I guess Durkon is going home soon.

[Opperhapsen]

I mean if we are going to try and weasel ourselves out of the prophecy Durkon is technically dead now. :smallconfused:

[FujinAkari]

I would not call that weaseling in any definition of the word.

[Souju]

The intriguing part is the other circumstances in which he'll be going home.
and also why whoever's dishing out these prophecies isn't getting any regarding the fact that the only circumstances this could possibly come true at this point is a hole in the universe gets opened up.
Oh wait, it's the Oracle.
Hmmmm
That screwy little kobold needs a good interrogatin'...

[NerdyKris]

The intriguing part is the other circumstances in which he'll be going home.
and also why whoever's dishing out these prophecies isn't getting any regarding the fact that the only circumstances this could possibly come true at this point is a hole in the universe gets opened up.
Oh wait, it's the Oracle.
Hmmmm
That screwy little kobold needs a good interrogatin'...

What? The destruction doesnt' have to be a hole in the universe. It can just refer to an army, or an attack, or anything, really. Odin's prophecy wasn't about annihilation of the universe. Just destruction. It's probably going to be bad, but it doesn't mean the end of the world. The battle of Azure city still would have counted as death and destruction even if Miko had allowed Soon Kim to kill Xykon and Red Cloak while leaving the gate intact.

Also, the Oracle didn't give the destruction prophecy, the High Priest of Odin did. And for all we know, Odin just wanted a way to get Durkon out into the world so he could save it.

[F.Harr]

I mean if we are going to try and weasel ourselves out of the prophecy Durkon is technically dead now. :smallconfused:

I don't see it as weasly, but rather tragic.

[Zach J.]

I just assumed that he'd be returning home with the Death and Destruction domains.

[Kish]

I would not call that weaseling in any definition of the word.

Yeah, what? No weaseling. No technically. He's dead. He could go home at any time.

Unfortunately, because of the other prophecy regarding Durkon, he is likely to go home as a vampire and wreak horrible destruction on his home, not just get quickly resurrected and cheerfully go home to spend the rest of his life there after Xykon is defeated.

[Copperdragon]

Durkon is dead. In D&D it means you die. And come back alive, as undead, or not at all.

If Durkon now goes home, he'll bring Death and Destruction in a variety of ways, either all at once (awesome!) or only one or a selection:


He'll convert to be a cleric of Nergal (I do not see him still getting spells from Thor) and pick the Death & Destruction Domains.
He'll go home - followed by Xykon and Team Evil (who are already partly "Death" (Xykon is dead)) but are also very good at causing people to die whereever they are. They are also pretty solid at causing Destruction.
Durkon, as a Vampire that might not get destroyed, will bring Death. And maybe the occasional Destruction when someone attempts to fight him or when he just goes on a rampage.


I find it funny that he might be much more forgiving towards Hilgyas "issues" with alignment.

I find Durkon to be a bit boring (change or no change) but I'm very eager to see how his story is going to develop. Awesome times lie ahead.

[Origomar]

I think he will be undead for a while because the last gate is kraagor's gate, and hes a dwarf so more than likely the gate is in the dwarven lands.(and the picture of kraagors gate has an arctic environment in the background)

[Dr.Epic]

I mean if we are going to try and weasel ourselves out of the prophecy Durkon is technically dead now. :smallconfused:

A live body and dead body both contain the same number of particles. Structurally speaking, there's not discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts.

[Souju]

What? The destruction doesnt' have to be a hole in the universe. It can just refer to an army, or an attack, or anything, really. Odin's prophecy wasn't about annihilation of the universe. Just destruction. It's probably going to be bad, but it doesn't mean the end of the world. The battle of Azure city still would have counted as death and destruction even if Miko had allowed Soon Kim to kill Xykon and Red Cloak while leaving the gate intact.

Also, the Oracle didn't give the destruction prophecy, the High Priest of Odin did. And for all we know, Odin just wanted a way to get Durkon out into the world so he could save it.

nah I'm just saying they could be a little more direct about this sort of thing.
and the kobold is a separate issue, but chances are he knows more than he's letting on
You could argue that the ones dishing out the prophecies (Odin, Tiamat, etc.) know that success for their cause is inevitable...but still it seems a little dickish.
It's kind of a meta concept I have issues with anyway: Oracles and prophecies are only as useful as the plot needs them to be.
It's always things like "When will I return to the dwarven lands?" "Posthumously"
rather than: "On Tuesday, March 3rd of this year, when you get two roads, pick the left one."
Ah well, what can ya do...

[rodneyAnonymous]

"Posthumously" means "after death", which is true of Durkon and will remain true even if he is resurrected or something. The prophecy was not that he would return dead.

[MrBanana]

I think he will be undead for a while because the last gate is kraagor's gate, and hes a dwarf so more than likely the gate is in the dwarven lands.(and the picture of kraagors gate has an arctic environment in the background)

I seem to remember that gate is in the Northern continent, and guarded by powerful enemies.

So I see Xykon and co. bringing destruction to the are by wrecking ****.

[GigaGuess]

"Posthumously" means "after death", which is true of Durkon and will remain true even if he is resurrected or something. The prophecy was not that he would return dead.

However it does not exclude such a possibility, either. And doing so will most likely also fulfill the Dwarven prophecy, too...

[skim172]

A live body and dead body both contain the same number of particles. Structurally speaking, there's not discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts.

Something that is unquantifiable may still be qualifiable. I might comment on a red shirt you're wearing - that I can't express "red" as a numeric value doesn't automatically make color an abstract concept. Being alive or dead is very much a quality that can be treated quite objectively. Is there respiration? Is there blood circulation? Are the cells of the body actively maintaining the body's normal functions?

Now you might argue there are gradations - "brain-dead" for example - but that doesn't render it absolutely abstract, any more than different shades of red are abstract.

The problem with undead, of course, is that they're entirely fictional, so we don't have knowledge of what's going on inside their bodies or what sets them apart from the living. Presumably, their body must be renewing and repairing itself somehow. Otherwise, they'd die from a papercut or a stubbed toe. And they must have some kind of immune system - otherwise their bodies would start rapidly decaying as the bacteria in their gut went hog-wild.

Anyway, back on-topic - I think it's pretty evident at this point that we're headed to Kraagor's Gate, which (I believe) is in dwarven lands. Which suggests the big evil won't be defeated here on the Western Continent, but there was always a 95% chance the story would take us to a big climax at the final gate anyway. Durkon is an evil vampire, working for another evil vampire who's allied with a evil dictator with a big evil army. I don't think it's a huge leap to say if Durkon's bringing that crowd home, death and destruction might occur. Not to mention the high probability of Xykon and Team Evil arriving as well - they pretty much wreak havoc wherever they go. And the possibility of the Snarl unmaking the Universe or something.

And that big climactic battle will be taking place in dwarven lands. Even if the dwarves just third-parties caught in the crossfire, death and destruction will be taking place in the vicinity. And I wouldn't bet on Xykon respecting the laws of neutrality.

[rodneyAnonymous]

However it does not exclude such a possibility, either.

Nor does it exclude the possibilities that his beard will be dyed pink or that he will return on a Tuesday. So?


Now you might argue there are gradations - "brain-dead" for example - but that doesn't render it absolutely abstract, any more than different shades of red are abstract.

Shades of red are not abstract. They are particular wavelengths of electromagnetic energy. Like all senses, the experience of color is subjective but it has a physical basis.

There is not a single definition of life (a lot of the disagreement has to do with which side of the fence viruses are on), but several aspects have consensus, such as metabolism. Corpses do not synthesize energy, more or less immediately upon death. Life is a state, a process... not a thing that can be defined by particle count. No gradation; brain-dead humans are 100% alive. So is mold.

"I don't know how to quantify it" is not the same thing as "it is unquantifiable". Life and death are not abstract concepts.

[Silverionmox]

Durkon is dead. In D&D it means you die. And come back alive, as undead, or not at all.

If Durkon now goes home, he'll bring Death and Destruction in a variety of ways, either all at once (awesome!) or only one or a selection:


He'll convert to be a cleric of Nergal (I do not see him still getting spells from Thor) and pick the Death & Destruction Domains.
He'll go home - followed by Xykon and Team Evil (who are already partly "Death" (Xykon is dead)) but are also very good at causing people to die whereever they are. They are also pretty solid at causing Destruction.
Durkon, as a Vampire that might not get destroyed, will bring Death. And maybe the occasional Destruction when someone attempts to fight him or when he just goes on a rampage.


I find it funny that he might be much more forgiving towards Hilgyas "issues" with alignment.

I find Durkon to be a bit boring (change or no change) but I'm very eager to see how his story is going to develop. Awesome times lie ahead.

Just going home with Malack, whose domains are death and destruction, would qualify. This could mean in the company of Malack, chasing Malack, being chased by Malack, and either or both parties in any company.

[Copperdragon]

Just going home with Malack, whose domains are death and destruction, would qualify. This could mean in the company of Malack, chasing Malack, being chased by Malack, and either or both parties in any company.


If Durkon now goes home, he'll bring Death and Destruction in a variety of ways, either all at once (awesome!) or only one or a selection:

Yes, exactly. I'm really eager to find out which one (or what combination) it actually is going to be.

[GigaGuess]

Nor does it exclude the possibilities that his beard will be dyed pink or that he will return on a Tuesday. So?

So the prophecies are always either vague to the point of unhelpful, or worded in a tricky way. The oracle said that Durkon would return to his homeland posthumously. Well he's dead as a doornail now. The Dwarven prophecy said he'd bring death and destruction to his people. Well he's lined up to do that now. Granted, it could mean that he will return resurrected too, and still mess things up, but this course seems a tad more likely to me. Freely admitting it's speculation until he starts towards his homeland, but it seems like good spec to me.

[Kish]

So the prophecies are always either vague to the point of unhelpful, or worded in a tricky way.
The only reason the Order ever knew the main villain's name, is because the Oracle gave Eugene the straightforward answer "Xykon."

Not vague. Not tricky.

[Copperdragon]

Not vague. Not tricky.

Also, it gave a very clear answer to Belkar's question and also pretty straight answered Roy's. Actually, Roy had already gotten another useful, straight and helpful answer from him before (the thing where he dangled the Oracle out of a window).
It all depends on how you ask. Ask something specific and you get a specific answer ("Where is Xykon?"). Keep it general ("How can I get my speech back?") and you get a general answer (which, in Haley's case, was actually a pretty specific thing that helped her a lot to make the right decision).

[GigaGuess]

Also, it gave a very clear answer to Belkar's question and also pretty straight answered Roy's. Actually, Roy had already gotten another useful, straight and helpful answer from him before (the thing where he dangled the Oracle out of a window).
It all depends on how you ask. Ask something specific and you get a specific answer ("Where is Xykon?"). Keep it general ("How can I get my speech back?") and you get a general answer (which, in Haley's case, was actually a pretty specific thing that helped her a lot to make the right decision).

Okay, fair enough, he gives you what you give him in the answer. Roy's super specific and carefully worded answer gave a specific (If only correct in the strictest sense) answer. A vague question (Will I kill you, Miko, her horse or Roy) will get an equally vague answer (Yes.) Durkon's question was how he'd return. The oracle says posthumously...but not that it'd be inanimate, too. Like other prophecies, it would be strictly true, while not immediately how they think it is.

[gorocz]

Okay, fair enough, he gives you what you give him in the answer. Roy's super specific and carefully worded answer gave a specific (If only correct in the strictest sense) answer. A vague question (Will I kill you, Miko, her horse or Roy) will get an equally vague answer (Yes.) Durkon's question was how he'd return. The oracle says posthumously...but not that it'd be inanimate, too. Like other prophecies, it would be strictly true, while not immediately how they think it is.

How is answering "Yes" a vague answer? Any other answer, such as "Yes, you will kill me." would not be an answer to the question asked. (Asking: "Which of the following will I kill: You, Miko, her horse or Roy?" would be better.) Think of the answers as a computer, you get what you ask for, it's not Oracle's fault they don't ask right... Also how is the answer to Roy's question "only correct in the strictest sense"? Answering anything else would be incorrect, so it's the only correct answer...

[GigaGuess]

How is answering "Yes" a vague answer? Any other answer, such as "Yes, you will kill me." would not be an answer to the question asked. (Asking: "Which of the following will I kill: You, Miko, her horse or Roy?" would be better.) Think of the answers as a computer, you get what you ask for, it's not Oracle's fault they don't ask right... Also how is the answer to Roy's question "only correct in the strictest sense"? Answering anything else would be incorrect, so it's the only correct answer...

It is vague because it is a straight up mathematician's answer...technically true, but from an informative standpoint. Like, if I were to ask you if you wanted chicken or beef for supper. You say "yes." The answer is true, yes, but it is useless to me.

And only correct "in the strictest sense" is true with Roy, though through no fault of the oracle's. Of the options presented, the answer was correct, but the the wording of the question excluded the true answer. It doesn't change, though, the fact that while the answer was correct, it wasn't correct to the scope that Roy intended. Again, not the oracle's fault, freely admitted.

[SowZ]

Nor does it exclude the possibilities that his beard will be dyed pink or that he will return on a Tuesday. So?



Shades of red are not abstract. They are particular wavelengths of electromagnetic energy. Like all senses, the experience of color is subjective but it has a physical basis.

There is not a single definition of life (a lot of the disagreement has to do with which side of the fence viruses are on), but several aspects have consensus, such as metabolism. Corpses do not synthesize energy, more or less immediately upon death. Life is a state, a process... not a thing that can be defined by particle count. No gradation; brain-dead humans are 100% alive. So is mold.

"I don't know how to quantify it" is not the same thing as "it is unquantifiable". Life and death are not abstract concepts.

The work Dr. Epic quoted is one with a pretty high dose of nihlistic-subjectivism. There is no difference between alive or dead because there is no difference between a functioning blood cell and a broken one, or a rock and a fir tree. No difference that truly matters, anyway. Where one object stops and another begins is entirely a matter of definition. Things are only alive or dead because we believe we are observing a process. If there is no intent behind anything, then there is meaningful distinction between a working, (alive,) and broken, (dead,) mass of molecules.

Note: I don't subscribe to this philosophy and someone who does could probably explain it better

[ChowGuy]

It's always things like "When will I return to the dwarven lands?" "Posthumously"The question was not "When?" the question was "How?" and the answer "posthumously" by specifying his state at the time satisfies that question.

Now it may be true that Durkon was expecting an answer in terms of "By thus and such method" rather then "in thus and such condition" but realistically the answer given equates to "through no action or choice of your own" which is both accurate (so far as we know) and a perfectly meaningful response.

An Oracle's job is not to give advice on what one should do to achieve what they want to happen, but to foresee what that will happen, whether they want it or not. Usually when people complain later, it's because what will happen is something they didn't want and they get pissed because they expected the Oracle to somehow help them avoid that.

The Oracle here is required to give an accurate response, even if doing so means it needs to be incomplete. He even makes a point of it when he infers that Roy is asking the wrong question in limiting the answer to only two possibilities, neither of which is the information he really needs to know at the time.

[gorocz]

It is vague because it is a straight up mathematician's answer...technically true, but from an informative standpoint. Like, if I were to ask you if you wanted chicken or beef for supper. You say "yes." The answer is true, yes, but it is useless to me.

"Do you want chicken or beef?" is technically an incorrect question too, if you want to know which one. You create yes-no questions by using verbs like "do" or "should" or forms of "to be" and non-polar questions by using interrogative words like "what", "which" or "how". I know that in informal speech, nobody cares about it and it's usually clear what do you mean but if the Oracle answered anything other than the most formally correct meaning of the question, he could be blamed on a more solid ground than "the answer was not I wanted to get". It's better to give an answer that is correct only in a strictest sense than one that is not correct at all... And because his predictions are granted to him by his god, he could be dealing with something like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0007.html)...

And by the way, I am a programmer, so formal logic is basically my livelihood :smallwink:

[rodneyAnonymous]

There is no difference between alive or dead because there is no difference between a functioning blood cell and a broken one, or a rock and a fir tree


That is simply false. There may be no difference in the amount of matter, but no difference? Many things are not differentiated by the amount of matter present, for example temperature.

[SowZ]

That is simply false. There may be no difference in the amount of matter, but no difference? Many things are not differentiated by the amount of matter present, for example temperature.

But if you 1. believe there is no intention behind the universe and from there 2. extrapolate that things only truly exist while being observed, the distinction between hot and cold can become entirely arbitrary. All things in the universe are all part of the same composite and trying to pick out and define one part of that composite from another part is just semantics. Everything is illusion. Everyone is nothing more than a thought.

I don't believe this, mind you, but its a philosophy that explains the rationale behind 'life and death are... abstracts.'

[rodneyAnonymous]

But if you 1. believe there is no intention behind the universe and from there 2. extrapolate that things only truly exist while being observed, the distinction between hot and cold can become entirely arbitrary.

I do believe 1, and 2 does not follow from that, realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism) versus anti-realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism) ("do our observations correspond to an objective reality?") is a separate consideration. Existential nihilism doesn't say nothing has meaning, just that existence doesn't. Moral nihilism doesn't say nothing has value, just that nothing has objective value. "Nihilism means everything is completely abstract and relative" is a cartoon caricature.

Your explanation of this philosophy is a misrepresentation of the position. The claims that life and death are unquantifiable, that there is no difference between a rock and a tree or between hot and cold, and that functional and broken blood cells can't be distinguished, are all simply false. Perhaps they cannot be distinguished in one particular way, but that is true of virtually any trait (for example, male and female cannot be distinguished by hair color).

[SowZ]

I do believe 1, and 2 does not follow from that, realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism) versus anti-realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism) ("do our observations correspond to an objective reality?") is a separate consideration. Existential nihilism doesn't say nothing has meaning, just that existence doesn't. Moral nihilism doesn't say nothing has value, just that nothing has objective value. "Nihilism means everything is completely abstract and relative" is a cartoon caricature.

Your explanation of this philosophy is an erroneous misrepresentation of the position. The claims that life and death are unquantifiable, that there is no difference between a rock and a tree or between hot and cold, and that functional and broken blood cells can't be distinguished, are all simply false. Perhaps they cannot be distinguished in one particular way, but that is true of virtually anything (for example, male and female cannot be distinguished by hair color).

I'm not talking about existential nihilism. And I didn't at all imply that if the universe has no intention, all those other things follow. I was saying that if you think the universe has no intention, 1, and from there you extrapolate 2, (which you clearly don't extrapolate 2.) then you get something more like a Nihilistic Subjectivism/Solipsism. You're acting like I said Solipsism is the only conclusion to draw from Nihilism, which I never did.

I'm aware that one can be a Nihilistic Objectivist, (in the metaphysical sense, not necessarily the Ayn Rand sense, though I suppose you could be that, too.)

[skim172]

I'm not talking about existential nihilism. And I didn't at all imply that if the universe has no intention, all those other things follow. I was saying that if you think the universe has no intention, 1, and from there you extrapolate 2, (which you clearly don't extrapolate 2.) then you get something more like a Nihilistic Subjectivism/Solipsism. You're acting like I said Solipsism is the only conclusion to draw from Nihilism, which I never did.

I'm aware that one can be a Nihilistic Objectivist, (in the metaphysical sense, not necessarily the Ayn Rand sense, though I suppose you could be that, too.)

"2. extrapolate that things only truly exist while being observed" seems like an inherently solipsist statement, as it requires the assumption that one's own mind must exist and that all things can only exist in relation to that.

(I suppose, hypothetically, someone might believe that things objectively exist, but only when subjectively observed, like if they believe we're all plugged into a giant hologram or something)

I'd have two critiques of the position you establish (and yes, I know it's not your own). First, can the link between "Intention" and "Process" be assumed? Is the premise that the universe has no Intention necessarily followed by the conclusion that the universe has no Process? The suggestion here seems to be that the observed state of "alive" and the observed state of "dead" cannot be assumed to be linked - can those two states not be linked simply by the understanding that the universe undergoes relative changes?

Second, related to the first, isn't this just a position that nothing can be known to exist? There is no intent and everything is observed state of changes - isn't this, rather than nihilism, simply solipsism taken the extreme? Only what is observed can be considered to exist and the idea that observed states can be tied together across time are unproven assumptions - therefore, observed "alive" and observed "dead" cannot be assumed to be related. Rather than just living or dead as abstracts, this seems to assert that everything, anything, is all abstracts.

But philosophy is not my field, so maybe I'm missing the point.

[SowZ]

"2. extrapolate that things only truly exist while being observed" seems like an inherently solipsist statement, as it requires the assumption that one's own mind must exist and that all things can only exist in relation to that.

(I suppose, hypothetically, someone might believe that things objectively exist, but only when subjectively observed, like if they believe we're all plugged into a giant hologram or something)

I'd have two critiques of the position you establish (and yes, I know it's not your own). First, can the link between "Intention" and "Process" be assumed? Is the premise that the universe has no Intention necessarily followed by the conclusion that the universe has no Process? The suggestion here seems to be that the observed state of "alive" and the observed state of "dead" cannot be assumed to be linked - can those two states not be linked simply by the understanding that the universe undergoes relative changes?

Second, related to the first, isn't this just a position that nothing can be known to exist? There is no intent and everything is observed state of changes - isn't this, rather than nihilism, simply solipsism taken the extreme? Only what is observed can be considered to exist and the idea that observed states can be tied together across time are unproven assumptions - therefore, observed "alive" and observed "dead" cannot be assumed to be related. Rather than just living or dead as abstracts, this seems to assert that everything, anything, is all abstracts.

But philosophy is not my field, so maybe I'm missing the point.

Well, what I was describing isn't general nihilism. It's one kind of it. Most nihilists probably don't believe that. Also, yeah, there are definitely logical steps between 1 and 2 that I didn't list because 1. It seemed too much of a derail to go completely into it and 2. I don't know them all.

As for your critique of the philosophy, I'm sure someone who specializes in the field or who actually believes this could defend them better or even define the philosophy I am talking about better. There may be a more specific word for it then the one I used.

Basically, as far as I understand it according to this belief, the 'universe' can exist without being observed. But nothing else can, because there is no difference between any two lumps off matter. They would argue without intention to the universe, there aren't 'working and faulty blood cells.' All things are part of the same whole, (the universe,) and any lines we draw to distinguish identity between two things are completely arbitrary. Saying, "Thing A does this, thing B does this," is based soley on observation. Defining temperature, motion, etc. is all arbitrary since it based on what we see, not what the universe actually is, so not only is each persons universe different but those categories, (speed and heat and such,) cease to exist when life ceases to exist.

Another way to put it might be, (though this could be inaccurate to the philosophy,) "There is existence independent of observation. But without observation, there are no individual things that exist. Without observation, everything is all just a part of existence with no identity."

Does that make sense at all?

[rodneyAnonymous]

This seems like two blind men discussing the experience of vision.

[SowZ]

This seems like two blind men discussing the experience of vision.

I'm sure there are better people to explain it. The essence of the philosophy is, as far as I understand it, that the act of observing something gives it existence. Or that something only truly exists while observed. Like, the particles may still exist when they aren't being observed. But, something isn't a rock or a star or a fire if it isn't being observed. It's just part of the universe. Things can't be things without some exterior structure or being defining it, basically.

I may be butchering the philosophy. If nothing else, it explains why someone can believe that life and death are abstract concepts.

[tomandtish]

The question was not "When?" the question was "How?" and the answer "posthumously" by specifying his state at the time satisfies that question.

Now it may be true that Durkon was expecting an answer in terms of "By thus and such method" rather then "in thus and such condition" but realistically the answer given equates to "through no action or choice of your own" which is both accurate (so far as we know) and a perfectly meaningful response.

An Oracle's job is not to give advice on what one should do to achieve what they want to happen, but to foresee what that will happen, whether they want it or not. Usually when people complain later, it's because what will happen is something they didn't want and they get pissed because they expected the Oracle to somehow help them avoid that.

The Oracle here is required to give an accurate response, even if doing so means it needs to be incomplete. He even makes a point of it when he infers that Roy is asking the wrong question in limiting the answer to only two possibilities, neither of which is the information he really needs to know at the time.

However, depending on how RICH chooses to define posthumously, Durkon could in theory be brought back and the prophecy still be valid.

Every definition I've found follows this basic variation: arising, occurring, or continuing after one's death.

It says nothing about having recovered from that death. Based on that, Roy could be doing everything posthumously as well.

So to clarify, Durkon's state of posthumously (for how he returns to the dwarven lands) equals after his death. However, it doesn't mean he'll be dead when he returns. just that he will have died before he returned.

I say Rich because it is up to him whether posthumously means after one death or after your final death (no return to life). In a world like this, meanings do change.