Durkons posthumous return. Am I missing something?

[Typewriter]

Forgive me if this has been discussed before but something has been bugging me for a while, and a quick search didn't find anything that pertains to my question.

Durkon asked if he would return to the dwarven lands, and the Kobold told him posthumously. Durkon took this to mean after his own death, which still made him happy.

What's been bothering me is that people continually refer to Durkons death being required before the Oots goes to the dwarven lands, but that's not the case. Posthumously can refer to an event (usually a persons birth) after the death of a parent, which we know already happened. A letter was coming for him from dwarven lands telling him he could return, and informing him that his father had passed away. He never got the letter, but at any point he could return to the dwarven lands and the prophecy would be fulfilled. No deaths necessary.

Obviously what I'm saying isn't fact, his death could have been what was actually prophecised, this is just something that I'd always assumed as I read the strip (especially after the otherwise pointless letter that specifically mentions his father as dead), but I see people constantly making references to how Durkon has to die, and it makes me wonder if I'm missing something a bit more blatant?

[Thattaman]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0375.html

If you read the letter, you'll actually see that it was his grandfather that died. Anyway, I've always taken it to mean that Durkon will die (likely in th battle for Kraagor's gate) and I believe that's how it's supposed to be taken. That's how Durkon and the rest of the party took it, anyhoo.

[Typewriter]

Ahh, it was his grandfather. I still think it could be relevant.

I mean, there's no reason for it to be mentioned in the letter otherwise.

And the very fact that everyone in the party took it to mean Durkons death should be the biggest indicator that that isn't what's going to happen.

[Flame of Anor]

Ahh, it was his grandfather. I still think it could be relevant.

I mean, there's no reason for it to be mentioned in the letter otherwise.

And the very fact that everyone in the party took it to mean Durkons death should be the biggest indicator that that isn't what's going to happen.

Though the fact that Roy and the others who know of the prophecy take it to mean Belkar's death should not be taken to indicate it won't happen. However, Durkon's is definitely more ambiguous.

[theNater]

"After the death of a parent" is not a very common use of the word "posthumous", and as you indicate, even that use is usually referring to a birth. It seems unlikely that the author would use such an obscure definition on an emotionally charged event(the death or survival of a main character), as it could easily alienate a large portion of the audience.

Also, in strip 333 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0333.html), Durkon indicates he expects to be buried next to his pappy. I took that as an indication his father was already buried(and therefore probably dead), in which case using posthumously in this way wouldn't give Durkon any new information, which doesn't seem like the oracle's style. I admit that with dwarven culture being what it is, that may have been an inappropriate conclusion jump, though.

[QDI]

I always assumed he would continue to adventure in human lands after the quest and die before returning home but as a hero.

[Swordpriest]

Doesn't mean that resurrection is out of the question, though. :smallwink:

[NerfTW]

The reason is that there's another prophecy from Origin of PCs that states:

When next he (Durkon) returns home, he will bring death and destruction to us all. (The dwarves)


Meaning that whatever posthumous return he has is also going to fill that prophecy, requiring it to be within the story itself, being that he said "finally return", and if the prophecy from Origin is fullfilled,


There won't be a home to return to after that.

[Typewriter]

"After the death of a parent" is not a very common use of the word "posthumous", and as you indicate, even that use is usually referring to a birth. It seems unlikely that the author would use such an obscure definition on an emotionally charged event(the death or survival of a main character), as it could easily alienate a large portion of the audience.

Also, in strip 333 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0333.html), Durkon indicates he expects to be buried next to his pappy. I took that as an indication his father was already buried(and therefore probably dead), in which case using posthumously in this way wouldn't give Durkon any new information, which doesn't seem like the oracle's style. I admit that with dwarven culture being what it is, that may have been an inappropriate conclusion jump, though.

I don't think he would alienate half his audience. I think the Oracle has kind of shown a tendancy to choose wording that is both vague and easily misinterpreted. Even if his father is already dead a grandfather is the parent of your parent, and his grandfather may have been the one who raised him, effectively making him the 'parent'.

Again, I'm not saying this is something I think is 100% fool proof or anything, I'm just saying that this comic has a tenancy to flip expectations on people, and for some reason I've never seen anyone question the Oracles 'odd' response to Durkon. "After your death", "In a coffin", "Dead", would all have been valid responses, but a very specific word was chosen.


The reason is that there's another prophecy from Origin of PCs that states:

When next he (Durkon) returns home, he will bring death and destruction to us all. (The dwarves)


Meaning that whatever posthumous return he has is also going to fill that prophecy, requiring it to be within the story itself, being that he said "finally return", and if the prophecy from Origin is fullfilled,


There won't be a home to return to after that.

See, I knew about that prophecy, which is another reason I think he'll be alive when he returns. Sure, an evil army can arrive right behind him, but he didn't really 'bring' death and destruction with him. I'm guessing one of the gates is in/around dwarven lands and that something bad is going to happen there as a result of him and the rest of the OotS.

[theNater]

I don't think he would alienate half his audience. I think the Oracle has kind of shown a tendancy to choose wording that is both vague and easily misinterpreted.
Yes, but the correct interpretation should ideally be obvious when the prophecy is fulfilled. For many readers, this would not be the case in your scenario, due to their unfamiliarity with the other meaning of posthumous.

Even if his father is already dead a grandfather is the parent of your parent, and his grandfather may have been the one who raised him, effectively making him the 'parent'.
The fact that this idea requires so much justification makes me think it's less likely, though of course I don't know what is planned any more than you do.

Again, I'm not saying this is something I think is 100% fool proof or anything, I'm just saying that this comic has a tenancy to flip expectations on people, and for some reason I've never seen anyone question the Oracles 'odd' response to Durkon. "After your death", "In a coffin", "Dead", would all have been valid responses, but a very specific word was chosen.
Posthumously makes the "after something funny" joke work, which none of those other responses do.

[Caractacus]

This is odd. I have always thought that the Oracle was being very evasive and misleading whilst telling the truth (or part of it at least) - as is the role of all oracles in myth and literature.

High Priest Hurak sent him on the missions, and High Priest Hurak is now dead. Durkon can return to the Dwarven lands.

WE know that he can return - HE doesn't.

HE thinks that it must be HIS OWN death that needs to occur first - but it is quite possibly HURAK'S.

The whole point of oracles is to be true but misleading, and the Oracle doesn't like the Order...

Here, Durkon is still happy even with the most negative outcome, however, so good news for him even if it turns out that it wasn't Hurak's death that was being referred to...

Personally, while I think that it is entirely possible that it is Durkon's death that is meant, I am still very worried about this - after all, if Durkon is dead and Belkar is dead before they reach the next Gate, isn't the Order going to be a bit short-handed both humour-wise and combat-wise? It will hardly be the Order at all... :smalleek:

[Porthos]

and for some reason I've never seen anyone question the Oracles 'odd' response to Durkon. "After your death", "In a coffin", "Dead", would all have been valid responses, but a very specific word was chosen.

There is another (very much discussed) option for Durkon when it comes to the word "posthumous". :smallwink:

[tis_tom]

Maybe the Oracle meant post-hummusly, but as he said it rather than wrote it down Durkon just TOOK it to mean post-humous? I see a delicious chickpea dip coming his way before this story is over..

[Spleen_]

The reason is that there's another prophecy from Origin of PCs that states:

When next he (Durkon) returns home, he will bring death and destruction to us all. (The dwarves)


Meaning that whatever posthumous return he has is also going to fill that prophecy, requiring it to be within the story itself, being that he said "finally return", and if the prophecy from Origin is fullfilled,


There won't be a home to return to after that.

Zombie Durkon wrecks the Dwarven lands.

[Souhiro]

Well, I don't like the Oracle, precisely because it's prophecies are not that vage, but circumpstantial.

THIS is an example of a vague and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
"Thou shall die on a white cross". The character spent all his life avoiding white crosses, he manages to aquire has a magical item that detects white crosses, and just avoiding a white cross, he walks into a trapped room with a floor of pure white marmor. He set in a trap that makes him to drop to the floor and bleed a lot. His blood draws a cross on the white marmor. And he has died ON that white cross.

But "You have given Roy your +20 jump ring, so he died because of you" Then, in that case, every paladin is guilty of the death of everyone they have saved in their whole lives, because "Since you saved from an orc, they will die, in the next years, of disease, poisoning, or another orc. And that is because you saved them in first place".

Seriously, is that an oracle?

[Thanatosia]

But "You have given Roy your +20 jump ring, so he died because of you" Then, in that case, every paladin is guilty of the death of everyone they have saved in their whole lives, because "Since you saved from an orc, they will die, in the next years, of disease, poisoning, or another orc. And that is because you saved them in first place".

Seriously, is that an oracle?
Ummm... the ring was never the fulfillment of Belkar's Prophecy. That was just the Kobold irrationally trying to cheat fate even tho he knew it wouldn't work because the real fulfillment of Belkar's Prophecy was very painful to himself.

[Caractacus]

Well, I don't like the Oracle, precisely because it's prophecies are not that vage, but circumpstantial.

THIS is an example of a vague and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
"Thou shall die on a white cross". The character spent all his life avoiding white crosses, he manages to aquire has a magical item that detects white crosses, and just avoiding a white cross, he walks into a trapped room with a floor of pure white marmor. He set in a trap that makes him to drop to the floor and bleed a lot. His blood draws a cross on the white marmor. And he has died ON that white cross.

But "You have given Roy your +20 jump ring, so he died because of you" Then, in that case, every paladin is guilty of the death of everyone they have saved in their whole lives, because "Since you saved from an orc, they will die, in the next years, of disease, poisoning, or another orc. And that is because you saved them in first place".

That's a dreadful example of an oracular prophecy you gave - where did you get it?

The Roy one is much better as it could clearly mean that he'd die of something as a result of what Belkar did. The association is very close. No ring, no jump. No jump and Xykon gets straight to the Gate. We know that he was not supposed to get involved in the ground combat, so Roy would not have reached him in time. It wasn't what was meant perhaps, but it was in line with the ambiguous nature of such prophecies.


Seriously, is that an oracle?

I really, really think that you are not familiar enough with the concept and role of oracles and oracular prophecy in the mythology and literature of the real world to appreciate the essential features it has.

Without going to check myself, I would suggest the following as a minimum:

1) the prophecy is couched in ambiguous terms

2) the ambiguity may or may not be apparent to the recipient of the oracular revelation

3) the prophecy always 'comes true', but equally always not normally in the manner that was anticipated.

If Rich used an oracle that produced prophecies that were:

1) unambiguous,
2) were always understood, and
3) were fulfilled in exactly the most obvious and clear manner,

it would be in direct breach of literary and mythological convention.


[Edited to improve clarity of thought...]

[veti]

What's been bothering me is that people continually refer to Durkons death being required before the Oots goes to the dwarven lands, but that's not the case. Posthumously can refer to an event (usually a persons birth) after the death of a parent, which we know already happened.

You're misunderstanding the term.

"Posthumous birth" is a legal concept - it can affect things like inheritance and citizenship. It's not an alternative use of the word "posthumous", which still (always) means something that happens after your death. (In the case of "posthumous birth", the dead person is still the subject, the initiator of the effect, whatever it is, that you're discussing; the person being born is the object, the one who's being affected.)

[Souhiro]

That's a dreadful example of an oracular prophecy you gave - where did you get it?
It's something that I saw in an old "The X Files" chapter, many -MANY- years ago, back in the nineties.

About the oracle thing, that kobold said that Roy WOULD have been killed by Xykon, even if he didn't have the ring. And the Windstriker "He is permanently in the celestial realm" is just... well, the worst excuse EVER.

Please, someone feed the Oracle to the Megashark or the crocosaurus, plz!

[Gray Mage]

It's something that I saw in an old "The X Files" chapter, many -MANY- years ago, back in the nineties.

About the oracle thing, that kobold said that Roy WOULD have been killed by Xykon, even if he didn't have the ring. And the Windstriker "He is permanently in the celestial realm" is just... well, the worst excuse EVER.

Please, someone feed the Oracle to the Megashark or the crocosaurus, plz!

Yes, it was the worst excuse ever, which is why not even the oracle himself was buying it. Belkar's profecy was, however, cleary been fulfiled in that he killed the oracle.

[ken]

Durkon's prophecy was about how he finally returns...
Possibilities include:

1) dying on the quest and being returned after death (*)

2) returning alive (*), leaving/returning any number of times, dying while away, and being returned to the (**) dwarven land after death.

3) dying and being raised - then either #2 - or returning (*), living out his life, and dying there (already died once - so is posthumous)

4) dying and being raised as undead - returning, (*)

And many combinations of the above...

*SOD (bringing death and destruction...) depending on the precise meaning of "next returns home"

** SOD (Potentially destroyed)

[Agi Hammerthief]

Ahh, it was his grandfather. I still think it could be relevant.

I mean, there's no reason for it to be mentioned in the letter otherwise.
the "both his livers failed" joke is a pretty good reason all by itself :smallbiggrin:

[Juggling Goth]

You're misunderstanding the term.

"Posthumous birth" is a legal concept - it can affect things like inheritance and citizenship. It's not an alternative use of the word "posthumous", which still (always) means something that happens after your death. (In the case of "posthumous birth", the dead person is still the subject, the initiator of the effect, whatever it is, that you're discussing; the person being born is the object, the one who's being affected.)

This. A posthumous birth is posthumous for the one doing the birthing, not for the one being born. In all other usages, "posthumous" means "after the subject's own death".

Plus, it's already a jerkass Oracle answer without trying to redefine "posthumous". When Durkon asks how he'll return to the Dwarven lands, he means "by what chain of events". The Oracle - technically correctly, but obnoxiously - interprets his question to mean "in what circumstances", and therefore gives an answer which is true, but useless. He could've done the same by answering, for instance, "on a Wednesday" or "walking", but that would've lacked the dramatic impact.

[Typewriter]

A "posthumous birth" is one that occurs after the death of a parent - this is true. That being said one of the definitions of "posthumous" (by itself) is simply 'born after the death of the father', so I am not confused about the definitions.

It's just a thought though. I sincerely doubt that the prophecy is as straightfoward as many people seem to think it is, and this is just the way it occured to me that the Oracle could be messing with people.

[Flame of Anor]

Remember that birth, grammatically speaking, applies to the parent, not the child. It means "bearing", and it's the mother who's bearing the child.

[ThePhantasm]

Remember that birth, grammatically speaking, applies to the parent, not the child. It means "bearing", and it's the mother who's bearing the child.

Birth doesn't mean bearing. Bear and born are grammatically related but not birth.

EDIT: Keep trying to edit this but the stupid server won't let me. It doesn't mean "bearing" in the way that you are stating. Birth is "beginning." That's why the parent "gives birth" to the child. Birth isn't "bearing" per se. The words aren't exactly synonymous.

[Thufir]

A "posthumous birth" is one that occurs after the death of a parent - this is true. That being said one of the definitions of "posthumous" (by itself) is simply 'born after the death of the father', so I am not confused about the definitions.

Regardless of whether or not you're misinterpreting that definition, the presence of the word 'born' there means it would make no sense in this context. "How will I finally return to the dwarven homelands?" "Born after the death of the father." Makes no sense, as Durkon has already been born once, and quite sufficiently.

[KillianHawkeye]

About the oracle thing, that kobold said that Roy WOULD have been killed by Xykon, even if he didn't have the ring.

Actually, I believe he said that Roy would have still been killed even IF he had fought Xykon on solid ground. However, I don't think he would have gotten a chance to do so since Xykon was just passing by on his way to the throne room. If Roy hadn't jumped onto the dragon, he couldn't have caught Xykon at all.

[Flame of Anor]

Birth doesn't mean bearing. Bear and born are grammatically related but not birth.

EDIT: Keep trying to edit this but the stupid server won't let me. It doesn't mean "bearing" in the way that you are stating. Birth is "beginning." That's why the parent "gives birth" to the child. Birth isn't "bearing" per se. The words aren't exactly synonymous.

Huh. Interesting. Are there any other fossils of that word?

EDIT: Hmm, the OED disagrees with you.

[ThePhantasm]

Huh. Interesting. Are there any other fossils of that word?

Fossils? Not sure what you mean by that exactly. Born is related to the Old English boren, whereas birth is related to the Old Norse byrth. The two modern words operate closely in their semantic field but are not exactly the same.

Edit in response to your edit: Really? I'm using the New Oxford American Dictionary in my response to you.

[martianmister]

The Oracle could mean "post-humorously"...

[Flame of Anor]

A fossil word is a word which is only used in one form or a few forms, not its full range. For example, the verb wit meaning approx. "to know", which is only used now in "to wit" and "unwitting", and not in its regular conjugation, i.e. I wot, thou wot'st, etc.

And here is the OED's etymology:

birth noun. ME.
Origin: Old Norse byrð = Gothic gabaurþs from East Germanic (corresp. to Old English gebyrd, Old Saxon giburd, Old High German giburt (German Geburt) from West Germanic), from base of bear verb: see -th.

[ThePhantasm]

A fossil word is a word which is only used in one form or a few forms, not its full range. For example, the verb wit meaning approx. "to know", which is only used now in "to wit" and "unwitting", and not in its regular conjugation, i.e. I wot, thou wot'st, etc.

And here is the OED's etymology:

birth noun. ME.
Origin: Old Norse byrð = Gothic gabaurþs from East Germanic (corresp. to Old English gebyrd, Old Saxon giburd, Old High German giburt (German Geburt) from West Germanic), from base of bear verb: see -th.

Ok, so the two have an etymological relation somewhere. Now make your point for me, because I'm tired from final exams this week, and its late here. What are you driving at?

[Flame of Anor]

Ok, so the two have an etymological relation somewhere. Now make your point for me, because I'm tired from final exams this week, and its late here. What are you driving at?

Point? I'm not trying to make any sort of point, I just love etymology.

[ThePhantasm]

Point? I'm not trying to make any sort of point, I just love etymology.

Oh, ok. That's cool. For some reason I thought this was going somewhere else with the whole birth / born thing... the confusion of my weary mind. I'm off to get some sleep.

[Juggling Goth]

Regardless of whether or not you're misinterpreting that definition, the presence of the word 'born' there means it would make no sense in this context. "How will I finally return to the dwarven homelands?" "Born after the death of the father." Makes no sense, as Durkon has already been born once, and quite sufficiently.

Mmmhmm. I cannot find a single usage of "posthumous" to mean "the subject took this action, and incidentally the subject was born after hir father died". The death-of-the-father usage only refers to birth and inheritance, not random travelling the person might do at a later date.

For instance, Bill Clinton was born after the death of his father, but we don't say everything he did in his presidency was done "posthumously", because that would mean he was a zombie.

[Caractacus]

Point? I'm not trying to make any sort of point, I just love etymology.

Who doesn't, sir? Who doesn't? :smallcool:

[Flame of Anor]

Who doesn't, sir? Who doesn't? :smallcool:

Alas, far too many! We amateur (in my case, at least) philologists must stick together...

[snikrept]

The prophecy from Origin probably just means he's going to come to the dwarven lands with his buddy Malack :smallbiggrin:

[King of Nowhere]

I don't think it's likely some strange interpretation like that.

Many theories were proposed, including:
- durkon will die and be brought back to the dwarven homeleands - possibly to be raised by the high cleric of thor. Xykon will follow shortly
- durkon will die, be resurrected, and go to the dwarven lands (still counts as "after his death")
- durkon will die, his body animated as a zombie by xykon, he will be part of the zombie army invvadding the dwarven homelands.

many others...

[Moriarty]

I like that everybody just takes the "the oracle is vague" statement without question.

Yes, typically oracles are vague and cryptic. But the Oots oracle isn't.

Every prophecy was straightforward and came to pass exactly as it was told.
"where is xykon? - in his throne room.", "will kill x, y, z or the oracle? - yes"
there's nothing vague about that guy, he gives straightforward answers that always came true so far.

[Flame of Anor]

I like that everybody just takes the "the oracle is vague" statement without question.

Yes, typically oracles are vague and cryptic. But the Oots oracle isn't.

Every prophecy was straightforward and came to pass exactly as it was told.
"where is xykon? - in his throne room.", "will kill x, y, z or the oracle? - yes"
there's nothing vague about that guy, he gives straightforward answers that always came true so far.

But just as "in his throne room" was entirely accurate and yet lacked context, just so with "posthumously". It's entirely accurate that Durkon will return to the dwarven lands after his death, but we're trying to guess the context.

[Querzis]

But just as "in his throne room" was entirely accurate and yet lacked context, just so with "posthumously". It's entirely accurate that Durkon will return to the dwarven lands after his death, but we're trying to guess the context.

Lacking context? True but thats not his job. Hes supposed to answer a single question, thats it. And yes, he has actually been very straightforward until now. I dont know how you guys could say his answers are vague when some of his answer were :«yes». None of the Oracle answer have been ambiguous except maybe Haley prophecy. Lots of them dont help at all, sure, but they are still totally straightforward.

So yeah, really not buying it. Not only is that not how you use the word posthumous when referring to a birth but more importantly, that woudnt actually answer the question if the Oracle had used it that way.

[Flame of Anor]

Lacking context? True but thats not his job. Hes supposed to answer a single question, thats it. And yes, he has actually been very straightforward until now. I dont know how you guys could say his answers are vague when some of his answer were :«yes». None of the Oracle answer have been ambiguous except maybe Haley prophecy. Lots of them dont help at all, sure, but they are still totally straightforward.

So yeah, really not buying it. Not only is that not how you use the word posthumous when referring to a birth but more importantly, that woudnt actually answer the question if the Oracle had used it that way.

Hey, I'm not the one saying "posthumous" could refer to anything but Durkon's own death. I think that makes no more sense than the arguments for Belkar causing Roy's, Miko's, or Windstriker's death. I'm just saying that we have room to guess at things like:
(1) Why will Durkon be dead?
(2) Will he be undead?
(3) Will he be rezzed later?
(4) What does it mean for him to bring death and destruction to the dwarven lands? (Remember, we don't know the dwarven prophet to be as reliable as the Oracle.)

[t209]

Post Humously! I think it doesn't mean that durkon will come back home when he dies. It think it means the after the death of the Thor High priest. Note that the prophet only said "Posthumously" and it might not use the word "durkon or he".

[Caractacus]

Post Humously! I think it doesn't mean that durkon will come back home when he dies. It think it means the after the death of the Thor High priest. Note that the prophet only said "Posthumously" and it might not use the word "durkon or he".

I am inclined to agree with you that this might be one interpretation. See my post #11.

[Vemynal]

I really wanna see Durkon brought back by Tsukiko as her 'Sentient undead' she considered making with Miko.

A chance at Durkon character development! =D

[veti]

In order for "posthumous" to refer to the death of anyone other than Durkon...

... there would have to be someone other than Durkon involved in the question.

And there isn't. So it doesn't.

If you are missing something, it's in the question, not the answer. Durkon asks "How will I finally be returnin' to me beloved dwarven homelands?"

If the Oracle picked on the word "finally", then there's nothing to stop Durkon returning any number of times while he's still alive - provided he dies while away, and then returns for the last time at some later date.

[t209]

I am inclined to agree with you that this might be one interpretation. See my post #11.

Miko! Miko has the message about the Durkon's return (untill monster in the darkness ate it). Or Posthumously for MitD, since he will be dissected and Durkon will get the return home message.

[Klear]

- durkon will die, be resurrected, and go to the dwarven lands (still counts as "after his death")

I don't think that counts. Would you say that everything Roy does nowadays, he does posthumously?

Edit: Especially since he admitted that he didn't buy the bogus theories about Belkar's prophecy.

[Herald Alberich]

I don't think that counts. Would you say that everything Roy does nowadays, he does posthumously?

Edit: Especially since he admitted that he didn't buy the bogus theories about Belkar's prophecy.

Maybe, yeah. English isn't really set up to cover the "death and return" scenario; it's a fairly rare event, you know.

[Juggling Goth]

Post Humously! I think it doesn't mean that durkon will come back home when he dies. It think it means the after the death of the Thor High priest. Note that the prophet only said "Posthumously" and it might not use the word "durkon or he".


I am inclined to agree with you that this might be one interpretation. See my post #11.

No. For 'posthumously' to apply to Durkon's actions, they have to occur after Durkon's own death. Other people's deaths don't count. Otherwise everything we did would be "posthumous" - it's after somebody died, after all. "I posthumously ate a pizza" (after Archduke Franz Ferdinand died). 'Posthumously' is an adverb which applies to actions taken after the subject's own death. (E.g. posthumously pardoned; posthumously awarded a medal; posthumously baptised.)

[Klear]

Suppose somebody's plane explodes in the middle of the ocean and he's declared dead. If he was to receive an award for something after that, it would be awarded posthumously.

But if he turned out to be alive and managed to get to the ceremony in time? Nobody would call that award posthumous.

[Souhiro]

Seriously, I don't give more than half a cent for the Oracle's -or in case, everyone- prediction. The "He will bring death and destruction" can be that he will step over a ant's nest, destroying it and killing many of the ants.

He could be killed and rezzed during her travels, and he could be back porthumosly, since it has been after his death. Even being killed and rezzed via CPR would count.

I'm more interested in know why Sabine is wearing just a top instead of her usual outfit.

[hamishspence]

Seriously, I don't give more than half a cent for the Oracle's -or in case, everyone- prediction. The "He will bring death and destruction" can be that he will step over a ant's nest, destroying it and killing many of the ants.

The full phrase included "bring death and destruction for us all"- so it seems to apply to the dwarven community.

[Querzis]

Seriously, I don't give more than half a cent for the Oracle's -or in case, everyone- prediction. The "He will bring death and destruction" can be that he will step over a ant's nest, destroying it and killing many of the ants.

He could be killed and rezzed during her travels, and he could be back porthumosly, since it has been after his death. Even being killed and rezzed via CPR would count.

I'm more interested in know why Sabine is wearing just a top instead of her usual outfit.

Then why are you posting in this thread? Nobody cares if you dont care, just open a thread about Sabine or something.

But yeah, I have to admit its pretty hard to tell if posthumous is a word that can apply to someone who died and came back since, you know, its really not something that happen a lot in real life. But even if posthumous could be used like that, I still dont buy it. Maybe he'll get resurected after he got to his homeland mind you but he'll still be dead when he get there (or undead, in which case he would litterally bring death and destruction to everyone.)

[JSSheridan]

I wonder if it would count as posthumous if he were to die, be raised, and then return to the dwarven lands. Technically, it would still be after his death.

[Flame of Anor]

I wonder if it would count as posthumous if he were to die, be raised, and then return to the dwarven lands. Technically, it would still be after his death.

That was suggested a while ago, and the consensus was "yes, no, yes no, no yes, blah"

[ArcaneSaint]

bring death and destruction for us all
Is that the exact phrasing?(I can't remember, it's been some time since I read SoD) Because this way (knowing prophesies to be vague with little to no context) it could also be interpreted as "bring death and destruction upon xykon's legion, which may or may not be composed of zombie frost giants for us (the dwarven civilization), so we don't have to do the fighting on our own." The battle will occur in front of the main gate of the Mountainhome, Durkon will die and be brought inside (while death, so posthumous) for a rez.

Or perhaps Durkon will die and be turned into a plant-like zombie-like thing, bent on taken revenge for all the trees the dwarves have killed!

[fibonacciseries]

Yes, but the correct interpretation should ideally be obvious when the prophecy is fulfilled.

Really? I have four words for you...
I...I must succeed

[theNater]

Really? I have four words for you...
I was very careful to say "should ideally be obvious" instead of "will always be obvious" for that very reason.