An Oracle Prediction that already came true? [spoilers?]

[Kyeudo]

Now, this is probably several months late, but I just realized something: Belkar caused the death of Roy.

It was indirect, to be sure, but when Belkar gave Roy his Ring of Jumping +20, Belkar caused Roy to end up in a situation where he was fighting a powerful lich alone on the back of an undead dragon high in the air, which led to Roys death.

Now, when Belkar asked his question of the Oracle, he only asked if he would get to cause the death of one or more of the named subjects. He didn't ask if he would directly cause their death, just that he would be responsible in some way. This could mean that the Oracle's prediction for Belkar has come to pass.

What does everyone else think? (and please, lets keep the Therkla is Belkar theories to a minimum.)

[The Extinguisher]

No, it'll be more direct. Or at least, Belkar will aknowledge the answers misleadings.

We really only know that one prediction has come true. Haley's.

[Greg]

It's not exactly a new theory. It's been suggested a few times now.

[factotum]

"A few" meaning "about forty thousand" in this particular instance... :smallbiggrin:

[Lord Anath'Kash]

Oh geeze am I sick of hearing this. JUST when I thought I wouldn't have to read this again.


Ohmygosh Belkar gave Roy a ring.

Whoopdedoo.

You know what? Roy jumped. Roy decided that. Belkar did NOT force Roy and if anyone killed Roy... well... It'd have to be Xykon.

That, or gravity.

Not Belkar.

*Rips out hair and leaves*

[Closet_Skeleton]

This is an old theory but a likely one since the Belkar-Oracle conversation was deliberately set up to be ambiguous. If it wasn't going to be something lame and contrived then Rich wouldn't have written the word "cause". Oracles are all about contrived prophecies and this does fit in that regard.

[T-O-E]

This is most likely the most original spoiler theory I have read today (and that's not saying a lot).

[[Insert Neat Username Here]]

Oh geeze am I sick of hearing this. JUST when I thought I wouldn't have to read this again.


Ohmygosh Belkar gave Roy a ring.

Whoopdedoo.

You know what? Roy jumped. Roy decided that. Belkar did NOT force Roy and if anyone killed Roy... well... It'd have to be Xykon.

That, or gravity.

Not Belkar.

*Rips out hair and leaves*

Belkar knew that Roy would probably die. He made a bet with the convict guy about whether Roy was dumb enough to do it, remember?

[Lord Anath'Kash]

;3552473']Belkar knew that Roy would probably die. He made a bet with the convict guy about whether Roy was dumb enough to do it, remember?

All Belkar did was hand over a ring.

Roy died due to his own actions and those of Xykon's.

[[Insert Neat Username Here]]

But Belkar made it all possible. Did he kill Roy? No. Xykon killed Roy. But belkar asked the Oracle

Will I cause the death of one of the following . . .
and he began the sequence of events that led to Roy's death. He did not directly cause the death, but he did cause it.

[someonenonotyou]

well in that case couldn't you say it was Belkar's parents indirectly caused roy's death by giving birth to him?

[skyclad]

And since roys future would have been different if belkar hadnt been around, there is no way he cant be the "cause" of roys death.

[holywhippet]

By the same level of indirectness, Belkar could be conisdered to be the cause of Miko's death. It was his efforts at enraging her that drove her to such extreme measures.

[Kyeudo]

I didn't ever claim my logic was perfect, it was just something that hit me all of a sudden when I was reading one of the Therkla theories that everyone seems to have.

[kirbsys]

The search button is crying itself to sleep.

[Kyeudo]

I forget the forum even has a search function, then when I remember it, it takes forever to turn up what I want.

[Tussy the Druid]

I have to agree with ^x2. This thread has existed no less than 20 times by 20 different people. Please do a little search before you start up a new thread.

[DreadSpoon]

Whatever wizard crafted the ring of jumping killed Roy.

The Snarl was in on it, too, because Roy wouldn't have been fighting Xykon again if the Snarl wasn't making holes in its prison that were exploitable.

Rich was the real mastermind behind it all, though, because he's the one who wrote the story and drew he X's in Roy's eyes.

Belkar was an innocent bystander, a mere pawn in the games of others!

[Kyeudo]

Whatever wizard crafted the ring of jumping killed Roy.

The Snarl was in on it, too, because Roy wouldn't have been fighting Xykon again if the Snarl wasn't making holes in its prison that were exploitable.

Rich was the real mastermind behind it all, though, because he's the one who wrote the story and drew he X's in Roy's eyes.

Belkar was an innocent bystander, a mere pawn in the games of others!

You win. I surrender to your infallible logic. :smallamused:

[David Argall]

By the same level of indirectness, Belkar could be conisdered to be the cause of Miko's death. It was his efforts at enraging her that drove her to such extreme measures.

a-It is not the same level of indirectness. Belkar could confidently predict a substantial risk that Roy would die once he got that ring. Belkar could not confidently predict whether his efforts would shorten or lengthen Miko's life. Over the short run, he was actively trying to lengthen her life, at least by avoiding killing her.

b- So? Belkar asks "cause", not The cause. That other things are also causes does not mean Belkar is not a cause.

[Lord Anath'Kash]

Whatever wizard crafted the ring of jumping killed Roy.

The Snarl was in on it, too, because Roy wouldn't have been fighting Xykon again if the Snarl wasn't making holes in its prison that were exploitable.

Rich was the real mastermind behind it all, though, because he's the one who wrote the story and drew he X's in Roy's eyes.

Belkar was an innocent bystander, a mere pawn in the games of others!

Don't forget Roy's parents, the mentor that trained Eugene, his party members, the zombie dragon and Hojo.

Also the founders of the city, the builders that built the walls and just about every single other factor that brought about the conditions that caused Roy's demise. :smallwink:

[TDG]

Let us not forget the Gods who made the ground hard.
...oh! and the wizard who invented the bag of tricks. He should have made bald eagles more likely
...oh! and Celia for making her booty talisman so hard to break
...oh! and the dragon for falling to Xykon and then flying so high under his command

[Khosan]

All Belkar did was hand over a ring.

Roy died due to his own actions and those of Xykon's.

Actually, part of the current standing theory is that, without the ring, Roy wouldn't necessarily have jumped, since he knew he couldn't (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0429.html) otherwise make the jump without magical assistance.

[factotum]

And how do we know said magical assistance would not have been forthcoming without Belkar's intervention? It's not like there was a shortage of magic-users around the place.

[Khosan]

The only person we know of who probably had a spell like that available to them was Vaarsuvius, and he apparently didn't have one prepared.

Now, if there were some low-level arcane spell-casters around with Jump prepared, there's a possibility, but this begs the question of what a spell-caster is doing preparing Jump when they're under siege by hobgoblins.

Another possibility is if Durkon had either the Travel or Air domains. He could've cast either Fly or Air Walk then, but I don't think he'd have either of those domains.

This isn't really relevant though, since it was Belkar who supplied the means of Roy getting up to Xykon, indirectly causing Roy's death.

[Lord Anath'Kash]

This isn't really relevant though, since it was Belkar who supplied the means of Roy getting up to Xykon, indirectly causing Roy's death.

Yep. You're right, this is irrelevant as the factors are too many.

By the indirect theory, Belkar also caused the death of Miko, spurring her on until she fell and comitted Regicide (?).

*Shrugs* It's far, far too indirect.

Having said that, that's probably what will be the case. *Sighs*

[Copacetic]

Roy killed himself, in a sense. Xykon gave hm a chance to go away and come back later. He ddn't. So he's dead. So let all this threads about him, die too!:smallmad: :smallfurious:

[Avardion]

I think that we can all agree that Belkar's handing over the Ring of Jumping to Roy was a necessary cause of Roy being killed in the way he was killed. Therefore, the oracle's prophecy has been fulfilled; Belkar has been a contributing cause to Roy's death.

[Jayabalard]

I have to agree with ^x2. This thread has existed no less than 20 times by 20 different people. Please do a little search before you start up a new thread.it's not like he could have posted in an old thread (thread necromancy is frowned on here)


All Belkar did was hand over a ring.

Roy died due to his own actions and those of Xykon's.and Belkar's, because Belkar handed over a ring.

[FujinAkari]

The people yelling about "OMG! Its not direct enough!" really need to brush up on the definition of causality.

For something to be causal, there are two conditions which must be met:

1) A specific action must be taken. Merely failing to prevent an action is not a causal connection. This is why Belkar cannot be said to have caused Shojo's death, merely because he failed to stop Miko's attack. As I -hope- no one will argue, Miko caused Shojo's death, not Belkar.

In this instance, we do have a specific action being taken, Belkar voluntarily provided the ring to Roy of his own initiative, so check on condition 1.

2) The (negative) result of said specific action must be readily apparent to a reasonable indivual. This condition prevents Roy's Weaponmaster, or Belkar's Mom from having caused Roy's death. There is absolutely no way a reasonable person could forsee that giving birth to the Belkster would eventually cause some guy named Roy to take a ring from him and jump off to his death.

So is it reasonable for Belkar to see his action as leading Roy to his death? Yes. Haley, Belkar, and the Assassin all comment on what a crazy course of action it is, and so it is obvious they are quite aware of the suicidal risk involved.

As a result, YES, the action fulfills the requirements of causality and it can be said that Belkar caused Roy's death. He was not the ONLY cause, but he was a cause.

This is why you are responsible (at least partially) for your best friend running into someone after having been drinking when you give him the keys, for note.

[duckie]

Which brings us to the real important question here. That is:
Will the prophecy for V's raven ever come true?

DUN-DUN-DUN!

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Belkar's, because Belkar handed over a ring.

Or it's Eugene's fault for using a poor contraception spell, causing Roy to be born in the first place.

Or it's Rich's fault for writing the story in which Roy falls to his death after fighting a lich on top of a zombie dragon, after being given a Ring of Jumping, +20.

Or it's the reader's fault for employing Rich as a writer of an Award Winning Webcomic in which Roy falls to his death after fighting a lich on top of a zombie dragon, after being given a Ring of Jumping, +20.

Or it's Rich's parent's fault for the same reason it's Eugene and Sara's fault! :smallbiggrin:

So my answer is: "No." Belkar needs to be a bit more "directly involved" in one of the above's death to get credit.

[FujinAkari]

So my answer is: "No." Belkar needs to be a bit more "directly involved" in one of the above's death to get credit.

Your objections have already been disproven by the definition of causality :P

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Your objections have already been disproven by the definition of causality :P

Not quite.

My ex-sister in law was a legal secretary, and her law firm was involved with litigation with a bar/strip club that sold booze to a patron who later was involved in a DUI accident. In the end, the bar was NOT found liable. The driver, on the other hand, got to do some time.

Roy was of sound mind when he took his leap. Not drugged, drunk, under a geas, or otherwise influenced by outside forces. Belkar is (and it's amazing to say this!) innocent.

"Remember, when the goat turns red strike true." Rich ended that prophesy clearly. I expect he will do the same for Belkar and the rest.

[VetMichael]

well in that case couldn't you say it was Belkar's parents indirectly caused roy's death by giving birth to him?

Or maybe the maker of the ring? or maybe the parents of Xykon? or of the Dragon? or of the hobgoblin hordes? or the parents of Shojo? or maybe Roy's parents? or maybe the Gods because they created gravity?

[FujinAkari]

My ex-sister in law was a legal secretary, and her law firm was involved with litigation with a bar/strip club that sold booze to a patron who later was involved in a DUI accident. In the end, the bar was NOT found liable.

The bar ALSO did not provide him with the keys to his car, so I fail to see your point...

Please Reread my post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3578309&postcount=30) :P

[Surfing HalfOrc]

The bar ALSO did not provide him with the keys to his car, so I fail to see your point...

Please Reread my post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3578309&postcount=30) :P

I DID read your post, I just don't agree with your conclusions. Knowing a friend is a "Hero" is different from knowing your friend is "Too Drunk." Belkar knew Roy knew what he was doing, and that Roy was capable of getting the job done. Afterall, he had done the same thing (namely, kill Xykon) once before. Roy overextended himself, and his death was caused by hitting a big rock, AFTER being blasted off a dragon, AFTER jumping onto the dragon of his own free will, and AFTER being given a Ring of Jumping +20.

To me, it's too much of a stretch. To you, you're satisfied that Belkar "caused" Roy's death. We have to agree to disagree. :smallwink:

[FujinAkari]

Well, while you are of course entitled to your opinion, I have to of course note that opinions are utterly and completely meaningless in a debate :P

By the definition of causality, Belkar was a contributing cause to Roy's death, thats all I'm saying :).

[kabbor]

Yes, we are 2 down. Haley got her speech back by not looking Nale's offer in the mouth, and Belkar caused Roy's death by providing him the opportunity to put himself in grave danger.
If V has said the three words (it's a possibility!), we do not yet discern them or their significance, Durkon is not yet dead, I do not think a whistle was really Elan's 'happy ending' (but Haley's love could be!), and the fact that, in strip 508, V could not think of 'a finding animal' that s/he could enchant indicates that the the raven is still being forgotten.

[ApatheticDespot]

By the definition of causality, Belkar was a contributing cause to Roy's death.

Perhaps a more rigorous examination of your argument is in order then, it you're going to declare it irrefutable.


1) A specific action must be taken. Merely failing to prevent an action is not a causal connection. This is why Belkar cannot be said to have caused Shojo's death, merely because he failed to stop Miko's attack. As I -hope- no one will argue, Miko caused Shojo's death, not Belkar.

In this instance, we do have a specific action being taken, Belkar voluntarily provided the ring to Roy of his own initiative, so check on condition 1.

2) The (negative) result of said specific action must be readily apparent to a reasonable indivual. This condition prevents Roy's Weaponmaster, or Belkar's Mom from having caused Roy's death. There is absolutely no way a reasonable person could forsee that giving birth to the Belkster would eventually cause some guy named Roy to take a ring from him and jump off to his death.

So is it reasonable for Belkar to see his action as leading Roy to his death? Yes. Haley, Belkar, and the Assassin all comment on what a crazy course of action it is, and so it is obvious they are quite aware of the suicidal risk involved.

Firstly, a quick confession on my part. My background in formal logic is limited, I don't really start into the meat of the subject until next term, so I don't have the knowledge to competently refute your definition. It seems a bit tenuous to me, but I honestly don't know if it's valid or not, so for the sake of argument I'll consider it as irrefutably right.

However, in order for your method to prove the statement 'Belkar was a cause of Roy's death', statements 1 and 2 must both be shown to be true. and so lets turn our attention to them.

Statement 1 says that Belkar must have performed a positive action. Certainly giving a ring to someone is an action, but is this truly the relevant action? Your own statement clearly asserts that merely failing to stop the action of another is not sufficient, thus the matter of whether or not Belkar's action was of significance becomes paramount. Roy's statement 'Where's a fly spell when you need one' (or words to that effect) clearly indicate his intention to attack Xykon before Belkar suggested the use of the ring, and given the how commonplace sharing equipment within a party is, it would in fact have been the withholding of the ring which would have been the more extraordinary action. As such, an argument can easily be made that Belkar in fact merely failed to stop Roy, particularly in light of Surfing HalfOrc's argument about the nature of responsibility.

Statement 2 is even more debatable. You assert that the outcome of the presupposed action was readily apparent to a reasonable observer, but was it? You quite reasonably argue that a weapon smith could not foresee the actions of his weapon's wielder, but nowhere do you show that the end result of giving Roy the ring could have been reasonably foreseen by Belkar with any degree of certainty. In fact, given the fact that Roy had defeated Xykon in single combat, without a weapon, during their last encounter the idea that Belkar would have known that giving Roy the ring would certainly result in Roy's death is frankly far fetched. Furthermore, the simple fact of the matter is that any plan in combat involves a risk of death, simply knowing that Roy's plan is risky is not sufficient do declare that the inevitable death of all involved is 'readily apparent'.

None of these even approach proofs that Belkar was not a cause of Roy's death, of course, but given how debatable your premises are, claiming that your position is proved is simply wrong.

[Kyeudo]

I'd say that your refutation of Fujin's Points have flaws.

Statement 1: First, You claim that the action of withholding the ring would be a positive action, not giving the ring. This is clearly wrong, as it is Belkar's choice to give the ring, as everyone else has FORGOTTEN about the ring. Belkar had to bring up its existance before it was considered a valid plan.
Second If I have a drunk friend and he says "Give me my keys so I can drive home" and I do so, then I am responsible if he crashes and dies on the way home. It doesn't matter if he's safely driven home drunk before, I am still responsible if he dies because his death was a resonably forseeable consequence of my actions.

Statement 2: The first time that Roy fought Xykon, he was buffed for more than two rounds by more than one caster, had party support, and had situational circumstance modifiers. This time, he was battling Xykon in mid air, with only a few buffs, and Xykon had undead dragon backup. Belkar could have easily forseen that a Fighter up against a Lich 4 levels higher than him fighting without party support and without major buffing would lose and die.

[Squark]

Belkar was fully aware his actions would produce results that would likely include Roy's death, see his response when he kills mr.assasin


If I give matchbox to a small child trying to make a fire, it IS my fault if the child burns down the house. Yes, roy is not a child, but the fact remains it was within Belkar's power to prevent roy from jumping (or at least not making the jump and falling down the wall, which, while painful, would not be lethal to a high level fighter)

[FujinAkari]

Kyendo did a good job answering you, so let me just add a few caveats to his post :)

Statement 1: The claim that Belkar was merely facilitating Roy's bad idea, or even following Roy's implicit Order is a good argument, but ultimately untenable. For this argument to work, it must be demonstrated that Belkar had not considered the possibility of Roy engaging Xykon alone and, as a result, had not had time to fully consider the consequence. For Belkar to only be responding to Roy's idea, he cannot have -already- had the idea himself, which is plainly untrue considering he had a pre-existing bet with the assassin about whether Roy would be stupid enough to jump.

Statement 2: The comic itself proves Statement 2 correct. Both Haley and the assassin make plain statements as to the recklessness of Roy's attack plan (even Durkon seems surprised and uneased by it) while -no one- (Well, except Roy) supports it. That is pretty clear evidence that a reasonable person does consider the action to be dangerous, probably deadly. If the general responce on the wall was "Get him Roy!" rather than "You're engaging Xykon alone? Are you crazy?!?" then you would have a case :P

[ApatheticDespot]

Kyendo did a good job answering you, so let me just add a few caveats to his post :)

Statement 1: The claim that Belkar was merely facilitating Roy's bad idea, or even following Roy's implicit Order is a good argument, but ultimately untenable. For this argument to work, it must be demonstrated that Belkar had not considered the possibility of Roy engaging Xykon alone and, as a result, had not had time to fully consider the consequence. For Belkar to only be responding to Roy's idea, he cannot have -already- had the idea himself, which is plainly untrue considering he had a pre-existing bet with the assassin about whether Roy would be stupid enough to jump.

Statement 2: The comic itself proves Statement 2 correct. Both Haley and the assassin make plain statements as to the recklessness of Roy's attack plan (even Durkon seems surprised and uneased by it) while -no one- (Well, except Roy) supports it. That is pretty clear evidence that a reasonable person does consider the action to be dangerous, probably deadly. If the general responce on the wall was "Get him Roy!" rather than "You're engaging Xykon alone? Are you crazy?!?" then you would have a case :P

Again, my argument was less an argument for a certain position, than an argument against your claim that your position was definitionally irrefutable. As a result, I'm not going to bother trying to prove that statements 1 and 2 from your initial post are false, but rather simply that they are too debatable for your conclusion to be unassailable. For the sake of brevity, I'm going to leave my criticism of statement 1 as is, and focus on defending my criticism of statement 2.

The defense you and Kyendo have provided boils to two issues, namely what were Roy's chances of defeating Xykon (as a reasonable observer, knowing what Belkar knew would rate them), and what level of certainty is needed for the most probably result to be 'readily apparent'.

Contrary to Kyendo's claim, Roy did not have significantly greater magical protection or party support during his first battle with Xykon. During the first battle only Roy actually reaches Xykon, and he is only subject to two buffs, which were first and second level spells, while during the second battle he was subject instead to two fourth and fifth level buffs, and was armed with a weapon uniquely suited to the task. In the first battle, despite being unarmed, Roy PUNCHED XYKON'S HEAD OFF, and threw his body into the gate with almost contemptuous ease.

Clearly from our god's eye view after the fact Roy was outmatched, but given the result of their first battle, most reasonable observers in Belkar's place would rate Roy's odds of survival as being reasonably high. How then was it certain that Roy would be killed?

Furthermore, your definition also requires that the result of the action be 'readily apparent', you hold the reactions of the nearby order members as evidence that it was, but there are problems here too. Note that Haley was the only one to voice reservation over the plan, while Durkon, probably the orders best tactician after Roy, later referred to Roy's actions as 'doin' wha was right', while Belkar was so sure that Roy (the orders best tactician) would jump that he bet money on it. Haley's objection likely owes more to her rogue mentality of avoiding personal risk and taking more orthogonal approaches than any real assessment of the plan as being too risky. Given that all but one of the present members of the Order offered what help and support they could give immediately and without question, it seems that the general response was indeed "Get him Roy!"

[T-Ice]

Meh. I found you argument far too bried for my taste.

While you, or a real jury, might not find close enough a connection between Belkar's actions and Roy's death, I'd think the Oracle certainly would. Remember that his answers are supposed to be as misleading and unhelpful and vague as possible.

So if you ask the Oracle, the wizard that crafted the ring did cause Roy's death. It might not satisfy any reasonable analysis of cause and effect, but technically it's true enough for the Oracle.

[Droodle]

My ex-sister in law was a legal secretary, and her law firm was involved with litigation with a bar/strip club that sold booze to a patron who later was involved in a DUI accident. In the end, the bar was NOT found liable. The driver, on the other hand, got to do some time.You're forgetting that there's a big difference between being a cause (few things in life only have one cause) of something and being criminally liable for it. In facilitating the drunkenness of the DUI recipient, the club was a contributing factor to the conditions that caused his accident. Therefore, serving alcohol to the patron has a causal connection to the patron later driving while intoxicated. This is especially true in this case since the patron would likely still have attended the strip club were they not serving alcohol. Most strip club patrons attend for the strippers...not the overpriced drinks. Serving him alcohol wasn't the main cause of the accident, but it was a cause.

[Closet_Skeleton]

It's not just that Belkar had his place in the chain of events, it's that he was aware of what the events were.

For example Miko brought Roy to Azure City. Roy would not have died without Miko but as far as Miko knew Roy would not be fighting a Lich. Belkar knew perfectly that Roy would be fighting a Lich and he also knew that if he didn't give Roy the ring then Roy would not go off on his own to fight the Lich. Belkar had the awareness to make a decision that could have saved Roy. His mother or Miko didn't therefore Belkar has a stronger claim to having caused Roy's death then they have.

I don't think this is a case of it not being direct enough causation. I think it's a case of it being just bad enough causation to annoy the person who asked for the prophecy, which good prophecies always do.

[Rebarth]

I've got a question:
A lot of people here said the belkar's action was not direct enough for it to have being a cause of roy's death.
Well my question is, where has directness being a matter in the subject? I mean I reread Comic strip 331 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html) and I did not see belkar ask if he would be in a direct way a cause of their death.
So... what is the answer, guys?