

post·hu·mous
–adjective
1.arising, occurring, or continuing after one's death: a posthumous award for bravery.
2.published after the death of the author: a posthumous novel.
3.born after the death of the father.

Nothing there about being dead at the time.

[ThePhantasm]

post·hu·mous
–adjective
1.arising, occurring, or continuing after one's death: a posthumous award for bravery.
2.published after the death of the author: a posthumous novel.
3.born after the death of the father.

Nothing there about being dead at the time.

True, perhaps, but that isn't how Durkon and Roy interpreted it after they heard it.

[shadowkiller]

post·hu·mous
–adjective
1.arising, occurring, or continuing after one's death: a posthumous award for bravery.
2.published after the death of the author: a posthumous novel.
3.born after the death of the father.

Nothing there about being dead at the time.

By that conclusion everything that Roy does now is posthumous. Although if we lived in a world where resurrection was possible posthumous would probably be defined as stuff that happens while that person is dead.

[Debatra]

By that conclusion everything that Roy does now is posthumous. Although if we lived in a world where resurrection was possible posthumous would probably be defined as stuff that happens while that person is dead.

Simply taking the root words, it literally means "after death". If there's actually a word we have that means "during death" or "while dead", I admit I'm not aware of it.

[Harr]

post·hu·mous
–adjective
1.arising, occurring, or continuing after one's death: a posthumous award for bravery.
2.published after the death of the author: a posthumous novel.
3.born after the death of the father.

Nothing there about being dead at the time.

Yeah, I'm sure the Giant was totally concerned about all the hair-splitting intricacies of the literal definition of the word when he wrote that :smallsigh:

I think it's a safe bet that Roy's and Durkon's interpretation of the word when discussing his prophecy that night us enough to get at the intended meaning. The giant hasn't resorted to that type of cheap dictionary-definition interpretation yet (and in fact seemed to enjoy thoroughly ridiculing it with Belkar's prophecy) so why would he start now?

[Fafnir13]

I don't recall ever reading that second bit of prophecy concerning Durkon. Was that from one of the books?

The thing that immediately pops to my mind is that he will return as an undead. Would be just like the oracle to leave out that bit while still being completely honest.

[Morithias]

"After the death of the father."

Why do I see that jerk kobold being a literal genie and having his one-night-stand son going to his lands "after the death of his father" and causing chaos and destruction. Similar to the Elan/Nale thing, except it's father/son not brother/brother.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

True, perhaps, but that isn't how Durkon and Roy interpreted it after they heard it.
Who says they interpreted it correctly?


Yeah, I'm sure the Giant was totally concerned about all the hair-splitting intricacies of the literal definition of the word when he wrote that :smallsigh:
All the great prophecies require that kind of attention to detail.

[Optimystik]

I think you forgot Celia.

*twitches*

[Moriarty]

By that conclusion everything that Roy does now is posthumous. Although if we lived in a world where resurrection was possible posthumous would probably be defined as stuff that happens while that person is dead.

why, yes it does. If Roy asked the Oracle "How will I defeat Xykon?" - "Posthumously" would have been a correct answer. (Assuming Roy will defeat Xykon at some point in the future.)
not very useful or anything, but correct nonetheless


I don't recall ever reading that second bit of prophecy concerning Durkon. Was that from one of the books?

The thing that immediately pops to my mind is that he will return as an undead. Would be just like the oracle to leave out that bit while still being completely honest.

It is mentioned in OoPCs:
The real reason Durkon gets kicked out of the dwarfen homelands is because the high priest receiving a prophecy about Durkon "bringing death and destruction to his homeland" if he returns. Instead of telling Durkon the truth, or refrain him from leaving, they send him out on a "mission" and not to come back until called. We already know from here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0375.html), that this was a pretty stupid idea, but we don't know how the prophecy will be fulfilled yet.

[RMcMurtry]

By that conclusion everything that Roy does now is posthumous.

Um, yes. The fact that it's likely to be interpreted incorrectly would only have increased the Oracle's amusement at putting it this way.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

if we lived in a world where resurrection was possible posthumous would probably be defined as stuff that happens while that person is dead.
Not necessarily. Resurrection, while known to be available, is still rare. Only folks with access to a high level cleric and the means to pay for necessary components can even consider being raised. For most people, death is final. As such, the fine details of a word like “poshumous” likely only cross the minds of those who have some experience with the dead coming back to life. And remember that neither Roy nor Durkon had yet faced that experience at the time they received the Oracle’s prophecies.


It is mentioned in OoPCs:
The real reason Durkon gets kicked out of the dwarfen homelands is because the high priest receiving a prophecy about Durkon "bringing death and destruction to his homeland" if he returns.
Making things more difficult is the fact that the prophesy was about what would happen if Durkon returned home, not just to the homeland. This was addressed when the high priest of Thor became concerned over the implications of Durkon just going out to get some food. But it’s not clear if the prophesy actually meant home as in “building where I live” or home as in “hometown.” So the high priest was justifiably concerned.

[ThePhantasm]

Um, yes. The fact that it's likely to be interpreted incorrectly would only have increased the Oracle's amusement at putting it this way.

Let's think through this.

A) You (Roy, Durkon) live in a world where Resurrection is possible
B) Resurrection happens to one of you
C) You still don't interpret posthumous as post-death-post-resurrection

I think the fact that Roy and Durkon interpreted it the way they did shows that posthumous is NEVER interpreted that way in stickworld, not that the Oracle is somehow clever or something.

[FabuVinny]

All the great prophecies require that kind of attention to detail.That bridge was crossed when Belkar's prophecy got the intended outcome and the author commentary in DSTP made it clear that this series won't go that route. "Incredibly unsatisfying" was how he put it.

If Durkon died, they would need to find another cleric somewhere. It makes sense that they would choose to go to his homeland since it is near the fifth gate.

[RMcMurtry]

Let's think through this.

A) You (Roy, Durkon) live in a world where Resurrection is possible
B) Resurrection happens to one of you
C) You still don't interpret posthumous as post-death-post-resurrection

I think the fact that Roy and Durkon interpreted it the way they did shows that posthumous is NEVER interpreted that way in stickworld, not that the Oracle is somehow clever or something.

No, I don't. This was a one word answer from an Oracle. It's subject to interpretation, just as, say, the famous responses from Delphi were open to interpretation. It could mean exactly what you (and, apparently, Roy and Durkon) think it does. It could mean that Durkon will die and be resurrected. Or animated. Or self-animate as a ghost. The Oracle has already demonstrated that, like many omniscient mouths of the DM, he can and will give an answer that is literally true and either deceptive or totally useless. ("Where is Xykon?" "In his throne room.")

More to the point, the Giant uses normal English words with their normal meaning outside of game-speak. He's also demonstrated that dead means dead, even if you're raised--see Eugene Greenhilt's grave marker in On the Origin of PCs, or his conversation with Roy in the same book. Also check out Belkar's prophecy from War and PCs (Strip 331). "Do I get to cause the death of any of the following: Miko, Miko's stupid horse, Roy, Vaarsuvius, or you?" "Yes." And he does in fact kill the Oracle in Don't Split the Party (Strip 567), who was resurrected in 571.

So, yes. "Posthumously" means after Durkon has died. I don't think it means any more than that, or precludes the possibility of a raise dead, or resurrection, or true resurrection, or even being brought back to life with a wish or miracle.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

That bridge was crossed when Belkar's prophecy got the intended outcome and the author commentary in DSTP made it clear that this series won't go that route. "Incredibly unsatisfying" was how he put it.
And yet, Vaarsuvius’s prophecy relied on such a precise idea of what constitutes “Ultimate Arcane Power” that Rich had to explain himself the commentary of the same book. An answer can be both simple and pedantic at the same time.

[factotum]

And yet, Vaarsuvius’s prophecy relied on such a precise idea of what constitutes “Ultimate Arcane Power” that Rich had to explain himself the commentary of the same book.

Only because a few forum members didn't want to accept that V's prophecy had come true. The rest of us saw V saying four words and then immediately gaining vast amounts of arcane power and thought, "Hey ho, looks like the prophecy has come true! Wonder how Durkon's will pan out?". We didn't need the commentary to tell us that had happened.

[Swordpriest]

And yet, Vaarsuvius’s prophecy relied on such a precise idea of what constitutes “Ultimate Arcane Power” that Rich had to explain himself the commentary of the same book. An answer can be both simple and pedantic at the same time.

Since I don't have the book, is there any chance you can spoiler this information for me, or at least a summary of it? Because I thought that V's four words were a pretty lame interpretation of the prophecy, whereas Belkar's prophecy outcome was pretty nifty. :smallbiggrin:

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Only because a few forum members didn't want to accept that V's prophecy had come true.
Because they didn’t accept the definition. That’s the point. Word choice is very important, even in the most straightforward prophecies.


The rest of us saw V saying four words and then immediately gaining vast amounts of arcane power…
Vast amounts. Not necessarily “Ultimate,” hence the dispute.


Since I don't have the book, is there any chance you can spoiler this information for me, or at least a summary of it?
I don’t have the book myself. I read it in my cousin’s copy a few months ago. I don’t want to mangle what was said, so I’ll leave it up to someone with the book to do that.

[Nimrod's Son]

Because they didn’t accept the definition. That’s the point. Word choice is very important, even in the most straightforward prophecies.
It's not the author's fault that a small portion of his audience has poor reading comprehension. I think most people understood at once what was going on were satisfied with the way it was pulled off.


Vast amounts. Not necessarily “Ultimate,” hence the dispute.
V had more power than any mortal ever has or ever will again. Sounds pretty ultimate to me. As far as I can see, the real reason for the dispute was that a few people who wanted TEH BIG ASPLOSIONS were outraged when Rich decided to play it subtle.