Okay, what should Hurok have done, then? (Prequel spoilers)

[Finagle]

I see so many people saying Hurok was an idiot for sending Durkon away. What would you have done? You've got a prophecy, straight from the top. From Odin to the High Priest of Odin. From a deity known for his foresight and avoiding the inevitable doom as long as possible. It is credible and will happen.

Should you let Durkon return home and the doom will come to the dwarves right away? Remember, it's a real prophecy. If Durkon returns home that same day, who knows what shape the doom will take? Maybe there's a vampire lurking in his quarters who possesses him and uses him to take over the Temple of Thor. Maybe Durkon's weight pushes a fault line ever so much more and a major earthquake occurs. Who can say? All that's known is the doom is 100% certain when Durkon returns home. It's something that's going to happen.

So, the position seems to be that Hurok is an utter idiot for exiling Durkon and thus ensuring that the doom will come in the shape of Durkula. He made it happen, seems to be the idea. I assert that this is incorrect, the doom was coming regardless, and Hurok successfully put it off for seventeen(?) years, ensuring seventeen years of life the dwarves would otherwise have not had. An act of foresight postponing doom, a move worthy of Father Odin himself.

So, what would you have done? Allowed Durkon to go back home, thus ensuring doom for them all without delay? Told Durkon the reason for his exile, ensuring that the doom will come another way? Give him a one-way ticket to the Semi-Elemental Plane of Ranch Dressing?

[hroþila]

The prophecy already took into account Hurak's actions. That's the beauty of prophecies - they're ironically self-fulfilling (which, incidentally, Hurak knew). In other words, nothing Hurak did or didn't do could prevent the prophecy from coming true. If I had been High Priest, or if Hurak hadn't been inclined to exile Durkon, then there wouldn't have been a prophecy at all, and thus neither me nor Hurak would have had to deal with it in the first place.

When people hear a prophecy, sometimes they're inclined to believe the conditions ARE the prophecy, and that it can come true in a number of (possibly less damaging) ways if you manipulate the conditions. I don't think that's the case: Durkon was going to bring Death and Destruction to them all because he was always going to be kicked out, become a vampire and THEN return and bring Death and Destruction. No putting it off. Of course, this is only clear a posteriori, but it should be enough for anyone not to bother messing with a prophecy.

So, I guess I would have told Durkon and discussed the best course of action with him AND the High Priest of Odin, and I suspect exile might have been my decision too (so scratch what I said in my first paragraph, I guess?).

[Kish]

I'm not going to address the actual question the OP asked (so feel free to skip the rest of this post), because the thread-starting post, and other posts like it in the main discussion thread, seem to sweep the cruelty of Hurok's method under the rug. Kind of like when people were defending the racist elf commander's expressed genocidal racism because, somehow, the only alternative to killing someone in a particularly sadistic way and announcing loudly that good goblins were dead goblins was to "trust the obvious spy!"

If you want to understand why people disapprove of Hurak, I can only suggest you try to find a perspective from which there's an actual, worth-mentioning difference between telling Durkon, "You have to leave, there's been a prophecy that the next time you return home you'll bring death and destruction for us all. You can't go home to say goodbye to your mother, for obvious reasons, but I can get her to come here before you leave..." and telling him "I'm sending you on a mission to the human lands. You have no time to pack because immediately doesn't mean later today. No, you can't say goodbye to anyone, because I said so" and literally throwing him out in the snow and throwing his armor and hammer at him.

Because both Durkon and the monster controlling his body (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1007.html) see a difference.

[factotum]

The problem is, if I lived in a world where prophecy existed, then I'd be hosed in this case--because prophecies always come true. The only thing I can do is to delay it as long as possible. However, kicking Durkon out in the snow with no reason given is not the right way to go about that. As Roy says, you just tell Durkon the unvarnished truth about the prophecy and what it says, and let him make the decision to leave on his own--which he will do, because he's that kind of a person. Arrange for him to have a last meeting with his mother (but not at home, for obvious reasons), then he walks out into the snow, hopefully never to be seen again.

Of course, the situation plays out pretty much identically to how it does in the existing story timeline--Durkon is eventually vamped by Malack and the evil spirit driving his corpse then forces his return to his homeland, whatever Durkon himself may think--but at least Durkon was given a chance to make his peace with his family and leave of his own volition.

One other thing to note: I don't believe that what Hurak did was actually Evil, as many seem to. According to his lights he was just saving dwarven lives, and his lack of empathy about what Durkon himself would feel doesn't make him evil. If he'd kicked Durkon out because he wanted to see him suffer, and the prophecy was just a convenient excuse, then *that* would be an evil act.

[B. Dandelion]

I think Kish already cut to the heart of what I wanted to say, but at the risk of reiterating: it's less that Hurak was an idiot and more that he was a jerk. He could have chosen the exact same course of action with a little more compassion and it would have made a huge difference. That seems to be the exact point 1096 makes -- Vaarsuvius, the person with the highest Intelligence score in the group, says that Hurak's decision to banish Durkon makes a certain amount of logical sense, and the also-highly-intelligent Roy concurs. But he then goes on to add that what gets him is that Hurak never told Durkon, not only because he deserved to know but because Durkon would only have hastened to follow Hurak's directives if he'd known the true motives behind them. There's no in-strip justification for the cruelty of the way the banishment was carried out, and the strong implication there is because there wasn't one. Hurak panicked, he behaved badly towards Durkon as a result, and he's being judged for it.

That's not to say it was necessarily evil or an offense warranting of eternal torture. A firing offense I think for sure -- he fell down on the job there big time. But mostly he acted badly out of fear.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's not to say it was necessarily evil or an offense warranting of eternal torture. A firing offense I think for sure -- he fell down on the job there big time. But mostly he acted badly out of fear.

And what happens to dwarves that act out of fear instead of with honor and bravery?

That's right, they end up in Hel. Which sucks for a dwarf who lives his life honorably and then dies due to a freak accident. But that Hurak deserves, even if I suspect he got away with it, the bastard.

Unless, of course, Hurak's actions were not a one-off, but a pattern of spineless cowardice, in which case he might have gone on to end up (down?) in Hel regardless. Oh well, I live and hope.

Grey Wolf

[Finagle]

Sacrificing one dwarf to save the whole race? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Sacrificing one dwarf to save the whole race? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I see you continue to miss the point. I therefore predict you will continue to not understand what makes Hurak's actions wrong.

GW

[Zyzzyva]

And what happens to dwarves that act out of fear instead of with honor and bravery?

That's right, they end up in Hel. Which sucks for a dwarf who lives his life honorably and then dies due to a freak accident. But that Hurak deserves, even if I suspect he got away with it, the bastard.

Unless, of course, Hurak's actions were not a one-off, but a pattern of spineless cowardice, in which case he might have gone on to end up (down?) in Hel regardless. Oh well, I live and hope.

Grey Wolf

I never got the impression that that's how the dwarven afterlife system works (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html). I think that it's like the human/lizardfolk/hobgoblin/everybody else one, in that you go to whatever plane your alignment suggests, except that there's an extra step at the beginning involving dying with honour. Nothing to do with living with honour and which, as has been noted, the dwarves have already heavily structured their society around.

So Hurak's a colossal jackass. Maybe this was a one-off, maybe it wasn't; maybe he's LG, or TN, or, hell, NE. But as long as he died from being mauled by the polar bear he feebly but deliberately challenged to personal combat at the age of 194, Hel doesn't come into it.

[jidasfire]

A recurring theme in OOTS seems to be that the mistakes of the past will be paid for in the present. In the case of Hurak, he made a snap decision to protect his people based on the rather grim and vague information he had at the time. Was it the right decision in retrospect? Obviously not. Was it handled in the moment as well as it could have been? Obviously not. Is it going to bite the dwarven people in the backside? Obviously so. Does it make Hurak an irredeemably bad person? Eh, that's less obvious. It's easy to say what we would or wouldn't have done from the outside, and while I'm not saying Hurak was right by any metric, it's easy to see how a leader could make the decision to sacrifice one for the sake of all others. If the prophecy is false and you act on it anyway, you've ruined one life unjustly. If, however, the prophecy is true and you don't act on it, you've ruined everyone's lives for an abstract sense of fairness. Given that time could very well have been a factor, Hurak made a choice.

So for all this, I'm not saying I agree which unceremoniously chucking Durkon out into the cold. Roy was right: Durkon would have gone willingly if he knew the truth. I'm just saying this new forum thinking that Hurak is as evil as the actual villains is probably misplaced sentiment.

[alwaysbebatman]

Huh. I went into this thread expecting it to already be answered, seeing as several people gave the correct answer in the comic reaction thread. A prophecy is like unexploded ordnance-- you can't just get rid of it, you can't defuse it, it will go off and there's no telling when.

Flinging the prophecy away for it to boomerang back on you at an unknown time when nobody will be prepared and telling nobody is the worst possible option. Some have theorized that Hurak understood that and was acting out of pure selfishness: that he hoped to merely delay the prophecy until he lived out his natural life. But his words in OTOOPCs belie that theory-- he clearly believes Durkon will genuinely never return, and simply has a poor grasp on how prophecies work. The prophecy says "when" Durkon returns, not "if". (It wouldn't be much of a prophecy if it had an "if" in it...)

Others have pointed out, that even if Hurak had been right about his strategy preventing the prophecy, he could have handled the situation with greater kindness and empathy. But that's not what you're asking: what should he have done?

I would have told Durkon the prophecy, explained that, no, just going out to get honorably killed to prevent it isn't an option (because that's the first thing Durkon would have suggested) because the prophecy says "when" whatever we do to prevent it will backfire. Send him out on a five-year mission with a group of clerics and warriors (no need for him to be alone) to level up and stockpile diamonds and Resurrect spells and Mend spells.

The bomb can't be defused and can't be thrown far away indefinitely, but it can be set off intentionally when everyone is as prepared as possible.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I never got the impression that that's how the dwarven afterlife system works (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html). I think that it's like the human/lizardfolk/hobgoblin/everybody else one, in that you go to whatever plane your alignment suggests, except that there's an extra step at the beginning involving dying with honour. Nothing to do with living with honour and which, as has been noted, the dwarves have already heavily structured their society around.

The Giant disagrees with your assessment about the need to constantly live with honor (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?442359-Why-aren-t-95-of-dwarven-souls-going-to-Hel-anyway&p=19822421#post19822421)


I'm just saying this new forum thinking that Hurak is as evil as the actual villains is probably misplaced sentiment.

[citation needed]

Really, do find a single person categorically stating that "Hurak is as evil as the actual villains".

GW

[Zyzzyva]

The Giant disagrees with your assessment about the need to constantly live with honor (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?442359-Why-aren-t-95-of-dwarven-souls-going-to-Hel-anyway&p=19822421#post19822421)

Had not seen that post! Thanks. :smallsmile:

[Kardwill]

Sacrificing one dwarf to save the whole race? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Okay, imagine your boss comes into your office, and tells you "you've been chosen to open a branch of the company in Syria (or wherever your own personal definition of a dangerous hellhole is). Congratulation! No, don't bother going home to tell your family, we'll warn them. No, you don't get to prepare for the trip either, and we won't help you do that difficult job, you'll be on your own. Here is a plane ticket, 100$ and a sandwich. Those security guards will escort you to the plane. Good luck, and don't ever come back again. Maybe we'll phone to you in 10 years to let you know if you're allowed to have your life back"

Do you
a - obey, and never come back again
b - say "screw that job" and get into the first plane back home

The way Hurak did this was not only heartless (Exiling him like a murderer, under the pretense of what looked like a useless, stupid and suicidal mission without any good reason? not letting him hug Sigdi one last time, seriously?), but also incredibly stupid : Durkon had every reason to come back, and very good motives for vengeance. Even a devout priest like him would get his faith seriously challenge in such circunstances.

Look at the banishment flashback : Durkon does not believe it was Thor that banished him, he's convinced it's an act of cruelty from his church. Hurok was very lucky Durkon was just THAT lawful and didn't simply come back with the first caravan, saying "to Hel with these fools!"

Hurok made a very, very bad decision while under pressure. It's kinda normal, but now, his whole civilisation faces apocalypse because of it, so he's getting judged for it.

Oh, and bonus point : He's a priest who heard the Word of God (well, Word of God's Dad in his case), and tried to brush the problem under the rug (banish the vector of the prophecy and then forget about it) rather than prepare for it. So yeah, he's got aggravating circumstances.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Had not seen that post! Thanks. :smallsmile:

You may want to read the other posts by the Giant in that thread. They are all beautifully written and informative and in one case heart breaking.

GW

[alwaysbebatman]

The Giant disagrees with your assessment about the need to constantly live with honor (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?442359-Why-aren-t-95-of-dwarven-souls-going-to-Hel-anyway&p=19822421#post19822421)





Reading what Mr. Burlew said there, I don't see how he is saying that a dwarf must live with honor in order to avoid Hel. Just that they DO live with honor ("honor" meaning "taking deadly risks at every available opportunity" it seems like) because that optimizes the likelihood that when they do happen to die, it will have been with honor...

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Reading what Mr. Burlew said there, I don't see how he is saying that a dwarf must live with honor in order to avoid Hel. Just that they DO live with honor ("honor" meaning "taking deadly risks at every available opportunity" it seems like) because that optimizes the likelihood that when they do happen to die, it will have been with honor...

I fail to see the difference between the two. The dwarves, by and large, live with honour to prevent ending in Hel.

GW

[alwaysbebatman]

I fail to see the difference between the two. The dwarves, by and large, live with honour to prevent ending in Hel.

GW

The difference is, Zzyzzyva's post was exactly correct, and Hurak would not go to Hel if he lived his life without honor, dying with honor is all that matters. Regardless of what 99.9% of dwarfs actually do.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The difference is, Zzyzzyva's post was exactly correct, and Hurak would not go to Hel if he lived his life without honor, dying with honor is all that matters. Regardless of what 99.9% of dwarfs actually do.

Which was also acknowledged in my post, so huzzah! we were all right, and I fail to see what you think you are attempting to address.

GW

[alwaysbebatman]

So, you said "The Giant disagrees" even though we all agree? All right then, we all agree. Rock on.

[Cizak]

Sacrificing one dwarf to save the whole race? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Bull. Hurak didn't save anyone. The prophecy is being fulfilled, and he didn't do a damned thing in order to prevent it. What he did was stuff the ticking time bomb under the floor boards and then not tell anyone that it could go off at any time. No further precautions, no notes to his successors, and oh yeah; no explanation to the dwarf he abruptly and cruelly threw out to die in the snow without getting to save goodbye to his family. Besides being cruel it was also just stupid. Even without magical domination, a common thing in the OotS world, people change alignment all the time. It's nothing but sheer luck on Hurak's part that Durkon is still Lawful Good.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So, you said "The Giant disagrees" even though we all agree? All right then, we all agree. Rock on.

Nothing to do with living with honour


the proper solution is actually, "Live a life of honor and service to your fellow dwarf so that whenever you happen to die, you'll be in the middle of acting honorably."

This space left intentionally blank

[Insipid Moniker]

IMO everyone is accepting the premise that banishing Durkon is a logical response to the prophecy. Ethics aside, if Durkon is in the city and a prophecy says Durkon's return TO the city will bring destruction, banishing him is fulfilling part of the prophecy, not preventing it. Better logic would be to ensure Durkon never leaves the city--you can't return someplace you never leave. Imprisoning or killing Durkon would make more sense, again ethics/morals aside.

And on a separate note, didn't the high priest lift the banishment in a letter to Durkon, which he never received?

[Keltest]

Given that Rich has also gone on to say that living honorably does squat for you if you, say, go out choking on a chicken bone at dinner, I don't think your point is as strong as you think it is.


[citation needed]

Really, do find a single person categorically stating that "Hurak is as evil as the actual villains".

GW

Also, its not explicit, but you better darn well think somebody is particularly evil before you wish them an eternity of torment at Hel's hands.

[alwaysbebatman]

@GW: So, are you saying that we DO disagree? Are you contrasting those quotes because they are supposed to contradict each other?

They really don't: Zzyzzyva is talking about what happens to a dwarf soul if they live without honor but die with honor. Mr. Burlew is talking about what dwarfs generally do and what their mores are. There is no contradiction.

I thought we had already agreed on that, but maybe I misunderstood?

[Kardwill]

IMO everyone is accepting the premise that banishing Durkon is a logical response to the prophecy. Ethics aside, if Durkon is in the city and a prophecy says Durkon's return TO the city will bring destruction, banishing him is fulfilling part of the prophecy, not preventing it. Better logic would be to ensure Durkon never leaves the city--you can't return someplace you never leave. Imprisoning or killing Durkon would make more sense, again ethics/morals aside.

Too many meanings for "Home" for that to work. You'd spring the curse when he goes home to his mother's house, when his corpse goes to the family crypt, when his vengeful ghost ends up in Valhalla, when he finds peace and companionship in his prison, when he goes back to save his mom when the city is getting evacuated...

[Grey_Wolf_c]

IMO everyone is accepting the premise that banishing Durkon is a logical response to the prophecy. Ethics aside, if Durkon is in the city and a prophecy says Durkon's return TO the city will bring destruction, banishing him is fulfilling part of the prophecy, not preventing it. Better logic would be to ensure Durkon never leaves the city--you can't return someplace you never leave. Imprisoning or killing Durkon would make more sense, again ethics/morals aside.
It would be better logic, but impossible to put into practice for a (at least supposedly) Good priest. I doubt the laws and ordinances of Firmament would have allowed Hurak to kill or permanently imprison Durkon "because of a prophecy". Exiling him before he could return home was a logical way to kick the problem down the road. It was also despicable and cowardly. Edit: It was done in a very despicable and cowardly way.


And on a separate note, didn't the high priest lift the banishment in a letter to Durkon, which he never received?
No, that was the new High Priest of Thor.


@GW: So, are you saying that we DO disagree?
"We"? I don't have a horse in the race, and I'm still quite fuzzy on what your position on this is.


Are you contrasting those quotes because they are supposed to contradict each other?
Zyzzyva concluded that Hel's bet had "Nothing to do with living with honour". The Giant informed us that Hel's bet had everything to do with the dwarves living with honour. Therefore, they disagree(d). Note that I don't have a position here. I accept that in OotSverse, Hel's bet lead to the dwarven lifestyle, because I take the Giant at his word, since I am not a Death-of-the-author person. Nothing more, nothing less.

Grey Wolf

[Vinyadan]

He should have told Durkon the situation, asked for the advice of others, and maybe summoned some divine being to get a third opinion.

Personally, I would have asked Durkon to live an ascetic life, and to make it his vow never, ever, ever to leave the lands. Then I would have given him a 24-person bodyguard to rotate during the day and never leave him alone. It would have been bad, but I don't think it would have been outright evil.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Hurok's game plan (and prophecy being a thing, there should be a preplanned game plan for several situations) should run something like this.

1. Tell Durkon about the prophecy. Exact wording and everything (the 'when' clause). Make him swear to keep it secret no matter what.
2. Give Durkon an "assignment" to go out into the human lands to live his life with as much honor as possible, and for as long as possible.
3. Invite his family to come to the temple to say good bye (and bring his stuff). Maybe have a ceremony to bless him for his "assignment". Make sure Durkon leaves behind a lock of his beard 'just in case'.
4. Make sure Sigdi knows she'll be receiving Discounted Health Care from the temple to compensate for Durkon not being there to give her free health care (arranging for a Restoration/Regeneration spell might be a useful sweetener as well).
5. Make arrangements to pass this information on to the next HPoT; say, swear Firuk Blackore to keep the secret from everyone except the HPoT--if there's a new HP, he is already cleared to talk about it.
6. Try to figure out what preparatory steps are needed for the day the prophecy comes true.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Vinyadan & Rogar's approaches are both workable. They might have failed regardless (because prophecy), but they are both much better than what Hurok did. I want this clearly stated so that my nitpicking doesn't get itself nitpicked by third parties.


Make him swear to keep it secret no matter what.

Why the need for secrecy, though? I mean, I'm not suggesting to shout it from the rafters since that can cause a mass panic, but not sure what is gained from swearing it into secrecy.

And I do agree that, after Durkon & other wise people had decided and agreed on a course of action for Durkon, the next step should be to have those same wise minds figure out what they'd do to oppose and ameliorate the D&D when it did come, since it was a case of when and not if. This, IMnpHO, is possibly the most crucial step

Grey Wolf

[Vinyadan]

Yes, not informing his followers was an amazing blunder. I think he was ashamed of himself, and/or he thought he had been just, like, sooooo smart! Bigly!

[Mad Humanist]

Hurok's game plan (and prophecy being a thing, there should be a preplanned game plan for several situations) should run something like this.

1. Tell Durkon about the prophecy. Exact wording and everything (the 'when' clause). Make him swear to keep it secret no matter what.
2. Give Durkon an "assignment" to go out into the human lands to live his life with as much honor as possible, and for as long as possible.
3. Invite his family to come to the temple to say good bye (and bring his stuff). Maybe have a ceremony to bless him for his "assignment". Make sure Durkon leaves behind a lock of his beard 'just in case'.
4. Make sure Sigdi knows she'll be receiving Discounted Health Care from the temple to compensate for Durkon not being there to give her free health care (arranging for a Restoration/Regeneration spell might be a useful sweetener as well).
5. Make arrangements to pass this information on to the next HPoT; say, swear Firuk Blackore to keep the secret from everyone except the HPoT--if there's a new HP, he is already cleared to talk about it.
6. Try to figure out what preparatory steps are needed for the day the prophecy comes true.

They needed a whole new department to stockpile scrolls of mass heal and the like. And an army to fight against the trees, from whose corpses the scrolls would be made.

[littlebum2002]

Make sure Durkon leaves behind a lock of his beard 'just in case'.

I like all your suggestions, but this one won't work. The part of the body used for Ressurection needs to be on their body at the time of their death.

[Mad Humanist]

Make sure Durkon leaves behind a lock of his beard 'just in case'.



I like all your suggestions, but this one won't work. The part of the body used for Ressurection needs to be on their body at the time of their death.

I thought the point of this was so that Durkon could be given a decent burial. But it seems logical that in a magical world, spells component requirements would be the bare minimum for a dignified burial.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I like all your suggestions, but this one won't work. The part of the body used for Ressurection needs to be on their body at the time of their death.

That's a reference to what they buried of Durkon's dad after his actual body was lost in a cave-in. His mom had kept it "just in case" (and presumably vice-versa)

GW

[factotum]

Zyzzyva concluded that Hel's bet had "Nothing to do with living with honour". The Giant informed us that Hel's bet had everything to do with the dwarves living with honour.

I think the problem here is that you're not really seeing the point of what Zyzzyva is saying, and the Giant's quote doesn't support your interpretation. The critical thing for a dwarf is to *die* with honour, and the reason to generally be honorable while alive is because you're more likely to be acting honorably when your moment of death arrives. That doesn't mean that a dwarf *has* to act honorably at all times to avoid going to Hel, and Hurak certainly didn't die while he was in the process of kicking Durkon into the snow, so even if that act was the most dishonorable one ever performed by any dwarf ever, he won't go to Hel because of it.

That does actually raise a point, thinking about it--where do Dwarves who die with honour, but have led a life of evil up to that point, go? Does such a being even exist in the Stickverse?

[Keltest]

I think the problem here is that you're not really seeing the point of what Zyzzyva is saying, and the Giant's quote doesn't support your interpretation. The critical thing for a dwarf is to *die* with honour, and the reason to generally be honorable while alive is because you're more likely to be acting honorably when your moment of death arrives. That doesn't mean that a dwarf *has* to act honorably at all times to avoid going to Hel, and Hurak certainly didn't die while he was in the process of kicking Durkon into the snow, so even if that act was the most dishonorable one ever performed by any dwarf ever, he won't go to Hel because of it.

That does actually raise a point, thinking about it--where do Dwarves who die with honour, but have led a life of evil up to that point, go? Does such a being even exist in the Stickverse?

Hilgya, should she die with honor at some point?

Anyway, presumably they go to their appropriate evil afterlife.

[alwaysbebatman]

"We"? I don't have a horse in the race, and I'm still quite fuzzy on what your position on this is.


Zyzzyva concluded that Hel's bet had "Nothing to do with living with honour". The Giant informed us that Hel's bet had everything to do with the dwarves living with honour. Therefore, they disagree(d). Note that I don't have a position here. I accept that in OotSverse, Hel's bet lead to the dwarven lifestyle, because I take the Giant at his word, since I am not a Death-of-the-author person. Nothing more, nothing less.

Grey Wolf

1) Characterizing what someone said as meaning some particular thing is "a position".

2) You have made clear now that your position is that Zzyzzyva concluded that "Hel's bet" (your words) has "nothing to do with living with honor" (their words,) which is contradicted by Mr. Burlew.

3) My position is that Zzyzzyva only ever said that the disposition of each dwarf's soul is not effected by whether or not they lived with honor, only how they died. Nothing that Mr. Burlew contradicted. Nothing that you've indicated that you believe Mr. Burlew contradicted. To the point that you seemed unclear what my point was or on what issue we were disagreeing.

So, to attempt to be 100% clear:

4) My point is and always was that nobody in this thread has asserted anything that is contradicted by the Giant post to which you linked.

[Joerg]

Someone suggested naming two puppies "Death" and "Destruction", puttting them outside, and sending Durkon to retrieve them. Prophecy fulfilled.

Of course, that doesn't work if the prophecy will come true in a specific way anyway, but in that case, nothing will work, so you might as well try to circumvent the prophecy.

[Vinyadan]

They needed a whole new department to stockpile scrolls of mass heal and the like. And an army to fight against the trees, from whose corpses the scrolls would be made.

Seriously, it's time to switch to parchment.


Also, I bet that eventual puppies would have been infected with the very contagious diseases destructionitis and deathoitis in the five minutes they were outside.

[littlebum2002]

I thought the point of this was so that Durkon could be given a decent burial. But it seems logical that in a magical world, spells component requirements would be the bare minimum for a dignified burial.


That's a reference to what they buried of Durkon's dad after his actual body was lost in a cave-in. His mom had kept it "just in case" (and presumably vice-versa)

GW

I totally forgot this event, do you guy have a strip # so I can refresh my memory?



Someone suggested naming two puppies "Death" and "Destruction", puttting them outside, and sending Durkon to retrieve them. Prophecy fulfilled.

Of course, that doesn't work if the prophecy will come true in a specific way anyway, but in that case, nothing will work, so you might as well try to circumvent the prophecy.

Wouldn't work. The prophecy specifically says "death and destruction for us all".

So you could, however, create some Death and Destruction™ brand candies, have a Bag of Holding containing a few million of them, and have Durkon bring that home with him, and make sure every dwarf gets at least one.

[Sapphire Guard]

So you could, however, create some Death and Destruction™ brand candies, have a Bag of Holding containing a few million of them, and have Durkon bring that home with him, and make sure every dwarf gets at least one.

Hel poisons them. Prophecy fulfilled.

Hurak made a reasonable, but not perfect, choice. It was an error of judgement, but doesn't damn him. Are we ever confirmed that he didn't explain things to D's family? I don't remember it if there was. Maybe Sigdi was told after the exile.

[alwaysbebatman]

@ little bum: "All" has some ambiguity, too. I don't think it has to mean every dwarf. A few buildings knocked down and a couple dozen casualties so that "all" of the dwarfs in Firmament can say that they were effected by "death and destruction" sounds like a fulfilled prophecy to me...

[Porthos]

The prophecy already took into account Hurak's actions.

And thread. :smallsmile: The prophecy would not have occurred if Hurak would have done literally anything differently.

Everything else is commentary. Useful commentary, sure. Especially pointing out how much of an ass Hurak was being. But still commentary.

To add my own commentary, I would even go as far as to say that Hurak being an ass was taken into account. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that Durkon would have died in the same way and in the same circumstances if he knew why he was exiled.

In fact, I would go even further and suggest the personality of Durkula would be different enough as to perhaps, PERHAPS, not be so, ahem, hell bent on ending the world. Mostly if we take the 'worst day'/inversion of morals to heart. Which, I admit, might be a bit too much on the whole "trusting Durkula to speak truthfully about things" subject.

Still, Hurak being a jerk in the way he reacted to the prophecy seems part and parcel of it coming back to hurt his people.

The moral here being: Don't be a massive ass to others, it'll come back to bite you and the ones you care about.

(I'd also add a subtext moral about treating others in a massively unjust way will come back to haunt you. With the dividing line being telling Durkon about the prophecy before exiling him or not exiling him in the first place and trying to deal with the prophecy in a different manner left to the discretion of the individual reader)

Given what we've seen of the current High Priest of Thor, I suspect she'd be horrified at her predecessor's actions. If not the exile itself, how he went about it.

[Mad Humanist]

Someone suggested naming two puppies "Death" and "Destruction", puttting them outside, and sending Durkon to retrieve them. Prophecy fulfilled.

Of course, that doesn't work if the prophecy will come true in a specific way anyway, but in that case, nothing will work, so you might as well try to circumvent the prophecy.

That's an interesting idea. It could be done annually and would have become one of those quaint and charming traditional quirks that Dwarves are known for,

[Present 2.0]

Sacrificing one dwarf to save the whole race? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Wow!

Why have you even opened this Thread if you aren't discussing any of the Points, that the Posters before you made and are instead just quoting Spok?

Your Spok-Quote isn't even a Response to the other Posts. None of them disagreed with that Notion. They just offered ways, how you could go better about sacrificing Durkons Well-Being for the Dwarfs.

[Unoriginal]

It seems people tend to forget that Durkon was left to wander alone in the cold, covered in snow mountains, with basically no supplies.

Hurak's fault is not banishing Durkon, it's how big of a jerk he was about it. Though I don't think he wanted Durkon to die from the cold or the hunger, because if he wanted Durkon to die he could just have hired someone to do the job and make sure.

[factotum]

@ little bum: "All" has some ambiguity, too. I don't think it has to mean every dwarf. A few buildings knocked down and a couple dozen casualties so that "all" of the dwarfs in Firmament can say that they were effected by "death and destruction" sounds like a fulfilled prophecy to me...

The prophecy came via a priest of Odin, though, not a priest of Thor, so "us all" must surely perforce include some Odin worshippers...or, since the source of the prophecy was the god Odin, "us all" might actually refer to the gods themselves! I hadn't actually thought of that before just now, but it would certainly fit, what with the Snarl being a God-killing abomination and all.


And thread. :smallsmile: The prophecy would not have occurred if Hurak would have done literally anything differently.

But it would have done, that's the rub. Whatever Hurak did, the prophecy would eventually come to pass, because they always do in stories. It obviously wouldn't have happened in exactly the same way, though.

[Kardwill]

But it would have done, that's the rub. Whatever Hurak did, the prophecy would eventually come to pass, because they always do in stories. It obviously wouldn't have happened in exactly the same way, though.

Or there would have been no prophecy. A nice causal loop : Durkon was exiled because a prophecy was uttered, and a prophecy was uttered because Durkon would be exiled.
Even better : The prophecy will happen because it has been spoken, and the prophecy has been spoken because it will happen.

Isn't is a glorious mess? :smalltongue:

[littlebum2002]

This entire thread can be boiled down to


What's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything

[alwaysbebatman]

There are many ways that an unavoidable prophecy might interact with causality, and free will. I went into it in some detail in the new-comic thread, but I think it got buried. I'm gonna self-quote and try to get this out there better in a thread specifically about the prophecy itself:


Bringing up Hurak's agency really begs the question of exactly how does prophecy work, anyway?

Is it like a Xanatos Gambit, where you are free to make any choice, but no matter what you do, there's a different plan to take you to the prophecy coming true?

Or is it like a Batman gambit, where you are free to make any choice, and only one leads to the prophecy, but the prophecy knows in advance (because magic) that that's the one you're going to make?

Or is it like Longshot's probability power, where the prophecy actually rigs things to get to the foreordained results? And does that include decisions that are normally free-willed? Or are you free to make individual decisions, but the prophecy rigs other odds so it still comes to the foreordained result?

I think any if those options could make for an interesting system for prophecy magic, but (I may be biased but) the Batman gambit option seems simplest.

And in almost all of the options, Hurak is still morally responsible for his decisions. And in most, the "impossible to defuse bomb" strategy others have proposed is your best bet.

[Psychronia]

I've already given my approach in the main comic reaction thread, but I'll reiterate it here.

If I were in Hurak's shoes, I would attempt to actively fulfill prophecy because that's the closest thing I could get to exercising any sort of control over it. Specifically, I'd be able to control the "when" of it and have the chance to prepare for it.

I would gather a bunch of people-including Durkon himself-to pick the prophecy apart like we're doing here. What does "us all" cover? What does "home" cover? After some preparation, I send Durkon out to actively bring some sort of danger home-I'm thinking either a monster or just asking another dwarf settlement to send an army.

We accept that the damage will be done, try to minimize it, and prepare for rebuilding immediately after with Raise Dead spells and such. The loaded gun/ticking bomb goes off, and hopefully nothing terrible was irreplaceably lost.

Except poor Durkon. We might need to permanently kill and bury him to make absolute sure he's indeed "returning home" before letting our guards down.

[Jasdoif]

We accept that the damage will be done, try to minimize it, and prepare for rebuilding immediately after with Raise Dead spells and such. The loaded gun/ticking bomb goes off, and hopefully nothing terrible was irreplaceable lost.So what do you do when the actual event the prophecy referred to happens?

[Mad Humanist]

We accept that the damage will be done, try to minimize it, and prepare for rebuilding immediately after with Raise Dead spells and such. The loaded gun/ticking bomb goes off, and hopefully nothing terrible was irreplaceable lost.



So what do you do when the actual event the prophecy referred to happens?

Obviously all that would be planned for. The Dwarves would have had their equivalent of the Sapphire Guard, dedicated to preparing for the eventual return of Durkon. The problem is that probably the return of Durkon would have taken so long that eventually Durkon's Welcoming Party would have given up to become nothing more than a quaint children's game. At which point Durkon would come home and Dwarven society would be totally unprepared.

Alternatively Durkon's first target would be the resources and leadership of Durkon's Welcoming Party and it would be subverted to the goals of Death and Destruction.

[alwaysbebatman]

So what do you do when the actual event the prophecy referred to happens?

If you do all of that, including vaporizing Durkon, how, at that point, could that NOT be "the actual event"?

That's one of the lingering questions of how prophecy works: did the prophecy know that Hurak would react the way he did and it would eventually lead to the events that are unfolding now? Or does the prophecy force something that fits its words to happen?

Either way there's no way that the prophecy was about Durkon coming back as a vampire AND would be given to somebody who would take a rational course of action that would never lead to that. So if you DO get a prophecy of doom, setting it off in as controlled a manner as possible seems like the way to go.

[Dr.Zero]

I would gather a bunch of people-including Durkon himself-to pick the prophecy apart like we're doing here. What does "us all" cover? What does "home" cover? After some preparation, I send Durkon out to actively bring some sort of danger home-I'm thinking either a monster or just asking another dwarf settlement to send an army.


While I find the idea intriguing, why some danger? At this point we can try to refuge in audacity and make fun of the whole thing!

Hurak: "Durkon, lad, come here. Lend me your ear. (Pstt pstt psstt)."
Hurak gives Durkon plenty of those precious gems the humans like so much.
Durkon goes away, toward human lands.
He returns years later with two caravans, loaded of two different kind of ale: one red and one black.
Durkon: "Fellow dwarves, as asked by High Priest Hurak I went to the human land, teaching them to make proper ale and then let their creativity kick in. And here now I return with two new kinds of beer: one black, one red. Which we named Death(TM) and Destruction(TM) and there is plenty for us all!"
Dwarves: "Huzzah! This is really what Thor would do! Let's paw some gals!"


(Really this is more what Loki would do...)

Anyway, even if this is intriguing and the prophecy is technically "fulfilled" nothing says that it is the proper fulfillment and another one won't happen later.

[Jasdoif]

If you do all of that, including vaporizing Durkon, how, at that point, could that NOT be "the actual event"?Same way Durkon could NOT return home if Hurak exiled him: getting so caught up in one interpretation of a low-context statement that the possibility of things existing outside the limits of one's own knowledge are overlooked.

(Offhand, Resurrection comes to mind...as does how Durkon considers being buried in his ancestral tomb "going home" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0333.html) and how Durkon's father's body was never recovered but he's considered buried in the tomb anyway (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0991.html).)

[goodpeople25]

I've already given my approach in the main comic reaction thread, but I'll reiterate it here.

If I were in Hurak's shoes, I would attempt to actively fulfill prophecy because that's the closest thing I could get to exercising any sort of control over it. Specifically, I'd be able to control the "when" of it and have the chance to prepare for it.

I would gather a bunch of people-including Durkon himself-to pick the prophecy apart like we're doing here. What does "us all" cover? What does "home" cover? After some preparation, I send Durkon out to actively bring some sort of danger home-I'm thinking either a monster or just asking another dwarf settlement to send an army.

We accept that the damage will be done, try to minimize it, and prepare for rebuilding immediately after with Raise Dead spells and such. The loaded gun/ticking bomb goes off, and hopefully nothing terrible was irreplaceable lost.

Except poor Durkon. We might need to permanently kill and bury him to make absolute sure he's indeed "returning home" before letting our guards down.
Durkon bringing worst case death and destruction in a more direct way seems pretty covered, (Might need a bit more elaboration on the preventing resurrections and Durkon dying also bringing consequences fronts) but if a lack of action causing eventual consequences applies you're letting Durkon return home and we already have the road taken to see possibilities on how the lack of Durkon could cause death and destruction to the Dwarves.

[Mandor]

Clearly he should have immediately cast Plane Shift and banished Durkon to the Para Elemental Plane of Ranch Dressing.

[Ruck]

It's nothing but sheer luck on Hurak's part that Durkon is still Lawful Good.

This is a good and I think underrated point to criticize Hurak on. Even if "The lad's so Lawful that he'll never return until he's called for"... "Exiling him immediately with no explanation even though he did nothing wrong and not letting him say goodbye to his family" seems like a good way to test, and possibly break, the limits of that lawfulness.


You may want to read the other posts by the Giant in that thread. They are all beautifully written and informative and in one case heart breaking.

GW

He's really good at presenting the value systems like the dwarves' from the perspectives of the people who abide by them.

[Psychronia]

Either way there's no way that the prophecy was about Durkon coming back as a vampire AND would be given to somebody who would take a rational course of action that would never lead to that. So if you DO get a prophecy of doom, setting it off in as controlled a manner as possible seems like the way to go.

Yeah...The main problem with prophecies is that cause and effect don't have to follow the flow of time. Since that's what I would do as High Priest, a self-fulfilling prophecy that can be foiled would never be sent to me. It would either go to someone like Hurak, not happen at all, or be something that I can't avoid even if I knew about it. Something like, "When you one day die of natural causes, dwarven society will collapse for good."
I wouldn't know what to do with something like that. It's more like a curse than a prophecy, really.


While I find the idea intriguing, why some danger? At this point we can try to refuge in audacity and make fun of the whole thing!

Hurak: "Durkon, lad, come here. Lend me your ear. (Pstt pstt psstt)."
Hurak gives Durkon plenty of those precious gems the humans like so much.
Durkon goes away, toward human lands.
He returns years later with two caravans, loaded of two different kind of ale: one red and one black.
Durkon: "Fellow dwarves, as asked by High Priest Hurak I went to the human land, teaching them to make proper ale and then let their creativity kick in. And here now I return with two new kinds of beer: one black, one red. Which we named Death(TM) and Destruction(TM) and there is plenty for us all!"
Dwarves: "Huzzah! This is really what Thor would do! Let's paw some gals!"


Anyway, even if this is intriguing and the prophecy is technically "fulfilled" nothing says that it is the proper fulfillment and another one won't happen later.

That's quite hilarious, and I don't see why it can't be a thing. But yeah, the problem is that Durkon has chances to keep "returning home". The only way to really set an execution of a prophecy in stone is to prevent the conditions from ever happening a second time. In this case, Durkon needs to be killed and never brought back-essentially, never leaving the afterlife as his "home". He still gets the short end of the stick, but I think it's a little kinder and happier than what he got from Hurak.


As a fairly unrelated side, I'm somehow reminded of the prophecy in Macbeth, which basically say "You'll be vanquished when Great Birnam Wood itself rises against you." The reactions dwarves would have to that sort of doom prophecy would probably be hilarious.

[Ornithologist]

:belkar: Screw it! When in doubt, Set something on fire.


Though I'm not sure Belkar would follow his own advise anymore.



To be fair, this would be a good solution to fight Durkon now.

[Roland Itiative]

I haven't read the rest od the thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating arguments, but...

Hurok could have TOLD Durkon about the prophecy, as Roy himself pointed out, for starters. Durkon would exile himself, and would be spared quite a lot of suffering and questioning himself. This could even result in Durkula being a little different as a consequence, which could have actually helped in the long run.

Also, he could have used the time he had during Durkon's exile to prepare for the death and destruction. The prophecy was bound to happen anyway, that's why it's a prophecy, so all that time could have been used to prepare for that inevitable day.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Why the need for secrecy, though? I mean, I'm not suggesting to shout it from the rafters since that can cause a mass panic, but not sure what is gained from swearing it into secrecy.

Grey Wolf
If you swear him to secrecy, you have essentially no people who know they can F### you over by hitting one dwarf with a teleport spell. Remember, this isn't just a ticking bomb. It's a megaton nuke.

I totally forgot this event, do you guy have a strip # so I can refresh my memory?

That would be 991, A Sergeant and a Sapper (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0991.html).

[Snails]

This is a good and I think underrated point to criticize Hurak on. Even if "The lad's so Lawful that he'll never return until he's called for"... "Exiling him immediately with no explanation even though he did nothing wrong and not letting him say goodbye to his family" seems like a good way to test, and possibly break, the limits of that lawfulness.

Which in the main thread I put as...


In this case, Hurak trusted Durkon's honor (to stay away out of blind obedience) while not trusting Durkon's honor (that staying away to save the Dwarven nation was a worthy cause to suffer for).

Ultimately, Hurak's actions are neither morally or logically defensible.

[Porthos]

On some level I find it interesting that people are trying to find ways this prophecy could have occurred differently but NOT trying to do the same for the others we've seen in OotS. Take the infamous Four Words prophecy. There have been plenty of people who insisted until they were blue in the face that V's bargain with the IFCC didn't fit for one linguistic hair-splitting reason or another. Very few people, however, have suggested other ways V would have gotten their Ultimate Power. Instead they would say that it hadn't happened yet, and/or that wasn't 'real' Ultimate Power. And they might construct a hypothetical meeting with some god-like power, but it always seemed to be short on the specifics to me. Nothing close to the suggestions we've seen about Odin's prophecy, for instance.

Thankfully, as time has gone by, the arguing over the Four Words prophecy has pretty much died out.

Still I find the attempts to construct alternative scenarios here curious on one level. Perhaps it's because the Four Words prophecy was so constrictive, and the outcome so hard to reach, then maybe that's why so few people have tried to construct alternate scenarios for V to pursue.

But I tend to think it's because Durkon was and is a victim here of fate and jackasses while V ultimately was the architect of their own situation. That is, V made their bed, so sleeping in it doesn't seem SO bad, while Durkon was treated horribly through no fault of his own, so some people try to find what could have gone differently.

But just like the Four Words prophecy could only have been about V renting their soul to the Devils, the Death and Destruction prophecy could only have referred to Durkon getting Vamped and then exacting his unholy revenge.

Why? To flip the argument some have made on its head, if characters reacted differently to that prophecy, we'd have a different story. That the characters reacted in the way they did kinda precludes the prophecy meaning anything else.

----

We can (and I do) still blame Hurak for the way he acted. But it's analogous to blaming V for being power hungry or Belkar for having a hair trigger (when he killed the Oracle). That is, it was one of the necessary components of everything happening. One of the gears in a finely tuned watch, if you will. The only real difference here is that Durkon was a passive victim here while the others were more proactive in the harm that ultimately happened to them. Which is REALLY unfair to him, but, well, isn't the first unfair thing we've seen in the comic.

[factotum]

Doesn't all that boil down to "It's happening this way because that's how it's written", Porthos? Which is not generally useful--if we can't discuss how things might have gone if things had been different then we can't realistically discuss *anything* about the story.

[Porthos]

Doesn't all that boil down to "It's happening this way because that's how it's written", Porthos? Which is not generally useful--if we can't discuss how things might have gone if things had been different then we can't realistically discuss *anything* about the story.

Well, what I was finding interesting is WHAT is being discussed this time versus other times. My post ultimately was trying to suss out why the discussion is different this time around (and I do think it is different this time). With my conclusion being "people might not be happy that Durkon (and others) is (are) a victim in this and are looking for ways things could have been different".

===

As an aside, I like "what if's" just as much as anyone else. But I just find it a little academic in this specific case. Kinda like trying to find out alternate ways of what "for none of woman born shall harm Macbeth" could have meant or "Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall" in regards to the Witch-King of LotR could have meant.

To put it another way, discussing how the comic would be different if, say, Redcloak chose different actions I find interesting. What would happen if Eugene had a bit more of a understanding of human emotions. V not deciding to go coo-coo for coco puffs.

Lots of things, really.

But something like this?

Well the very fact that prophecies in OotS are kinda tautological in nature just cuts off a lot of the debate for me. To me, it's nearly like debating "What would math be like if 2+2 = 5", if not quite. It's one reason why I've been trying to only occasionally comment from the sidelines on this the last couple of weeks instead of engaging in long back and forths on it.

To put it yet another way, commenting about how and why the characters are reacting to this is interesting to me. Debating about how much folks are culpable in all this, also interesting. Debating whether or not Hurak should have reacted differently, the same.

But finding out ways to satisfy the prophecy that makes the prophecy more like trying to subvert a curse than it being an actual warning of the consequences over the actions that people will take? Just... Well, I'm not knocking those that do it. Honest! It just seems like... I dunno. Like people are trying to solve a puzzle that isn't even there, IMO. I get why, it's just... Well, I can only say "IMO, prophecies don't work that way in OotSWorld" so many different ways, before I start to look for other things to comment on. Like Hurak's culpability. Or musing whether or not Odin had even vaguely good motives. Or, as in my last post, thinking aloud why posters seem to be reacting a bit differently this time around.

I suppose I shouldn't have added the (repeated) commentary about how prophecies work, IMO, in OotSWorld, as it was a supporting point and not the main thrust of the post. But I kinda wanted to head the argument you just made off at the pass and more focus on the 'why is it different this time' bit.

Clearly I didn't do a good enough job and probably should have just left well enough alone. :smalltongue:

[Sapphire Guard]

Hurok could have TOLD Durkon about the prophecy, as Roy himself pointed out, for starters. Durkon would exile himself, and would be spared quite a lot of suffering and questioning himself

Or suffer more, in the knowledge that he can never go home and would be a danger to everything he loves if he did.

I feel like the Death and Destruction brand beer/sweets is inviting Hel to infect it with some kind of lethal disease.

[Cazero]

All this speculation made me thing about an interesting question.
We now all know what Hurak was told. But was that the actual prophecy repeated word for word or a distorted retelling?

[Porthos]

... finding out ways to satisfy the prophecy that makes the prophecy more like trying to subvert a curse than it being an actual warning of the consequences over the actions that people will take...

I realize it's gauche to quote one's own post, but the more I think about it, the more I think this is what ultimately my stopping point when it comes to about people trying to find alternatives to what happened in this specific case.

It seems to me that two of the prophecies in The Order of the Stick that had undesirable outcomes (Durkon's and V's) were in one way or another warnings about the consequences of the actions that people would take.* And most of us know how much Rich is a believer in consequences should follow actions in storytelling.

* And the other two that had negative outcomes (Roy's and Belkar's) also directly flowed from actions of the folks involved (Roy trying to outsmart the Oracle and Belkar wanting to know who he gets to kill).

So anything that turns this prophecy into something other than a consequence on the actions of the folks involved (The dwarves kicked out Durkon and now they're paying the piper) doesn't sit right with me on some level. Again, in this specific case.

I probably should just get over myself here (:smalltongue:), but the realization just struck me and I think it's worth examining one's own motivations on occasion. :smallsmile:

[Ruck]

Well, what I was finding interesting is WHAT is being discussed this time versus other times. My post ultimately was trying to suss out why the discussion is different this time around (and I do think it is different this time). With my conclusion being "people might not be happy that Durkon (and others) is (are) a victim in this and are looking for ways things could have been different".


That is part of it; Vaarsuvius sought ultimate arcane power, while Durkon certainly never would have sought "death and destruction for us all" for any reasonable definition of "us all." But related to it, and maybe more importantly, is that Vaarsuvius also sought out the Oracle's advice. The prophecy about Durkon was delivered from on high unbeknownst to him. And yeah, I think it's the difference between what happens to you in the active pursuit of your goals, and what happens to you through no fault of your own.

[Vinyadan]

I don't know if it's too much of splitting hair, but Durkon currently is bringing death and destruction for all dwarfs; the question is, will he also deliver death and destruction to them?

[factotum]

But finding out ways to satisfy the prophecy that makes the prophecy more like trying to subvert a curse than it being an actual warning of the consequences over the actions that people will take? Just... Well, I'm not knocking those that do it. Honest! It just seems like... I dunno. Like people are trying to solve a puzzle that isn't even there, IMO. I get why, it's just... Well, I can only say "IMO, prophecies don't work that way in OotSWorld" so many different ways, before I start to look for other things to comment on.

If I understand you right, I think I agree with you. The prophecy will come true regardless of what actions people carry out--that's the nature of prophecies. So, saying "But the prophecy would never have been fulfilled if Hurak had not sent Durkon away!" is missing the point of this being a prophecy. It would come true at some point, in some way, whatever Hurak did. You would think Hurak himself would know that, but apparently he did not!

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I mean, I feel like there's two ways to answer this. The first one is what Hurak could have actually done better to prevent the prophecy from coming true. The solution to that is probably something along the lines of killing Durkon and keeping him from being resurrected in anyway. But even that plan has some logistic flaws, ignoring how horrendous is it.

The second is what Hurak could have done better with his behavior, which might not have prevented the prophecy, but definitely couldn't have hurt. He easily could have told Durkon the truth and let him meet with his family. In fairness, I'm also saying that because I'd love to have seen that scene beforehand.

[Ruck]

I don't know if it's too much of splitting hair, but Durkon currently is bringing death and destruction for all dwarfs; the question is, will he also deliver death and destruction to them?

I made a similar post in the main thread; I don't think it's splitting hairs.

Unrelated, I can't wait to hear what exactly Hurak told Sidgi when she asked why her son never came home from Thor's temple that day.

[alwaysbebatman]

If I understand you right, I think I agree with you. The prophecy will come true regardless of what actions people carry out--that's the nature of prophecies. So, saying "But the prophecy would never have been fulfilled if Hurak had not sent Durkon away!" is missing the point of this being a prophecy. It would come true at some point, in some way, whatever Hurak did. You would think Hurak himself would know that, but apparently he did not!

I think that this assumes too much that we don't actually know about how prophetic magic works in OOTSverse. Yes, prophecies come true no matter what you do, but what is the mechanic behind that?

Do prophecies come true no matter what you do because there is a giant Rube Goldberg device of consequences that will each lead to the prophecy coming true in a different way depending on which choices you make?

OR do prophecies come true no matter what you do because although there are many actions you COULD take to try to avoid a "warning" prophecy, the prophecy magically knows which course you actually WILL take and that is the one that happens to lead to the fulfillment of the prophecy?

Both are possible, but I think the second one is simpler and more likely.

And this leads into Porthos's question: we're asking "what could Hurak have done differently?" where we haven't asked that about other prophecies, mostly because other prophecies weren't "warning"-type prophecies about something the recipient would want to avoid.

And prophecies are uniquely terrible at the job of warning people. A "warning" prophecy really is more of a curse than anything.

[Kish]

I'm not actually sure that's right. People make "how Belkar will evade his prophesied death" posts all the time. Some far more absurd than the "two types of alcohol named Death and Destruction" idea. And people also make posts about how Rich will turn Elan's prophesied happy ending into something horrible.

(That last sentence may result in the thread being derailed with arguments over whether Elan actually has a happy ending to the story to look forward to, but considering the OP posted twice, once staking out the position that what Hurok did was unchallengeable and once reasserting same, and neither acknowledging any other perspective, I'm okay with that.)

[alwaysbebatman]

Well, just cause OP seems to have no interest in genuinely debating the question he proposed (which I guess he thought was a "gotcha" hypothetical question with obviously no answer?) doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile question in and of itself.

My call is still: send Durkon on a 5-year mission to collect LOTS of diamonds (to help with the unavoidable death-and-destruction...)

[Jasdoif]

Do prophecies come true no matter what you do because there is a giant Rube Goldberg device of consequences that will each lead to the prophecy coming true in a different way depending on which choices you make?

OR do prophecies come true no matter what you do because although there are many actions you COULD take to try to avoid a "warning" prophecy, the prophecy magically knows which course you actually WILL take and that is the one that happens to lead to the fulfillment of the prophecy?

Both are possible, but I think the second one is simpler and more likely.The second one is "simpler" because it dismisses thinking about actual consequences of one's actions, making it a convenient excuse to absolve oneself of responsibility for their own behavior. Which is what makes it so convenient for false prophecies too; like if the priest of Odin was once a romantic rival of Tenrin and getting Durkon exiled or killed was his petty revenge against Sigdi, and the vampire thing is a coincidence. (Actually I suppose that's still on the "what-do-you-mean-we-don't-have-sniper-rifles-in-this-setting"-long-shot table....)

[alwaysbebatman]

The fact that the prophecy magically knows what you are going to do doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions. You have free will, the prophecy just knows which free-willed action you will take.

I only meant it's "simpler" in the sense that it doesn't require the prophecy to set up a different chain of circumstance for every possible action.

[Jasdoif]

I only meant it's "simpler" in the sense that it doesn't require the prophecy to set up a different chain of circumstance for every possible action.And assuming that the alternatives do require the prophecy to set up a different chain of circumstances for every possible action, apparently.

[Keltest]

And assuming that the alternatives do require the prophecy to set up a different chain of circumstances for every possible action, apparently.

Its sort of a required premise for the "prophecy as a curse" argument.

[Jasdoif]

Its sort of a required premise for the "prophecy as a curse" argument.It is? :smallconfused: Maybe I'm missing something obvious...which argument is that again?

[factotum]

And assuming that the alternatives do require the prophecy to set up a different chain of circumstances for every possible action, apparently.

Well, otherwise, how is the prophecy guaranteed to come true? We've not seen a prophecy which has actively been disproved to happen so far (although there are a couple which have not yet come to pass, like Belkar's death). So, either the world runs on rails and free will is an illusion, or a prophecy has to be set up in such a way that it will come true no matter what people choose to do.

[alwaysbebatman]

Hmm. I suspect that what I am suggesting is something that people instinctually automatically reject as nonsense. Cause I keep saying it, and it's like I didn't say anything. Like the idea itself doesn't have any "stickiness."

I am suggesting that maybe the prophecy knows what free choice the relevant people will make in reaction to the prophecy. They have a free choice and could choose anything. The prophecy (because magic) just KNOWS which option the person WILL actually choose.

If somebody knows you well enough to know for sure what choice you will make in a given situation, did they force you to do it? This isn't a world on rails. Just a world that cheats and skips ahead chapters.

[Jasdoif]

Well, otherwise, how is the prophecy guaranteed to come true? We've not seen a prophecy which has actively been disproved to happen so far (although there are a couple which have not yet come to pass, like Belkar's death). So, either the world runs on rails and free will is an illusion, or a prophecy has to be set up in such a way that it will come true no matter what people choose to do.The general ambiguity of prophecies is the key feature. They describe a specific scenario by using a few aspects of the scenario with little context, in such a way that the immediate causes of the scenario don't become apparent until shortly before, or after, it's come to pass.

Life is full of combinations of minor coincidences and decisions that come together in surprising ways. I mean, I can trace my presence on this forum back to my aunt's sons playing Red Alert when it was first released, around 1997. If a prophecy made two decades ago said that my cousins siding with the Soviets would turn me into a banana, how could I have meaningfully acted on that information?

Prophecies are useful to their audiences (and often the prophets and/or the source of prophecy), not the actors behind the foreseen scenario behind them.

[Kish]

This isn't a world on rails. Just a world that cheats and skips ahead chapters.
That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. If there is a "for sure what you would do in a given situation," and that situation is complex--then you don't have free will. Which, of course, no characters in fiction do, and that's why prophecies can work in fiction--but for my part, I don't see the appeal of analyzing how a prophecy works beyond the "it's magic, okay?" level, because every explanation seems to come to either "free will is an illusion," which renders the story vastly less interesting*, or "the prophecy isn't real," which makes that part of the story a ripoff.

*I suspect I need to devote more words to this part or someone will accuse me of contradicting myself. These are facts: there is no one named Roy Greenhilt who fights vampires with a sword that produces green fire. Belkar Bitterleaf has never killed anyone because he does not exist in the real world. There is no moral difference between a depiction of Belkar with a dagger through Solt Lorkyurg and a depiction of Miko rescuing an innocent person from a fire.

Enjoying a story is not compatible with dwelling on these facts.

"The prophecy knew exactly what Hurok would do, because there was only ever one possible thing he would do," while accurate in real-world terms, strikes me as as conducive to enjoying the story as commenting on Elan and Haley's love life with "they're both just assemblages of pixels, you know."

[alwaysbebatman]

Yeah, the thing is foreknowledge and constraint are absolutely not the same thing, and which applies is the most interesting thing to speculate, to me. But at least know I see why I can't get anybody to engage in that question: they don't see the difference.

[Jasdoif]

Yeah, the thing is foreknowledge and constraint are absolutely not the same thing, and which applies is the most interesting thing to speculate, to me. But at least know I see why I can't get anybody to engage in that question: they don't see the difference.It looks to me like you've been positing that foreknowledge requires constraint, not whether constraint applies instead of foreknowledge.

[alwaysbebatman]

It looks to me like you've been positing that foreknowledge requires constraint, not whether constraint applies instead of foreknowledge.

I'm not sure I see how? I've emphasize emphatically that (in one of the possible mechanics for prophetic magic) Hurok is absolutely free to make any choice, and the prophecy simply magically KNOWS which choice Hurok will in fact make...

[Jasdoif]

I'm not sure I see how? I've emphasize emphatically that (in one of the possible mechanics for prophetic magic) Hurok is absolutely free to make any choice, and the prophecy simply magically KNOWS which choice Hurok will in fact make...Which would mean the choice Hurok makes is constrained because of the foreknowledge of the prophecy, since the prophecy of course predates Hurok's choice; it means Hurok cannot make a different choice than the one the prophecy has forecasted.

[alwaysbebatman]

Yeah, that's what I mean by people not seeing a difference. If the prophecy just KNOWS what Hurok is going to do it doesn't need to FORCE him to do anything. Correlation is not causation. Causation worked backwards in time, because the prophecy wouldn't have been made if Hurok would have reacted differently.

And now I get what psychronia was getting at earlier. It went over my head completely at the time.

[Keltest]

Which would mean the choice Hurok makes is constrained because of the foreknowledge of the prophecy, since the prophecy of course predates Hurok's choice; it means Hurok cannot make a different choice than the one the prophecy has forecasted.

Being predictable is not the same thing as not having free will though. If I touch something hot, I'm going to jerk my hand away from it. That doesn't mean I cant continue to touch it, just that I wont.

[Jasdoif]

If the prophecy just KNOWS what Hurok is going to do it doesn't need to FORCE him to do anything. Correlation is not causation. Causation worked backwards in time, because the prophecy wouldn't have been made if Hurok would have reacted differently.Even then; Hurok's decision is still constrained to what the prophecy predicted, because Hurok still makes his decisions going forward in time, and from that perspective there's still only the one choice he can make.

[Porthos]

I've made this analogy before, and I think it's the best. We currently sit in a privileged position in time where we know what people did in the past. Those folks all (theoretically) had free will to make their decisions; we just know what decisions they made.

What prophetic magic appears to do in OotSWorld is look ahead and see what the choices were. It implies one future timeline, yes, though there are rhetorical outs (it sees WHICH of the near-infinite paths were taken).

In short, it's like a stable time loop, but for information. Free will and agency can happily exist in a system where a person travels into the future, sees what everybody did, and then goes back to the past. Here the only difference is someone looking into the future as opposed to actually travelling there.

It is my opinion that being a stable time loop makes the logic simpler and more intuitive.

To expand on it, Persons A, B, C, and D all make a series of choices over a length of time. Person E looks ahead to see what they were. The stable time loop comes into affect if Person C bases parts of their decision making on what Person E is gabbing about. But, just because Person C (and E for that matter) is acting on future information, doesn't mean they acted without agency or free will.

To sum up, to paraphrase what alwaysbebatman said, it's not Fate forcing people to do things, it's a dirty rotten cheater skipping a few chapters ahead and then going to the Lotto machine to cash in. :smallwink:


Even then; Hurok's decision is still constrained to what the prophecy predicted, because Hurok still makes his decisions going forward in time, and from that perspective there's still only the one choice he can make.

I think constrained is the wrong way to look at it though. Are the people in the past constrained by their actions? I mean, maybe. But that's a philosophical argument too far for me. That's why I prefer "privileged position".

Or down right dirty cheater. Either one works, really. :smallwink:

[Kish]

doesn't need to FORCE
I don't believe anyone who's posted here is under the impression you're proposing the prophecy, or any other given agent, forcing Hurok to do something. Beyond that, if your only rebuttal to
If there is a "for sure what you would do in a given situation," and that situation is complex--then you don't have free will. amounts to "is not," oh well.

[alwaysbebatman]

Thank you, Porthos, exactly!

Except for one thing... The time traveler can't know how how the others will act differently based on the time traveler acting differently based on the extra information. But that's exactly what the prophecy does!

@kish: Porthos just posted the perfect counter example of a situation where you have free will, but I know exactly what you will do: everything you ever did in the past.

[Kish]

Let's say I'm a time traveler and go back in time a few minutes before you wrote your message. So I look at the forum, and I know a message from a banana will pop up at 08:06PM, and I know its exact content even before you thought it up. Does that mean you don't have free will because I knew what you would do?
Necessary information for this question: What would happen if, two minutes before Jasdoif's message, you sent them a PM which was likely to occupy their attention, at least long enough for them to make their post later, possibly distracting enough that they'd forget about this thread and never post it?

[Kardwill]

Even then; Hurok's decision is still constrained to what the prophecy predicted, because Hurok still makes his decisions going forward in time, and from that perspective there's still only the one choice he can make.

Let's say I'm a time traveler and go back in time a few minutes before you wrote your message. So I look at the forum, and I know a message from a banana will pop up at 08:06PM, and I know its exact content even before you thought it up. Does that mean you don't have free will because I knew what you would do?

one-true-way prophecies work if you see them as message from the future. A future built on every action people will take in regard of this message, so the prophecy doesn't mess the chain of event ; it's part of it.

Still depressing, sure (I dislike the concept of inevitable fate), but not completely negating free will : The prophecy is the result of said free will, not its prison.

EDIT : Okay, point already made by Porthos. I should read these threads completely before I reply. D'oh!

[Jasdoif]

I think constrained is the wrong way to look at it though.I dunno....When alwaysbebatman is talking about "foreknowledge and constraint", I feel constraint is an appropriate thing to be talking about.

[alwaysbebatman]

I dunno....When alwaysbebatman is talking about "foreknowledge and constraint", I feel constraint is an appropriate thing to be talking about.

Yeah, I'm talking about them as two of the main possibilities for how prophecy magic could work. But I agree with Porthos that of the two foreknowledge is the more interesting.

The audience wants the characters to have agency, because the story isn't interesting otherwise. Some don't like my idea of how prophecy might work because they don't agree with me that it doesn't take away the characters' agency.

[Kardwill]

Necessary information for this question: What would happen if, two minutes before Jasdoif's message, you sent them a PM which was likely to occupy their attention, at least long enough for them to make their post later, possibly distracting enough that they'd forget about this thread and never post it?

Sorry if it looks like you reply before I posted, I nuked the message and rewrote it with the quotes. Although since we're talking about time travel and reacting to future event, the timing and consequences of my snafu is nice ^^

As for your question : Sure, if I inject a new data into the timeline, the decisions the people may take will change. So my one-off time traveller analogy is not completely accurate in representing a prophetic warning.

But if the prophecy reflects a future that already took into account the consequence of the warning (like Odin's prophecy about Durkon that ends up putting Durkon in a position as harbinger of the Apocalyse), it still works. There is a causal loop (the prophecy is causing people to take bad decisions, and people taking bad decisions creates the situation the prophecy warns about), sure, but it's a causal loop where everyone was free willed. The prophecy was not fresh data that would cause people to change course, it's the reason they took the initial decision that lead to the dark future it warns them about.


So, in my time traveller scenario, Hurok did write his message at 08.06PM because he recieved my warning and took the time to read it. My future actions to change the past are already part of the past that happened, because, while they are in my future, in the timeline, they already happened.

[Chei]

I dunno....When alwaysbebatman is talking about "foreknowledge and constraint", I feel constraint is an appropriate thing to be talking about.

I think 'constraint' works as a word for it, but what about 'coercion'? I do feel that there's a level of coercion or duress involved in receiving ill prophecies that rely on one's negative reaction to it in order to pass. Like others have said, there would not be a prophecy if Hurak were not the type to react to it as he did, just as there wouldn't be a prophecy if Durkon were a less lawful person.

In this sense, the prophecy is predicated on Hurak's cowardice and Durkon's honor/resentment in a way that they can't reasonably combat. If you can look into the future and determine exactly how an actor will react to a given stimulus, you've defined the limit of their will and, if you then choose the exact stimulus to get the desired result, you've operated on a level where their free will is essentially curtailed.

[Porthos]

I dunno....When alwaysbebatman is talking about "foreknowledge and constraint", I feel constraint is an appropriate thing to be talking about.

Well that's alwaysbebatman (edit: made before alwaysbebatman's latest post. :smallsmile:) . Foreknowledge to me doesn't necessarily imply constraint.

Here's the way I look at it. Broadly speaking, and I use that word on purpose because I realize there are exceptions, there are two ways using information from the future in time travel stories work:

Broad Church A: Using information from the future changes the future.

Broad Church B: Using information from the future is already baked into the future you visited.

(There is also, perhaps, Semi-Broad Church C: Time tries to 'fix' itself from changes to get as 'close' to what was supposed to happen - a mix of Broad Churches A and B, if you will)

Broad Church A has countless examples in fiction. Back to the Future films, for example (traveling to both the past and the future). But stable time loops, which is the most famous example of Broad Church B, have their fair share as well.

It appears that prophetic magic in OotSWorld visits Broad Church B. That is, acting on information from the future doesn't change it.

IF one looks at the future as nothing more than the near-infinite collective choices of (in OotsWorld) millions of people over a set period of time, all prophetic magic is doing is see what those choices were.

Are those choices influenced by future information in this case? Well, sure. That's Broad Church B for you. But they still had their agency and free will. That's why I think 'constrained' is the wrong word to use.

Or if it is the right word, it's more "constrained by the future actions they decide to take". But I don't like the implications of the word constrained, so I won't use it. :smallsmile:

[alwaysbebatman]

@Chei: Absolutely! The prophecy doesn't just cheat and look ahead at what you will do, but also at what you will do based on itself! Double cheating!

I wouldn't say that the victims of prophecy (Oedipus, Macbeth, etc.) lost their free will. But they were definitely manipulated and tricked.

[Porthos]

I'm not actually sure that's right. People make "how Belkar will evade his prophesied death" posts all the time. Some far more absurd than the "two types of alcohol named Death and Destruction" idea. And people also make posts about how Rich will turn Elan's prophesied happy ending into something horrible.

(That last sentence may result in the thread being derailed with arguments over whether Elan actually has a happy ending to the story to look forward to, but considering the OP posted twice, once staking out the position that what Hurok did was unchallengeable and once reasserting same, and neither acknowledging any other perspective, I'm okay with that.)

Fair point, and one I had forgotten.

Yes, people try to construct alternatives to this one ALL. THE. TIME.

What can I say? It was late at night and I had (temporarily) blocked that from my memory. :smalltongue:

Still, I think this is a good way to shore up my point on how this is different from V and Roy's situation (and Belkar's first prophecy [the who do I get to kill one, not the he's gonna die one]). In this case though it's not people feeling bad for Durkon, but Belkar's most devoted fans trying to cheat a way out of his well-earned karma.

But, yeah, absolute fair point. Should have worked that into my post.

...

But then it would have been even longer. And who wants that? :smalltongue:

[Jasdoif]

Yeah, I'm talking about them as two of the main possibilities for how prophecy magic could work. But I agree with Porthos that of the two foreknowledge is the more interesting.

The audience wants the characters to have agency, because the story isn't interesting otherwise. Some don't like my idea of how prophecy might work because they don't agree with me that it doesn't take away the characters' agency.Oh now you're making more sense! But honestly I think both your options are uninteresting :smalltongue:

I find the intentionally vague "conditions to meet" type of prophecy is much more interesting than "time traveler's correlation" or "lord of all coincidences". Because it simultaneously allows for a prophecy to be made, gives characters a chance to make logical efforts in an attempt to circumvent a prophecy in obvious ways, still allows the prophecy to happen in un-obvious ways, doesn't involve the special narrative treatment that sometimes sours stories, easily allows false prophecies and true prophecies to exist side-by-side...and still takes character agency into account.


Still worse than "no prophecies here!" in general, though :smalltongue:

[Kish]

There are multiple versions of time travel. There's the Star Trek/Back to the Future version, where when you travel back in time you can easily change something that will mean the future you came from is no longer there to go back to, for better or for worse. And then there's the Rowling/Duane/Gargoyles version, where the only things you can do when traveling back in time are things people in your original time have already reacted to.

The latter version of time travel strikes me as incompatible with free will, unless the time travel (alone) is being artificially limited in some way--in which case everyone who isn't traveling through time has free will, but the time traveler doesn't. But if, when Hermione uses her Time Turner and takes Harry with her, there's no possible outcome other than "Harry saves the lives of himself, Hermione, Ron, Snape, and Sirius Black, and Wormtail and and Buckbeak both get away"--it doesn't matter that you can't point to an entity that's forcing them, unless you go meta and point at the author: they're on rails.

[Porthos]

Oh now you're making more sense! But honestly I think both your options are uninteresting :smalltongue:

I find the intentionally vague "conditions to meet" type of prophecy is much more interesting than "time traveler's correlation" or "lord of all coincidences". Because it simultaneously allows for a prophecy to be made, gives characters a chance to make logical efforts in an attempt to circumvent a prophecy in obvious ways, still allows the prophecy to happen in un-obvious ways, doesn't involve the special narrative treatment that sometimes sours stories, easily allows false prophecies and true prophecies to exist side-by-side...and still takes character agency into account.


Still worse than "no prophecies here!" in general, though :smalltongue:

It's interesting that one of the main sources of inspiration Rich had for his own use of prophecies was B5. He noted in W&XPs that he especially liked trying to figure out how it would all come together and then still being surprised at the outcome.

Having only watched a handful of B5 (not my cup of tea), can't really comment on how well it compares. But still throwing that out there.

[factotum]

To the guys saying that free will exists in the Stickverse: how do you explain the Oracle? When Belkar asked his question, the Oracle not only knew that Belkar would come back and kill him, but knew when it would happen so precisely that he could arrange for a village to be outside to trigger Belkar's Mark of Justice, and arrange for his lizardfolk henchmen to teleport in and resurrect him within minutes of Belkar etc. leaving. Just think how many people Belkar interacted with over the months between those two meetings, all of whom apparently had free will--yet none of them changed Belkar's course. I just find that very hard to believe.

[Porthos]

To the guys saying that free will exists in the Stickverse: how do you explain the Oracle? When Belkar asked his question, the Oracle not only knew that Belkar would come back and kill him, but knew when it would happen so precisely that he could arrange for a village to be outside to trigger Belkar's Mark of Justice, and arrange for his lizardfolk henchmen to teleport in and resurrect him within minutes of Belkar etc. leaving. Just think how many people Belkar interacted with over the months between those two meetings, all of whom apparently had free will--yet none of them changed Belkar's course. I just find that very hard to believe.

Just requires a look into the future. No more, no less.

As said, it mostly precludes a malleable future. But I really do think that's a separate argument.

==

Perhaps it just comes down to definition of terms. First Principles, if you will. The way I see it, just because someone knows what Person X is going to do didn't mean that Person X didn't have the choice of making it in the first place. And to flip it around, even if someone else knows that I am going to do. I'm still the one making choices. They just were able to see it before I did it.

*shrug*

I really don't know how to explain my position more than I already have. Maybe the sticking point is when someone is influenced by information from the future instead of the past. But to me it's a distinction that makes no difference, really. Information is information. Where it comes from is of little concern to me* as long as I am the one making the decisions.

But maybe that's a philosophical position.

* Strictly speaking, this of course isn't true. I was speaking hypothetically within a story where prophetic magic is already a given.

If I somehow found out that one could get information from the future in Real Life, you bet I wouldn't exactly be non-plussed about it. Whether I'd first run to Cal Tech to figure out what is going on or to a Lotto machine, I'm not exactly sure. :smalltongue:

[Jasdoif]

To the guys saying that free will exists in the Stickverse: how do you explain the Oracle? When Belkar asked his question, the Oracle not only knew that Belkar would come back and kill him, but knew when it would happen so precisely that he could arrange for a village to be outside to trigger Belkar's Mark of Justice, and arrange for his lizardfolk henchmen to teleport in and resurrect him within minutes of Belkar etc. leaving. Just think how many people Belkar interacted with over the months between those two meetings, all of whom apparently had free will--yet none of them changed Belkar's course. I just find that very hard to believe.The first thing I can think of: Belkar's a PC. Redcloak's foreward in On the Origin of PCs (I think?) goes into how (they're stuck up because) the setting is built to revolve around the PCs. Why would it be that unusual that a privileged frame of reference exists solely to forecast Belkar's actions (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html)?

The second thing I can think of: We don't know exactly when the Oracle told the lizardfolk the timing to come resurrect him...Or how long it took Haley/Celia/Belkar to get to the Oracle (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0564.html), which would likely involve very little unpredictable interaction with outside parties.

[Chei]

The second thing I can think of: We don't know exactly when the Oracle told the lizardfolk the timing to come resurrect him...Or how long it took Haley/Celia/Belkar to get to the Oracle (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0564.html), which would likely involve very little unpredictable interaction with outside parties.

The henchmen (who can cast Teleport and Raise Dead, more like contractors at that point) knew the date of the Oracle's next death, which they confirmed to him. They also mentioned a schedule, so I think it's safe to say he's planned this all out well in advance.

[Jasdoif]

The henchmen (who can cast Teleport and Raise Dead, more like contractors at that point) knew the date of the Oracle's next death, which they confirmed to him. They also mentioned a schedule, so I think it's safe to say he's planned this all out well in advance.I'd question how you get "well in advance" from a single given date when there isn't a reference to what the in-universe date in the comic was (the existence of multiple calendar systems doesn't help), nor to when they were given that date.

[Kish]

If I'm one of the "guys" being addressed, I already answered the question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22365064&postcount=88) (with "It's magic, okay?"), so here we are.

[Psychronia]

On some level I find it interesting that people are trying to find ways this prophecy could have occurred differently but NOT trying to do the same for the others we've seen in OotS.

We can (and I do) still blame Hurak for the way he acted. But it's analogous to blaming V for being power hungry or Belkar for having a hair trigger (when he killed the Oracle). That is, it was one of the necessary components of everything happening. One of the gears in a finely tuned watch, if you will. The only real difference here is that Durkon was a passive victim here while the others were more proactive in the harm that ultimately happened to them. Which is REALLY unfair to him, but, well, isn't the first unfair thing we've seen in the comic.

While poor Durkon's circumstances are probably a factor, for me this is more about the facts that the prophecy is akin to a curse that affects many people and that a person of authority acted on it in a way that completely neglected the main subject of the prophecy. They made a choice "for the greater good" without telling Durkon a thing when he certainly deserved to know(whether or not it would help is another matter entirely). And on top of that, it wasn't even a particularly good response, which is what we were really dissecting here.

The "then we wouldn't have a story" point also brings up something interesting. How many prophecies do you think there might have been that don't exist simply because they involved a person that would break its ability to self-fulfill? This is getting philosophical, but if we imagine a Schrodinger universe that has many "could have existed"s, then maybe there are actually many prophecies that were subverted-and thus by definition couldn't be made.


Are those choices influenced by future information in this case? Well, sure. That's Broad Church B for you. But they still had their agency and free will. That's why I think 'constrained' is the wrong word to use.

Or if it is the right word, it's more "constrained by the future actions they decide to take". But I don't like the implications of the word constrained, so I won't use it. :smallsmile:

The talks of agency here sort of connect back to my point of "trying to fulfill the prophecy" being the best response to it. The fact that a prophecy exists implies that you don't have a choice and no matter what you do, you'll be stuck on rails that'll eventually take you to the events that caused the prophecy in the first place.
To a degree, this is true. The prophecy in this case was "When Durkon returns" and there's no avoiding it. But it's a mistake to think that you don't have any agency because of this. By controlling the route you take to get to that inevitable event, you can display a level of control over yourself and your own fate, because you're able to define what happens in the background around that single event(which is the only one that's set in stone).

EDIT: This is getting a bit more rambly and is only marginally related so feel free to ignore it, but I personally find the idea of "true free will" to be too strict a concept for it to truly exist. If something truly able to exercise unconstrained free choice existed, it would need to be a reality-warping eldritch creature in the very least.

Even though the idea of "near-infinite" possibilities is used all the time, the fact of the matter is that it's still finite. Because the universe began and will end at some point, we have a finite time for events to happen. Because various laws of reality exist, we have a finite number of possible actions we can perform. No matter how dizzyingly large the total number of possible events there are in existence, it's still not infinite and there are constraints.
At the end of the day, we're all stuck on rails that we can only choose pre-built paths on-but never get off.

[Chei]

I'd question how you get "well in advance" from a single given date when there isn't a reference to what the in-universe date in the comic was (the existence of multiple calendar systems doesn't help), nor to when they were given that date.

I certainly can't give any specifics for just the reasons you mentioned. I would think that, if a contractor is scheduled for services so far in advance that he knows when the next service will be at the time of the first (if it was the first), it follows that he had a similar degree of foreknowledge for the first.

[Jasdoif]

By controlling the route you take to get to that inevitable event, you can display a level of control over yourself and your own fate, because you're able to define what happens in the background around that single event(which is the only one that's set in stone).It's true. You could, for example, attempt to create a scenario that fulfills every aspect of the prophecy yourself; and still have the prophetic event happen because the prophecy didn't mean only one event that it describes was possible ever. That's agency. Or you could simply ignore it because you aren't arrogant enough to really believe you can outthink the inevitable, and the inevitable comes to pass. Also agency! Or maybe it wasn't a "real" prophecy, and in attempting to enact it on "your" terms you were duped into a propheteering scheme to make it come to pass. Still agency! Or you could try to stall it until someone better able to deal with it than you yourself are is there. Hurok agency!

[factotum]

The second thing I can think of: We don't know exactly when the Oracle told the lizardfolk the timing to come resurrect him...Or how long it took Haley/Celia/Belkar to get to the Oracle (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0564.html), which would likely involve very little unpredictable interaction with outside parties.

But the time when they left Azure City in the first place largely came down to happenstance--Haley only left Azure City because Celia told her about the Cloister spell, and Celia only arrived because Tsukiko zapped Haley with a lightning spell, and Tsukiko was only in a position to do that because of a raid Haley and the others did on the goblinoids...there are just so many variables in those three things alone that you'd struggle to predict when they'd all happen.

[hroþila]

I'm slightly amused by the thought that we are kinda trying to crack a problem (free will vs determinism) that has kept the world's best philosophers busy for millennia because of its implications for this stick figure comic we're reading.

[Jasdoif]

But the time when they left Azure City in the first place largely came down to happenstance--Haley only left Azure City because Celia told her about the Cloister spell, and Celia only arrived because Tsukiko zapped Haley with a lightning spell, and Tsukiko was only in a position to do that because of a raid Haley and the others did on the goblinoids...there are just so many variables in those three things alone that you'd struggle to predict when they'd all happen.But would predicting them all be required? I mean, Roy was able to watch them through an epic scrying pool (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0510.html), which I would not be at all surprised if someone on Tiamat's roster could cast; and we've seen sending (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0337.html) in the comic, which I would also not be surprised if someone on Tiamat's roster (maybe even the same someone!) could cast. How much lead time would really be necessary to determine when Belkar was on the way, arrange a meeting, and predict around when he was due to arrive?


A more boring theory is that free will exists, but the comic strips themselves constrain the actions of the characters and events related to what's portrayed in the frames....But that looks suspiciously like phrasing the out-of-universe "it's fiction" in strained terms because it is.

[Psychronia]

I'm slightly amused by the thought that we are kinda trying to crack a problem (free will vs determinism) that has kept the world's best philosophers busy for millennia because of its implications for this stick figure comic we're reading.

All that means is that we have a head start in terms of groundwork. Besides, this is important. XD
It's not really a problem to "crack" per se anyway. At the end of the day, whether it's someone on the side of determinism seeing patterns in a chaotic world or someone on the side of free will acting freely within a restriction they're not aware of, this debate is all just a matter of perspective and which side you'd prefer to take.


It's true. You could, for example, attempt to create a scenario that fulfills every aspect of the prophecy yourself; and still have the prophetic event happen because the prophecy didn't mean only one event that it describes was possible ever. That's agency. Or you could simply ignore it because you aren't arrogant enough to really believe you can outthink the inevitable, and the inevitable comes to pass. Also agency! Or maybe it wasn't a "real" prophecy, and in attempting to enact it on "your" terms you were duped into a propheteering scheme to make it come to pass. Still agency! Or you could try to stall it until someone better able to deal with it than you yourself are is there. Hurok agency!

Yeesh. You could choke someone more easily than dwarven beer with sarcasm that thick.

Firstly, this approach only applies to prophecies that are either specific enough to refer to unique events (the key word being Durkon's next return home in this case) and talk about disasters that can be prepared for in a reasonable way("everyone will die for good in 2 days" is just an unavoidable curse). Anything else are just literal acts of god mortals have to suck up and deal with.
Secondly, you're talking about that approach as if it doesn't accept a prophecy as being inevitable. This is just taking any information a doom prophecy gives you and making the best of it instead of doing literally nothing to help. There's a difference between being accepting and outright negligent as a leader.
Finally, you're talking about Hurok's decision as if he were just passing the problem off to someone more qualified, but he'd have to have told someone about it for that sort of intention to be possible. It's pretty agreed upon that nothing he did was helpful by any sort of logic.

...I will concede on the part of this practice becoming a literal self-fulfilling prophecy though. If I didn't receive a prophecy about a monster attack killing 10 of my people, I definitely wouldn't have arranged for a monster attack and let it kill exactly 10 people before stopping it-which caused the prophecy to begin with. ...Hmm. This might be a problem.

[Jasdoif]

Finally, you're talking about Hurok's decision as if he were just passing the problem off to someone more qualified, but he'd have to have told someone about it for that sort of intention to be possible. It's pretty agreed upon that nothing he did was helpful by any sort of logic.Well, the problem was punted to someone more qualified...and the "quality" of Hurok's chosen approach shows how qualified he was to deal with the problem himself (not very).

Agency means the freedom to choose for oneself, including the freedom to choose poorly.

[factotum]

But would predicting them all be required?

Maybe not in that case. But we know the Oracle has predicted the exact date, time, and circumstances of his next death, because he did so to the lizard twins when they resurrected him this time. Furthermore, the fact he had to include the year in that prediction indicates it's at least a year away--if I were predicting something that was going to happen in February 2018, I'd say "Next February" rather than specifying the year, and I suspect most people would do likewise. So, him scrying on people is not going to help him make that prediction, and while we obviously don't know for sure if said prediction will come to pass, it would seem odd for the Oracle to be wrong on that one when he's generally been right everywhere else.

[Vinyadan]

To the guys saying that free will exists in the Stickverse: how do you explain the Oracle? When Belkar asked his question, the Oracle not only knew that Belkar would come back and kill him, but knew when it would happen so precisely that he could arrange for a village to be outside to trigger Belkar's Mark of Justice, and arrange for his lizardfolk henchmen to teleport in and resurrect him within minutes of Belkar etc. leaving. Just think how many people Belkar interacted with over the months between those two meetings, all of whom apparently had free will--yet none of them changed Belkar's course. I just find that very hard to believe.

Personally, I think it's because the Oracle sees things as if looking at them from the end of time, and sees all future as past. So his foreknowledge doesn't affect free will any more than we do knowing e.g. how Pushkin died or what our classmate ate yesterday.

[Jasdoif]

Furthermore, the fact he had to include the year in that prediction indicates it's at least a year away--if I were predicting something that was going to happen in February 2018, I'd say "Next February" rather than specifying the year, and I suspect most people would do likewise.I'm not sure your expectations on what you suspect most people would do, is really all that applicable to prophetic kobolds and spellcasting lizardfolk :smalltongue: Besides, the Oracle (who presumably is the one with the original knowledge of the date) isn't the one stating the year in the comic. It's one of the lizardfolk, who may be checking for accuracy/updates and using the complete date as a matter of formality.

[factotum]

I think the latest strip is rather firmly moving the blame for this from Hurak onto Odin himself, which makes things rather interesting...

[Dr.Zero]

Indeed it seems to confirm that Odin -according to the story- has a plan (which is not destroying the world, for the reasons pointed out in the strip itself).

[schmunzel]

I'm not going to address the actual question the OP asked (so feel free to skip the rest of this post), because the thread-starting post, and other posts like it in the main discussion thread, seem to sweep the cruelty of Hurok's method under the rug. Kind of like when people were defending the racist elf commander's expressed genocidal racism because, somehow, the only alternative to killing someone in a particularly sadistic way and announcing loudly that good goblins were dead goblins was to "trust the obvious spy!"

If you want to understand why people disapprove of Hurak, I can only suggest you try to find a perspective from which there's an actual, worth-mentioning difference between telling Durkon, "You have to leave, there's been a prophecy that the next time you return home you'll bring death and destruction for us all. You can't go home to say goodbye to your mother, for obvious reasons, but I can get her to come here before you leave..." and telling him "I'm sending you on a mission to the human lands. You have no time to pack because immediately doesn't mean later today. No, you can't say goodbye to anyone, because I said so" and literally throwing him out in the snow and throwing his armor and hammer at him.

Because both Durkon and the monster controlling his body (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1007.html) see a difference.

I actually have some problems with your viewpoint.
First and Foremost I have to tell you, that live is *not* supposed to be fair. Not in the real world and not in our fantasy world. If it would be fair, then there would be no strive. Strive however is of the utmost import. First for us to grow and second for us to be entertained.
Was it cruel ?? yes certainly! Was that a good thing to do ?? No certainly not. What would have been the alternative? Perhaps something even worse happening to all dwarves. Was this unfair towards Durkon?? Hell yes. What happened to him ?? He grew !!! thats what matters.

In D&D and especially in the Giants world people (dwarves elves humans goblins giants) have to deal every day with a very harsh reality in which Durkons fate likely isnt very near the top list of cruel fates.
So a possible catastrophic outcome and the real responsibility of Hurak towards the dwarves is probably much more tangible to them compared to our real world point of view.

So to cut a long post short Huraks action was cruel but certainly not plain evil. It was what set events into motion and by that the fate of the mortal PCs was determined to be tossed around in the strands of the giants story.
so lets view him as sort of a tragic figure ??? :P

[schmunzel]

Well, the problem was punted to someone more qualified...and the "quality" of Hurok's chosen approach shows how qualified he was to deal with the problem himself (not very).

Agency means the freedom to choose for oneself, including the freedom to choose poorly.

Why do you say not very qualified?? It was the intended outcome so he obviously did well ?
(viewpoint pending, Durkon might object (or probably not))

sch

[alwaysbebatman]

Yeah, the fact that the definition of "EVIL" seems not to include cruelty, callousness, and thoughtlessness is one problem I have with this story.

"Because life isn't fair you know" and "it'll build character!" are not valid justifications for needless unkindness.

[Jasdoif]

Why do you say not very qualified?? It was the intended outcome so he obviously did well ?Hurok acknowledged that messing with a prophecy was risky business, did so anyway, and actively took steps to prevent preparations from being made if he screwed up. If his intended outcome was to avoid being blamed for the death and destruction coming to pass, he may have pulled it off. Pushing for "Make someone else figure it out on their own, I don't care as long as it doesn't affect me" does not exactly indicate competence towards dealing with the problem himself.

Besides which, if Hurok meant what he said about trying to keep Durkon from returning, he clearly failed to achieve that outcome anyway....


Yeah, the fact that the definition of "EVIL" seems not to include cruelty, callousness, and thoughtlessness is one problem I have with this story.I rather think "even stuck-up self-absorbed jerkfaces can try to do the right thing" is one of the best aspects of the comic, myself.

[alwaysbebatman]

It depends what we're talking about regarding "trying to do the right thing." Are we talking about a character who makes egotistical mistakes, realizes it, owns up, and tries to do better? Or a character who makes egotistical mistakes, never acknowledges them, (or having any faults at all,) and is nominally "good" only by virtue of having picked that side?

Yeah, Eugene Greenhilt really grates on me.

[Jasdoif]

Or a character who makes egotistical mistakes, never acknowledges them, (or having any faults at all,) and is nominally "good" only by virtue of having picked that side?

Yeah, Eugene Greenhilt really grates on me.Oh, Eugene's been/is the subject of a great deal of contention for exactly that reason. (I don't think "haven't seen him do anything particularly Good yet" necessarily means "has never done anything particularly Good", though.)

[schmunzel]

Yeah, the fact that the definition of "EVIL" seems not to include cruelty, callousness, and thoughtlessness is one problem I have with this story.

"Because life isn't fair you know" and "it'll build character!" are not valid justifications for needless unkindness.

Im not sure the unkindness was needless.
I certainly agree it was great though.

I just think its not fair to condemn Hurak on all the limited evidence we have on his intentions, previous experiences and character. For all we know he might have acted with the best of intentions.
Though I give you that he seemed to have acted very ruthlessly

Im almost certain that we will learn more about him and the management of this affair at least from Durkons mothers point of view.

sch

[alwaysbebatman]

Oh, yeah, I think a case can certainly be made that Hurok believed that he had no better choices and was doing what he believed was best.

(Actually, I agree with that much. I think he was wrong and should have known better, but he did what he did because he genuinely believed it was the best of bad options.)

It was the specific argument of "well, Durkon grew as a person through hardship, so no harm no foul!" that I was objecting to.

[schmunzel]

...snip...
It was the specific argument of "well, Durkon grew as a person through hardship, so no harm no foul!" that I was objecting to.

theres harm and probably also foul. Durkon was treated very unfair.
theres no second way to look at that.

Imagining for a second that Hurak could have made a free willed decision he certainly should have told Durkon why he was banned and certainly his family, too.

I do not think you have to be evil to be able to make a cruel decision.
Youre evil to make a cruel decision because you dont care or you want to be entertained or for personal gain or to obtain or keep control.

There is a great variety of morality and moral ambiguity in the comic which is something I greatly enjoy.
Just think of Xykon and his depiction ranging from the naiv playing child to the ruthless evil overlord just a handful of strips later


sch

[Snails]

There are multiple versions of time travel. There's the Star Trek/Back to the Future version, where when you travel back in time you can easily change something that will mean the future you came from is no longer there to go back to, for better or for worse. And then there's the Rowling/Duane/Gargoyles version, where the only things you can do when traveling back in time are things people in your original time have already reacted to.

The latter version of time travel strikes me as incompatible with free will, unless the time travel (alone) is being artificially limited in some way--in which case everyone who isn't traveling through time has free will, but the time traveler doesn't. But if, when Hermione uses her Time Turner and takes Harry with her, there's no possible outcome other than "Harry saves the lives of himself, Hermione, Ron, Snape, and Sirius Black, and Wormtail and and Buckbeak both get away"--it doesn't matter that you can't point to an entity that's forcing them, unless you go meta and point at the author: they're on rails.

Regarding the Time Turner, it is unclear whether it is actually impossible to change the past. Perhaps if a wizard is not careful about contradicting his own knowledge he "merely" goes insane. For some reason Rowlings decided that her series would be more interesting if it were not cut short by the problem of an insane main protagonist in book three.

This is somewhat similar to how Doctor Who handles certain aspects of time travel with respect to the time travelers themselves. You can change many things, but not all things. Some changes are very dangerous. For example, knowledge of the time and place of your own death is a dangerous thing to even attempt to change, which might literally blast the local planet out of existence, according to the good Doctor.

[Quebbster]

Eugene's fate in the afterlife hinged on his decision that it was a stupid oath (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html). I can definitely see paralels with Hurak apparently deciding that the matter of the prophecy was settled once Durkon was exiled.

Regarding time travel in the Potterverse, it is treated extensively in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child.
It's basically Back to the future 2, where changes in the past means you come back to a different present.

[Kish]

I am singularly unimpressed by the handwave, "Life is not supposed to be fair, thus it's wrong to judge a person negatively 'just' because he did something profoundly cruel and stupid."

Rowling didn't write Harry Potter and the Cursed Child*. In what she did write, Harry, Ron, and Hermione explicitly do only what they already did; Harry even comments that he knew he could summon the Patronus then because he already had.

*Lest we get further into quibbling here, yes, I know it has her endorsement, but I said "Rowling," not "the Harry Potter universe." And even if you got me to agree that Rowling doesn't belong on my list of examples, that wouldn't change my point.

[Ron Miel]

That's a reference to what they buried of Durkon's dad after his actual body was lost in a cave-in. His mom had kept it "just in case" (and presumably vice-versa)

GW


I don't think she kept it "just in case" but as a memento. In the real world sweethearts sometimes carry locks of each other's hair, and not "just in case" one of them dies with no body.

If it had been kept "just in case" it would have been stored in a safe place, at home or in barracks.

[Vinyadan]

Who knows, maybe the dwarven ritual of adulthood is a funeral of the new adult, in which a lock of his beard is buried to make sure he will have a honourable resting place, no matter what comes to pass.

[dps]

Too many meanings for "Home" for that to work. You'd spring the curse when he goes home to his mother's house, when his corpse goes to the family crypt, when his vengeful ghost ends up in Valhalla, when he finds peace and companionship in his prison, when he goes back to save his mom when the city is getting evacuated...

Banishing him doesn't circumvent the bolded parts.

But anyway, I agree that sending Durkon to the human lands was a reasonable choice, but that the way it was done was both cruel and stupid. I don't think it was intentionally cruel, just a poor decision made in panic.