Prophecy Fufillment

[ragingmaro]

I'm sorry if this have already been brought up. But according to the oracle Belkar will be the cause of death for Roy, V, Miko, her horse, or the oracle. Did he fufill this when he gave the Ring of Jumping to Roy causing him to go to his death? It's a bit of a stretch but its hard to say if cause of death means he does the actual killing.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

This was debated to death back when the strp came out, but I don't think there was a final answer agreed upon by all.

Since Roy is very likely to come back, the next question would be:
If Belkar causes a death, can it be temporary, or does it have to be perminant for the Prophesy to be valid?

At the moment, the Prophesy has been fulfilled, but there is still the D&D clauses of "Raise Dead," "Resurrection," and "True Resurrection." I would think that for Belkar to get "full credit" he would have to kill one of the above "dead-dead" not just "mostly dead."

[TheGrimace]

Since everyone knows that mostly dead, is partially alive!

thank you miracle max

[ragingmaro]

:smalltongue: thanks for clearing everything up for me.

[Ralfarius]

There are two major camps, one saying that Belkar's 'causing' Roy's death wasn't direct enough. The other that says the Oracle's prophecies are worded ambiguously, and as such a result this disappointing would be the sort of thing to 'technically' fulfill Belkar's prophecy without giving him anything worthwhile.

Personally, I'm of the latter opinion. Belkar 'caused' Roy's death, as the Oracle said he would. It's just like an oracle to give you an answer that can be technically true without giving you any good payoff.

[Arp1033]

I, personally, am waiting until Belkar reveals how it is his fault the throne cleaved Miko in half.

[factotum]

Another one? These gosh-darned threads breed like rabbits... (gets shotgun)

[Rethorn]

Personally, I believe that this is a red herring. Miko and her horse are "dead" so that Belkar can't kill them. That leaves V and Roy. Roy was just killed in an ambiguous nature, which could, if you stretch it, be attributed to Belkar. But what I think is that its a trick. Belkar will end up killing V some how, and Roy's death serves as a way to "distract" the reader from going by process of elimination. Otherwise, I think the Giant would have clarified it by now.

[EyethatBinds]

I agree with Rethorn that the giant would clear up any misunderstanding to end pointless speculation on our part. Just like when he revealed in SoD what the MitD is, and when in Origins he revealed V's true gender. Since he hasn't cleared the issue up yet it must mean the story will reveal it later.

[NerfTW]

He didn't reveal V's gender in Origins... :smallconfused:

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Nor did he reveal what the MitD really is. All he did was make clear that the MitD is NOT the Snarl, nor a piece of the Snarl.

Both are still pending, although there are more clues given in the book.

[someonenonotyou]

i thought since Belkar gave him his ring of jumping so he could get on the dragon that he caused his death

[Yoritomo Himeko]

He didn't reveal V's gender in Origins... :smallconfused:

I think he's just joking around. :smallamused:

[Grrrrrr]

I haven't been on these boards too much, so i don't know what was previously discussed, but...

One of the possibilities is "you" (the Oracle of the Sunken Valley).

And...

Belkar doesn't "cause" Roy's death. Xykon causes his death. At best, Belkar's ring is only a contributing factor.

[Setra]

i thought since Belkar gave him his ring of jumping so he could get on the dragon that he caused his death
That's stretching it, quite a bit.

Putting it simply. By a similar stretch of logic. If I were to put a piece of cheese on the sandwich of someone allergic to it, and he bit into it, and accidentally fell over onto a guy, who both fell causing the ground to shake, that hit a person on the head, who turned insane.

Then five years later killed you. It would be me who 'caused it'.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous.

Xykon caused his death. There is no doubt in my mind.

[VanBuren]

That's stretching it, quite a bit.

Putting it simply. By a similar stretch of logic. If I were to put a piece of cheese on the sandwich of someone allergic to it, and he bit into it, and accidentally fell over onto a guy, who both fell causing the ground to shake, that hit a person on the head, who turned insane.

Then five years later killed you. It would be me who 'caused it'.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous.

Xykon caused his death. There is no doubt in my mind.

Similar logic? Hardly. Yours is far more convoluted.

Belkar caused by giving Roy the ring. If did not have the ring he would not have been able to fight Xykon, who killed him.

So, no Belkar, no dead Roy. Fairly simple.

[SteveDJ]

Personally, I believe that this is a red herring. Miko and her horse are "dead" so that Belkar can't kill them. That leaves V and Roy. Roy was just killed in an ambiguous nature, which could, if you stretch it, be attributed to Belkar. But what I think is that its a trick. Belkar will end up killing V some how, and Roy's death serves as a way to "distract" the reader from going by process of elimination. Otherwise, I think the Giant would have clarified it by now.

Perhaps the Giant is waiting for ...
... Roy to be resurrected. Then, Roy can speak for himself when he tells everyone who he blames for his death.

[kabbor]

It is strange that this is being debated, but it is clear that Belkar's prophecy has been fulfilled. Belkar gave Roy his ring, knowing that it was a bad idea (Recall his bets?), and it put Roy in the situation that lead to his death. This matches closely to the fullfillment of Haley's prophecy - She "didn't look the gift horse in the mouth" by accepting Nale's date, which, several hours later, put her in the room when Elan made his dramatic entrance and she blurted out "I Love You", fixing her anaesphasia.

So, we still have to look for:
Xykon being within 1000m of Girad's gate.
Hey, I just recalled: Girad's gate is protected by cunning illusions. Xykon will likely fulfill this prophecy by walking right by it!
V saying the "right thing to the right person for all the wrong reasons."
Elan's "Happy Ending"
V's raven finding some Ginko Biloba, for some unstated reason (I suggest that he may want to give it to V so that s/he will remember him.)

[....]

I'm pretty sure Roy was killed by meteorites and falling damage.

No one knew he'd get killed by Xykon. We all (even Belkar) assumed the DM would fudge the rolls.

You always fudge the rolls when a player does something out and out heroic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0430.html)

[Studoku]

That's stretching it, quite a bit.

Putting it simply. By a similar stretch of logic. If I were to put a piece of cheese on the sandwich of someone allergic to it, and he bit into it, and accidentally fell over onto a guy, who both fell causing the ground to shake, that hit a person on the head, who turned insane.

Then five years later killed you. It would be me who 'caused it'.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous.

Xykon caused his death. There is no doubt in my mind.

That's exagerating a bit. Your scenario would be closer to Roy's death if the lactose intolerant guy who ate the sandwich died. It would then be possible to say that it was your fault.

[mockingbyrd7]

That's exagerating a bit. Your scenario would be closer to Roy's death if the lactose intolerant guy who ate the sandwich died. It would then be possible to say that it was your fault.

I agree. But let me clear it up a bit more:

If you put cheese on someone's sandwich and DIDN'T KNOW they were lactose intolerant, and they died, it would be the equivalent of Belkar giving Roy a ring so he could encounter a lich, where he died.

Anyways, I personally could go either way. Yes, it's a stretch, but oracle type stuff usually is.
Remember how "when the goat turns red strikes true"
Really meant "when the guy with the goatee turns on you, the girl with the red hair strikes true"?

Well, "you will cause the death of one of the following: Roy, Miko, her stupid horse, V, or me"
Could mean ,"you will indirectly cause Roy's death by giving him a Ring of Jumping, you will indirectly cause Miko's death by driving her into madness, you will indirectly cause the death of Miko's horse somehow, you will indirectly cause Vaarsuvius' death, and you will eventually come back here to kill me, infuriated by the indirectness of the other four kills."

[David Argall]

IIf you put cheese on someone's sandwich and DIDN'T KNOW they were lactose intolerant, and they died, it would be the equivalent of Belkar giving Roy a ring so he could encounter a lich, where he died.

To make the parallel here, it would be you did know. Belkar had to know using the jumping ring was dangerous to deadly for Roy, and so we can say his offer caused Roy's death. It takes only minor changes in the facts before he could be convicted of the crime.

I suspect something else was meant by the prophecy, but Belkar is already not entitled to a refund.

[Nathander]

I've always found the more interesting part of this question to be not "which one will he kill", but "which ones will he kill, and how many times?" :smallamused:

[Grey Watcher]

I, personally, am waiting until Belkar reveals how it is his fault the throne cleaved Miko in half.

Well, when in Rome: You could argue that he had already caused the death of Miko when he was talking to the Oracle. If he hadn't taunted Miko so badly, she might not have developed such an intense need to prove the Order of the Stick was Evil. Without that broiling under the surface, she might have been willing to follow Hinjo's lead when dealing with learning the truth about Shojo. And thus, she might very well be alive today, depending on where she was assigned in the defense of Azure City (with her mobility and such, she might've been with Hinjo on the front lines, or her terrific saving throws might've saved her from Xykon's bouncing ball). Anyway, it's just one way you could argue that Belkar "caused the death" of Miko. A little thin, but unless Belkar stabs one of the five to death outright, there will always be people arguing that it does or does not fulfill the prophecy.

[Icewalker]

"you will indirectly cause Roy's death by giving him a Ring of Jumping, you will indirectly cause Miko's death by driving her into madness, you will indirectly cause the death of Miko's horse somehow, you will indirectly cause Vaarsuvius' death, and you will eventually come back here to kill me, infuriated by the indirectness of the other four kills."

Well, I totally disagree with everything else you said, but this would be a hilarious turnout.

I think that he did not cause Roy's death. He contributed, but he did not cause it any more than Roy's parents did by having a kid.

[VanBuren]

Well, I totally disagree with everything else you said, but this would be a hilarious turnout.

I think that he did not cause Roy's death. He contributed, but he did not cause it any more than Roy's parents did by having a kid.

I disagree. Belkar's actions directly enabled Roy to enter a situation that resulted in his death. Roy had no other way to get into that situation.

[Wolfman42666]

Ithink that in not coup de grace-ing miko when he had the opportunity (i.e. the lead sheet) he "caused" her to be impaled on the throne, hell in that one moment he doomed soon's gate, and saved countless lives of azurites.

Hmm… someone should tell him all this and see if his brain explodes.:smallsmile:

[Bogardan_Mage]

The fact that no character in the strip has yet drawn attention to the possibility that Belkar caused Roy's death suggests that perhaps it isn't the interpretation of the Oracle/DM/Giant. If the prophecy were to be fulfilled in such a roundabout way, it's something one would want to draw attention to (that's how these sorts of prophecies invariably are). So if in the future someone maybe brings it up, that's the prophecy fulfilled. Until then, it's ambiguous at best. What truely qualifies as "cause"? Could it be that through the butterfly effect, Belkar ultimately causes the death of everyone on his list in even more convoluted and obscure ways?

[Kioran]

Ithink that in not coup de grace-ing miko when he had the opportunity (i.e. the lead sheet) he "caused" her to be impaled on the throne, hell in that one moment he doomed soon's gate, and saved countless lives of azurites.

Hmm… someone should tell him all this and see if his brain explodes.:smallsmile:

Apart from Coup-de-gracing her in a situation where she, by RAW, couldn´t even have been knocked out, would be DM-Fiat, yes.

But a case can be made for Belkar being indirectly responsible for both Miko´s and Roy´s death. And count into the camp of those who believe in that indirect responsibility. It might even have fulfilled the prophecy.

[Yeril]

I, personally, am waiting until Belkar reveals how it is his fault the throne cleaved Miko in half.

Belkar kills mikos stupid horse because in 14 years time the infernals wage war against the celestials and windstriker dies in the battle. now if Miko (who was caused to die by belkar) was still alive, at that time windstriker would of been with her and survived.

Belkar failed his spotcheck against that assasin in the shadows behind the oracle. thus belkar killed the oracle.

[Kreistor]

Being one step in a chain that lead to someone being harmed does not make you the cause of that harm.

Xykon caused Roy's Death with a Meteor Swarm. That's where the sope of "cause" ends. Xykon had the choice to not kill him, and since that was an active, rather than passive, act, examination stops right there with Xykon.

If Roy had missed the dragon and fallen to his death from the jump, even then it would be questionable whether Belkar was actually the cause of Roy's death. The cause of Roy's death would have been Roy's choice to attempt a dangerous leap (that is suicide), not Belkar's offering of a ring to facillitate something Roy was already wanting to do.

Further, Roy could have gotten to the dragon without Belkar's help, using the Booty talisman. All Belkar did was save Roy from calling on a one-time-offer from a very close friend.

[Aris Katsaris]

Being one step in a chain that lead to someone being harmed does not make you the cause of that harm.

Are we talking causality or morality here?

Because if we're talking causality, Belkar was indeed one of the causes of Roy's death, without question. And if we're talking morality, when you recklessly endanger someone for your own personal benefit, you're morally considered to have helped cause their potential deaths.

If I knowingly and recklessly put a child to the care of child-molester, I'm partially responsible for whatever happens to the kid. If I hurry and encourage someone into danger just to win a bet, then I'm partially responsible for whatever happens to him.


Xykon caused Roy's Death with a Meteor Swarm. That's where the sope of "cause" ends. Xykon had the choice to not kill him, and since that was an active, rather than passive, act, examination stops right there with Xykon.

You're distorting the concept of personal responsibility in a way that I see, alas, many people do. That Xykon is fully responsible for his own actions doesn't make Belkar any less responsible for *his* actions.

If Haley had chosen to steal Roy's +5 sword and replace it with a +0 forgery, and Roy went into battle with Redcloak and died because of the lesser abilities of the forgery, Haley would have caused Roy's death. That doesn't make Haley responsible for Redcloak's actions, it makes her responsible for her *own* actions and the predictable consequences of those actions. That's what responsibility is all about.


Further, Roy could have gotten to the dragon without Belkar's help, using the Booty talisman. All Belkar did was save Roy from calling on a one-time-offer from a very close friend.

No, we have no reason to believe that Belkar was even aware of that "one-time-offer". What Belkar *morally* did, was put Roy in danger in order to win a bet. If Belkar had honestly given Roy his ring because he thought it was the best possible idea to win the battle, then he wouldn't have been morally responsible - he'd have done his best possible in the circumstances. But he gave the ring in order to win the bet, without even caring about putting Roy in danger -- as such he's a moral culprit.

And given the irony in the last two panels of http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0460.html , I think that was the moral angle that the Giant was going for as well. That eventually Roy's alliance with such an unreliable villain as Belkar ended up causing his death.

[Kreistor]

Because if we're talking causality, Belkar was indeed one of the causes of Roy's death, without question. And if we're talking morality, when you recklessly endanger someone for your own personal benefit, you're morally considered to have helped cause their potential deaths.

Being a link in a chain of events does not make you the cause of the final event. Roy had another way to the dragon, and so Belkar did not facillitate something Roy could have achieved on his own. To be a cause, you must be the only method of the victim reaching the state of danger. A case can be made for Belkar to be the cause of a possible death from a failed leap, but once that leap is complete, since Roy could have reached that position in another way, Belkar's causality ends.

Roy was seeking a way to get to Xykon, without any prompting from Belkar. Belkar facillitated a particular method of Roy getting to the dragon, but Roy achieved that method successfully. Belkar's bet concerned whether Roy would make the Jump, not whether he would survive a fight vs. Xykon. Belkar's morality issue (concerning a profit motive) ends with the jump, since that was his only concern. Belkar knew Roy would find a way to the dragon without him, and chose to profit by promoting a particular method.

Belkar facillitated Roy getting to the dragon; however, Belkar is aware that Roy has defeated Xykon before, without even his sword (Xykon shattered it). There is no reason for Belkar to think Xykon is actually as powerful as we know Xykon is: Belkar lacks evidence of Xykon's competence. In short, Belkar is more inclined to believe Xykon is a pushover than an uber-mage. There is no reason for Belkar to think any differently than Roy on this matter: Roy thinks Roy has a more than even chance against Xykon given past events, and so Belkar has no reason to think differently. Consequently, Belkar cannot be held responsible for malicious participation in Roy's death: he has no reason to think Roy will die in his fight with Xykon, since he didn't die the first time.

Thus, Belkar has no moral issues with the event, either. We do not have evidence that Belkar thought Xykon would win, nor evidence that Belkar thought Xykon was that powerful: in fact, we have evidence that suggests it is reasonable for Belkar to think Roy would win. Since Belkar does not know Xykon's power at the time of offering the Ring, he can't have a moral issue with offering the ring.


No, we have no reason to believe that Belkar was even aware of that "one-time-offer". What Belkar *morally* did, was put Roy in danger in order to win a bet. If Belkar had honestly given Roy his ring because he thought it was the best possible idea to win the battle, then he wouldn't have been morally responsible - he'd have done his best possible in the circumstances. But he gave the ring in order to win the bet, without even caring about putting Roy in danger -- as such he's a moral culprit.

He is a culprit in the possible fall, and I admit that. He is not a culprit in Roy's death at the hands of Xykon. If he doesn't know abotu the talisman, then he also doesn't know Xykon is that powerful. Roy beat Xykon once before, and so Belkar can't know that this was just luck/plot. The evidence we have is that Roy beat Xykon.

The OotS are, however, in a world of magic. Though Belkar might not know of one particular source of getting to the dragon, he does know that there are many others available to the OotS. He doesn't know Durkon's spell selection for that day, for instance. He doesn't know Durkon doesn't have Air Walk. He knows V can cast Polymorph, if Roy can find V. Haley can throw a lasso. And so on. The ring and talisman are not the only ways. And, Roy might even have tried the jump without the ring, he was that desperate.


You're distorting the concept of personal responsibility in a way that I see, alas, many people do. That Xykon is fully responsible for his own actions doesn't make Belkar any less responsible for *his* actions.

If Haley had chosen to steal Roy's +5 sword and replace it with a +0 forgery, and Roy went into battle with Redcloak and died because of the lesser abilities of the forgery, Haley would have caused Roy's death. That doesn't make Haley responsible for Redcloak's actions, it makes her responsible for her *own* actions and the predictable consequences of those actions. That's what responsibility is all about.

And what you do isn't distortion? Haley's forgery had a direct outcome on the method of Roy's death, in your case. Belkar's offer of the ring does not. Belkar facillitates Roy's position, but it is a position that Roy desires. There is no subterfuge: Belkar is no more aware of Xykon's abilities than Roy is. Roy made the choice to make that leap uninfluenced by Belkar's words. Roy chose to seek confrontation with Xykon before the offer of the ring. Roy is responsible for being where Roy wanted to be: Belkar did nothing more than facillitate Roy's own desires.

When Roy made the choice to seek out Xykon, that negates responsibility for anyone that helps him achieve that, unless that other person is aware of dangers that Roy is not. Belkar is not aware of any more danger than Roy.

You are trying to make Belkar more aware of the danger in Roy's fight than Roy was, and that's just not reasonable. Most people think Belkar is a mental midgit: you're trying to make him out to be smarter about Xykon than Roy is. Both have the same experiences and evidences of Xykon's power, since Roy desires the fight and sees it as a possible victory, Belkar shouldn't be thinking too differently.

If Roy was not able to see Xykon as a danger, then Belkar certainly wasn't. Roy is viewed as the more conservative of the two: Belkar the more emotional. If Roy has dismissed the danger, then Belkar certainly would have; consequently, it is not reasonable to suggest that Belkar thought Roy would die to Xykon, if Roy didn't think Xykon would kill him.

Real World Example

When I was young, I was looking for summer work. I found a week long job filling in for a courier. The route covered most of the county.

Driving on one two-lane road, I looked in my mirror and saw an ambulance far behind me. I decided to pull off in 10 seconds or so. I looked back five seconds later, and the Ambulance was filling my mirrior. I braked and went to the shoulder. Too fast. The freshly graded dirt shoulder grabbed my wheels, and I went into the ditch.

Later, I learned that a co-worker of my father was involved. His daughter had broken her arm, and the ambulance was coming to pick her up.

Did the daughter cause my accident by breaking her arm? After all, the ambulance wouldn't have been there without that happening.

No. Ambulances on the road are a danger, regardless of the individual that puts them on the road at any particular time. Ambulances are a hazard drivers know about and must be prepared to deal with. It was my own fault for not pulling over immediately, instead of trying to save a few seconds: poilce, fire, whatever, I would have made the same stupid decision.

Did the courier cause my accident by offering me the job of filling in for him?

Well, he knew that accidents were possible, so he was knowingly placing me in danger. I, however, knew that I was taking on that danger: driving can result in accidents. My own knowledge of the danger alleviates the courier's responsibility in this matter. I knew the risks of driving, and so he could not be responsible for malice in placing me on the road in the first place.

Roy, too, knew the risks. He chose to make that leap. Belkar has no more involvement than the courier in my own accident. The courier made the offer that put me on that road, but I made the choice to be on the road. Belkar made the offer that put Roy on that dragon, but Roy chose to be on that dragon. The offer of that job did not inevitably lead to my accident, though it was a known possibility: the offer of the ring did not inevitably lead to Roy's death at the hands of Xykon, though that too was a known possibility.

My own stupidity put me in that ditch: Roy's stupidity put him in the dirt. That is as far as causality reaches.

[GNUsNotUnix]

Normally, I'd immediately join the "he didn't cause Roy's death" camp (and I'm not saying I believe he did), but the wording of his question to the oracle is noticeably vague. Why would Belkar say, "Do I get to cause the death of . . ." instead of "Do I get to kill . . . ?" It seems to me like the Giant is setting up something indirect (although, perhaps, a bit more direct than Roy's death).

[chibibar]

depend on how you look at it....

If your action cause someone to die in REAL life, then yes.. you are responsible.... look at the lawsuits we have here?

Gun lawsuit? accessory to murder? etc etc....

Usually a single action can cause a chain of event. Since Roy NEEDS to jump high enough to get to Xykon, without the ring, Roy couldn't make it.. and thus the chain of event wouldn't happen.

But back to the original.... cause of death or dead dead? well... Since in D&D world no one truly dies unless they want to (Shojo strip shows that) then I would say just cause of death. The end result doesn't have to be perma-death.

[VanBuren]

Being one step in a chain that lead to someone being harmed does not make you the cause of that harm.

Well, it does if it's a vital part of the chain.


Xykon caused Roy's Death with a Meteor Swarm. That's where the sope of "cause" ends. Xykon had the choice to not kill him, and since that was an active, rather than passive, act, examination stops right there with Xykon.

That's where the direct cause ends.


If Roy had missed the dragon and fallen to his death from the jump, even then it would be questionable whether Belkar was actually the cause of Roy's death. The cause of Roy's death would have been Roy's choice to attempt a dangerous leap (that is suicide), not Belkar's offering of a ring to facillitate something Roy was already wanting to do.

Say you have a friend who wants to do something really stupid that results in his death. Let's not only do you stop him, you give him the means to do that very thing. Does that mean that you did not cause his death in any fashion?


Further, Roy could have gotten to the dragon without Belkar's help, using the Booty talisman. All Belkar did was save Roy from calling on a one-time-offer from a very close friend.

You mean the one that Roy tried to use, but didn't break? Lot of good that would have done if he couldn't break it.

[David Argall]

The fact that no character in the strip has yet drawn attention to the possibility that Belkar caused Roy's death suggests that perhaps it isn't the interpretation of the Oracle/DM/Giant.

As far as I can find, no character has mentioned that Haley's prophecy has come true by following the kobold's advice. And the party has been rather busy since Roy died, giving them good reason not to make such a mention now.

Now "cause" has a wide range of definitions, and we don't get to select the one used here. Under valid definitions, Roy's death is caused by Belkar's actions, so we can't claim the prophecy is not fufilled. Belkar can claim it was a cheezy way, but we already know the oracle is not above cheezy answers. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0330.html

As to a more common definition of "cause", consider the traffice case. You are driving a truck and somebody behind you wants to pass. You give them a wave to show it is safe and they procede to pass. The law says you have caused any accident that results. You do not need to have intended to cause the accident. It merely needs to be a predictable risk.
But if you had remained passive, you are not deemed a cause, no matter how easily you could have acted, nor how effectively it could have prevented the accident.

[Aris Katsaris]

Belkar's morality issue (concerning a profit motive) ends with the jump, since that was his only concern.

Belkar gave Roy the ring and *urged* him to use it to fight Xykon while other members of the group were trying to dissuade him. As such the fact that the fight wasn't Belkar's real concern doesn't decrease his moral culpability, it *increases* it. Belkar was urging an ally to do something foolhardy for personal profit and under false pretenses.

So, no, Belkar's morality issue doesn't end with the jump. If I am a demagogue urging Germany to invade Poland, the fact that I may not be personally interested in the invasion itself but some connected triviality (e.g. perhaps I've made a bet than in one year time there'll be more Germans in Poland than Poles in Germany) doesn't *diminish* my guilt in resulting carnage -- the opposite I'd say. Utter disregard of the consequences can be arguably said to increase my guilt, I don't see any way it would decrease them.

Uh,,... and I didn't mean to invoke Godwin or anything with the above paragraph, it was just the first example that sprang to mind. :-)


Belkar facillitated Roy getting to the dragon; however, Belkar is aware that Roy has defeated Xykon before, without even his sword (Xykon shattered it). There is no reason for Belkar to think Xykon is actually as powerful as we know Xykon is: Belkar lacks evidence of Xykon's competence. In short, Belkar is more inclined to believe Xykon is a pushover than an uber-mage.

All of these would only be relevant if Belkar's motivations had anything at all to do with his estimation of Roy's survivability after his one-on-one encounter with Xykon.


Consequently, Belkar cannot be held responsible for malicious participation in Roy's death:

Not malicious. Merely uncaring to an evil degree. He didn't particularly hate Roy, not enough to deliberately arrange his death. He simply doesn't seem to have given a damn about whether he'd be helping him win or helping him die -- as long as he won that bet.