Posthumously (spoilers)

[Gilthans]

According to dictionary.com, posthumously (from the Oracle's Prophecy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html)) means 'after one's death'. But I don't think it would be wrong to interpret it as 'after SOMEONE's death'.

Could it be that Durkon will be visiting home after Roy's resurrection? :smallbiggrin:

[David Argall]

This would make the word meaningless as somebody is always dying. So no, this has to refer to Durkon biting it.

However, this does not mean Durkon is never going to see home again. There are several weasel words to consider.

Durkon can die and be raised, or maybe die, be buried, and raised, and he will satisfy the statement.

ignoring being brought back from the dead some way, there is the use of "finally", which allows him to visit home any number of times before eventually dying away and being brought back home for the final time.

[Zeitgeist]

Or he could, yanno, die and not be raised. Crazy notion right.

[rgoodfellow]

SPOILER. WARNING.

I am of the opinion that Kraager's gate (the dwarf and halfling) is up north where Durkon's home land is and that it will be the last gate left standing. Xykon will go to it and the Oots after him and Durkon will die and Xykon's arrival will mean the end of Durkon's clan as prophecized in origin of PC's.

I don't know how to spell prophecized.

[rgoodfellow]

Or he could, yanno, die and not be raised. Crazy notion right.

Agreed. Based on Durkon's response to Roy's death, I think he'll be happy dying for a friend or in battle or other honorable way and happy to be drinking a mug o' lager with Thor and company.

[hewhosaysfish]

Based on Durkon's response to Roy's death, I think he'll be happy dying for a friend or in battle or other honorable way and happy to be drinking a mug o' lager with Thor and company.

I agree that Durkon would consider dying for the sake of a friend to certainly be worth it but that doesn't mean he wouldn't accept a ressurection if one were offered. And I can't see him just kicking back in the afterlife if there were some terrible threat hanging over OotS, the Dwarven lands, the world, the gods, etc.

Being a dwarf is about doing your duty, even if your divine ambrosia gets warm. ESPECIALLY, if your divine ambrosia gets warm.

[Firestar27]

On the Origin of PCs Spoilers:
Durkon is prophecized to cause great destruction when he returns to his homeland. If he dies and is zombified, then the zombie can attack his homeland.

[BisectedBrioche]

I just had a ridiculous thought;

Posthumous is the name of a character in the Shakespearian play Cymbeline. He is exiled from his homeland (Italy) does some fighting (which includes switching sides in an attempt to get himself killed) before reuniting with his true love, etc.

Thus maybe "Posthumously" means "in the style of Posthumous" rather than after death?[/madness]

[mockingbyrd7]

I just had a ridiculous thought;

Posthumous is the name of a character in the Shakespearian play Cymbeline. He is exiled from his homeland (Italy) does some fighting (which includes switching sides in an attempt to get himself killed) before reuniting with his true love, etc.

Thus maybe "Posthumously" means "in the style of Posthumous" rather than after death?[/madness]

My god.

Exiled from his homeland: Check.
Switching sides: He could side with Hilgya, or maybe simply fighting alongside humans is "switching sides"?
Reuniting with his true love: Hilgya?

I think you might be on to something.

[Wizardzo]

I just had a ridiculous thought;

Posthumous is the name of a character in the Shakespearian play Cymbeline. He is exiled from his homeland (Italy) does some fighting (which includes switching sides in an attempt to get himself killed) before reuniting with his true love, etc.

Thus maybe "Posthumously" means "in the style of Posthumous" rather than after death?[/madness]

By, jove I think he's got it!

[Chronos]

By, jove I think he's got it!I think you mean "By Odin". Jove's dead.

[factotum]

I have an equally revolutionary idea: maybe "posthumously" means exactly what it says and therefore Durkon returns to his homeland as a corpse. I know, reading these things using the normal rules for English really limits your options, but I think we can start a trend if we really try hard...

[David Argall]

I have an equally revolutionary idea: maybe "posthumously" means exactly what it says and therefore Durkon returns to his homeland as a corpse. I know, reading these things using the normal rules for English really limits your options, but I think we can start a trend if we really try hard...

On questions where we have question and answer, we have a distinct lack of the answer meaning exactly what we expect. Roy asks where is Xykon and gets told "in his throne room". Roy asks what gate Xykon will hit next [or rather that is what he thinks he is asking] and gets an answer that misdirects him. Haley asks a queston and gets an answer that makes no sense until after it is too late. Belkar is also expected to have gotten a misdirecting answer.
On the past record then, the chance is distinctly low that the prophecy means Durkon will die, be taken back to his home and buried. Something different is going to happen.

[bluish_wolf]

Well, literally, posthumously means "born after the death of the father." Clearly, Durkon is going to go back home after his father dies. (I'm being sarcastic)

[FujinAkari]

On questions where we have question and answer, we have a distinct lack of the answer meaning exactly what we expect. Roy asks where is Xykon and gets told "in his throne room".I think you mean Eugene here... and how does this mean ANYTHING but what we expect? I expect that this means that Xykon is in his throne room. Hey, he IS!


Roy asks what gate Xykon will hit next [or rather that is what he thinks he is asking] and gets an answer that misdirects him.

This is a blatent lie. The Oracle tries REALLY HARD to get Roy to ask a question that WON'T mislead him. That Roy structured the question poorly can hardly be blamed on the Oracle. There is absolutely nothing misleading in the Oracles answer.


Haley asks a queston and gets an answer that makes no sense until after it is too late.

No, the question made no sense. The answer made perfect sense, and is actually the reason Haley went on the date in the first place. I don't know how that could be "too late." Again, the answer was perfectly clear.


Belkar is also expected to have gotten a misdirecting answer.

Belkar's answer is very clear. "You will cause the death of at least one of those people." Yes, it could be even MORE clear, but that certainly isn't misleading, which is what you are attempting to claim.

[Niknokitueu]

This is a blatent lie. The Oracle tries REALLY HARD to get Roy to ask a question that WON'T mislead him. That Roy structured the question poorly can hardly be blamed on the Oracle. There is absolutely nothing misleading in the Oracles answer.
Hi. Whilst I agree that the oracle tries really hard to get Roy to ask the question in such a way as to be able to answer him in a helpful way, the question was not poorly structured.

If there were only two remaining gates then Roy's question would have been exceedingly well structured. He defined each of the terms he would use in the question, then asked the question in such a way as to find out the exact answer he wished for.

The problem was that there were three remaining gates. In essence he just asked the wrong question very accurately... :smallbiggrin:

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[factotum]

I think you mean Eugene here... and how does this mean ANYTHING but what we expect? I expect that this means that Xykon is in his throne room. Hey, he IS!


Actually, it WAS Roy who asked that question...see strip #330, panel 2. I agree with everything else you say, though...everything the Oracle has said has proved to be perfectly literal; if anything, it's the listeners who are over-interpreting it.

[David Argall]

This is a blatent lie. The Oracle tries REALLY HARD to get Roy to ask a question that WON'T mislead him. That Roy structured the question poorly can hardly be blamed on the Oracle. There is absolutely nothing misleading in the Oracles answer.
The fault can't be blamed on the oracle, but that the answer was misleading is obvious. The party wants to know where Xykon is going to strike next and ends up convinced it is a place he is not going to attack next.


No, the question made no sense. The answer made perfect sense, and is actually the reason Haley went on the date in the first place. I don't know how that could be "too late." Again, the answer was perfectly clear.
Haley makes no sign she has any idea Nale is the gift horse of the prophecy. So the prophecy does not help her.


Belkar's answer is very clear. "You will cause the death of at least one of those people." Yes, it could be even MORE clear, but that certainly isn't misleading, which is what you are attempting to claim.
Again we see that Belkar is misled. He thinks he is going to kill one or more of the four, not that some random action of his will cause the death of one.
That an answer is clear does not mean it is not misleading. In fact, that is one of the classic elements of a misleading prophecy, that it looks entirely clear. MacBeth can not be killed by anyone of woman born and will be king until a forest moves to his castle. Quite clear, and quite misleading since MacDuff was "untimely ripped from his mother's womb".
Oedipus is to kill his father and marry his mother, so he leaves home to avoid that, not knowing he is adopted and is heading to where his birth parents are to be found
And so on. Perfectly clear prophecies, and perfectly misleading.

[BisectedBrioche]

Well, literally, posthumously means "born after the death of the father." Clearly, Durkon is going to go back home after his father dies. (I'm being sarcastic)

No that's a "posthumous birth". On its own posthumous no more means that than the word "delicious" specifically means cake.

[FujinAkari]

The fault can't be blamed on the oracle,

Stop. You just lost the argument. By admitting that the Oracle isn't being misleading, you have now lost any credibility with your "All the predictions must be interpreted as skewedly as possible" argument.

We have established that the Oracle, at least in Roy's case, answered the question honestly and without obscurity, lets move on to debunking your other claims.


Haley makes no sign she has any idea Nale is the gift horse of the prophecy. So the prophecy does not help her.

The prophesy told her not to look a gift horse in the mouth. She then stopped overanalysing a situation and just went with it, leading to her getting her voice back. I'm not sure how you can claim it didn't help her.

While, yes, she didn't EXPLICITLY say anything about the prophesy, unless you have levels in future psychic, you can't tell me it had nothing to do with it.

To quote you, I don't have to prove it happened, just to prove that it didn't not happen. :P


Again we see that Belkar is misled. He thinks he is going to kill one or more of the four, not that some random action of his will cause the death of one.

Then Belkar misinterpretted it. It is perfectly clear.


That an answer is clear does not mean it is not misleading. In fact, that is one of the classic elements of a misleading prophecy, that it looks entirely clear. MacBeth can not be killed by anyone of woman born and will be king until a forest moves to his castle. Quite clear, and quite misleading since MacDuff was "untimely ripped from his mother's womb".

Very true, this example has a person drawing a false conclusion without considering every truth present. What OTHER reality is hidden within "You will cause the death of at least one of them?" Do you think that really means he'll open an ice creame shop? Maybe he'll do a merry jig?

For a prophesy to be misleading, it must lead the character to believe something which is untrue. Belkar believes he will cause one of the four characters to die, which is true.

[David Argall]

Stop. You just lost the argument. By admitting that the Oracle isn't being misleading, you have now lost any credibility with your "All the predictions must be interpreted as skewedly as possible" argument.
Does not follow. It does not matter how the prophecy is misleading, only that it is. [Or more precisely, after we get this hint about the future, we are still in the dark.] That it is Roy's own fault that he gets a bad answer does not mean the answer is anything but misleading.


The prophesy told her not to look a gift horse in the mouth. She then stopped overanalysing a situation and just went with it, leading to her getting her voice back. I'm not sure how you can claim it didn't help her.

While, yes, she didn't EXPLICITLY say anything about the prophesy, unless you have levels in future psychic, you can't tell me it had nothing to do with it.

To quote you, I don't have to prove it happened, just to prove that it didn't not happen.
Not correct here. You are wanting to claim it helped her, which puts the burden on you to show how. And what we have is consistent with her having completely forgotten the prophecy.

Now we do have a different aspect of mislead here. Haley isn't sent on the wrong path, but can't figure out what is the right path until after the fact. So the prophecy is merely worthless to her. This is another classic type of story prophecy [which likely means we will not be seeing the Oracle again, or he would not have have pushed all these types in]. But again, it means the surface meaning is not the correct meaning.


Then Belkar misinterpretted it. It is perfectly clear.
Given the number of posters who misunderstand it, and disagree on its meaning, that is clearly incorrect. But we still have the same picture, the one asking the question does not know what the future will bring.


For a prophesy to be misleading, it must lead the character to believe something which is untrue. Belkar believes he will cause one of the four characters to die, which is true.
Belkar believes he will Kill one of the four. It does not seem to have occured to him that they could be innocent bystanders of an innocent act of his.

So each of these examples finds the character not knowing the future, and being wrong the more certain they are. Now we have Durkon believing he will die and human lands and be taken home to be buried in dwarven tombs. And so we know that will not happen. We can debate what is the actual meaning, but it will not be the one Durkon has in mind.

[FujinAkari]

Does not follow. It does not matter how the prophecy is misleading, only that it is. [Or more precisely, after we get this hint about the future, we are still in the dark.] That it is Roy's own fault that he gets a bad answer does not mean the answer is anything but misleading.

Ah, so in essence, your argument has changed from being "The Oracle is misleading" to "The Party is unable to effectively use the Oracle's predictions due to mitigating circumstances."

Thats fine, I agree with that, but there is a very obvious problem: This argument began with you saying "On the past record then, the chance is distinctly low that the prophecy means Durkon will die, be taken back to his home and buried. Something different is going to happen."

This statement has an unstated premise that all predictions mean something other than what they appear too. There needs to be some verbal squirming done to arrive at what the predictions ACTUALLY mean.

Well, by your own admission, this is not the case. The Oracle has been literally explicit. Xykon WAS in his Throne Room. Haley needs to not look a gift horse in the mouth. Durkon will return home post-humously.

NO prediction has relied on the words used meaning anything beyond what they appear too, and so your statement is incorrect.


Not correct here. You are wanting to claim it helped her, which puts the burden on you to show how.

Strawman Argument. I am not trying to claim it helped her, although I can see why you want to make that be my claim, I am trying to claim that there was nothing misleading about Haley's prophesy, and there wasn't. Haley's prophesy said she should quit over-analysing things, and she did.


Now we do have a different aspect of mislead here. Haley isn't sent on the wrong path, but can't figure out what is the right path until after the fact. So the prophecy is merely worthless to her.

Ah, so you admit they aren't misleading, good. I accept your apology.

[Shraik]

I just had a ridiculous thought;

Posthumous is the name of a character in the Shakespearian play Cymbeline. He is exiled from his homeland (Italy) does some fighting (which includes switching sides in an attempt to get himself killed) before reuniting with his true love, etc.

Thus maybe "Posthumously" means "in the style of Posthumous" rather than after death?[/madness]


Your right:
He was exiled
He turned to the other side and almost died drinking human ale
He will finnally be reunited with Dwarven Ale.

[gooddragon1]

Maybe he'll return posthumorously? :smallbiggrin:

[bloodluster]

On the Origin of PCs Spoilers:
Durkon is prophecized to cause great destruction when he returns to his homeland. If he dies and is zombified, then the zombie can attack his homeland.
I think that he will become a clerical lich, not a zombie, since zombies aren't that powerfull...

[DreadSpoon]

On questions where we have question and answer, we have a distinct lack of the answer meaning exactly what we expect. Roy asks where is Xykon and gets told "in his throne room". Roy asks what gate Xykon will hit next [or rather that is what he thinks he is asking] and gets an answer that misdirects him. Haley asks a queston and gets an answer that makes no sense until after it is too late. Belkar is also expected to have gotten a misdirecting answer.
On the past record then, the chance is distinctly low that the prophecy means Durkon will die, be taken back to his home and buried. Something different is going to happen.

Your logic is flawed, dude. How is "in his throne room" a misdirecting answer? It's a perfectly correct, if useless, answer. The answer given to Roy is as freaking simple and correct as it possibly can be given the question that Roy asked. Haley's answer made absolute perfect sense, and honestly, if the Oracle had said "have dinner with Nale after Elan is thrown in prison," the whole emotional situation never would have happened and she wouldn't have been cured. Belkar got a perfectly plain answer. (I call BS on all the people who think he caused Roy's death, just like I'd call BS if a judge tried to charge me with manslaughter for lending a car to a friend who got in a wreck with a drunk driver.)

There is absolutely no actual indication that the Oracle gives misdirecting answers. The only reason I think people are even assuming that kind of thing is because bad GMs tend to play oracles and prophecy using the "screw the player because it's funny" method, which led to Roy asking his ridiculous question that the Oracle answered as plainly and accurately and unambiguously as he could. The Oracle even tried to clarify the question first just to help out!

No, Durkon is going back after he dies. Whether or not he is alive at the time is open to interpretation, but "posthumously" clearly and beyond any doubt means he is going to croak before he (or his body) is back in the homelands, and that he (or his body) will for sure be back in his homelands since the response was not "never."

[FujinAkari]

(I call BS on all the people who think he caused Roy's death, just like I'd call BS if a judge tried to charge me with manslaughter for lending a car to a friend who got in a wreck with a drunk driver.)

This is a false analogy, due to the lack of forseeability of the drunk driver collision. Lets try and make it a bit better, shall we?

You and your friend go out drinking. While you are out there, your friend sees a girl and starts hitting on her. Over the course of the evening, he finds himself competing with another man for her affections, a man who claims to be a former Army Sniper. Eventually, somewhat intoxicated, your friend calls the so-called sniper out, and says "Phah! This bum's just blowin' smoke up your skirt! He couldn't hit the broad-side of a barn!"

To prove it, your friend challenges the sniper to a pistol showdown. The sniper, saying he still has his side-arm, accepts. At this point, your friend asks if he can borrow the gun you keep in the car's glovebox. You accept, and your friend goes off and gets killed in the shootout.

Were you a cause of his death?

Again, like Belkar, its hard to say, you were certainly not THE cause of his death, but you did assist him to enter into an activity which could very foreseeably end in his demise. *shrug*

[David Argall]

This argument began with you saying "On the past record then, the chance is distinctly low that the prophecy means Durkon will die, be taken back to his home and buried. Something different is going to happen."

This statement has an unstated premise that all predictions mean something other than what they appear too. There needs to be some verbal squirming done to arrive at what the predictions ACTUALLY mean.
That can certainly be useful and fun, but no, there is no need, beyond stating that the reading that Durkon makes is wrong.


Well, by your own admission, this is not the case. The Oracle has been literally explicit. Xykon WAS in his Throne Room. Haley needs to not look a gift horse in the mouth. Durkon will return home post-humously.
That we know, but we don't know what that actually means, beyond the negative, that Durkon has it wrong.


NO prediction has relied on the words used meaning anything beyond what they appear too, and so your statement is incorrect.
Lying by telling the truth has a long tradition, and prophecy is very much a part of that.
But again...
1. Roy gets an answer he considers so worthless he violates his LG morals.
2. Roy gets an answer that causes him to attempt to go away from where he wants to go.
3. Belkar gets an answer he clearly misunderstands and there are plenty of disputes as to its meanng.
4. Haley gets an answer we have no sign she ever considered in its achievement.
5. V gets an answer that pretty much requires she forget the prophecy. If he recalls it and tries to act on it, that is not the wrong reasons.

So why should we expect that Durkon's answer will mean what it seems to?


Ah, so you admit they aren't misleading, good. I accept your apology.
I have merely admitted there are a large number of ways for a prophecy to be misleading. No apology implied.



Your logic is flawed, dude. How is "in his throne room" a misdirecting answer? It's a perfectly correct, if useless, answer.
Same thing for our purposes.



The answer given to Roy is as freaking simple and correct as it possibly can be given the question that Roy asked.
Yet almost any of us, if we had been in the oracle's position and had wanted to give a better answer, would have said something like "Xykon will go to the gates in the order Azure City, Girrark, Tornor." The oracle answered the question asked, not the question to which an answer was desired.


Haley's answer made absolute perfect sense,
But not to Haley.


Belkar got a perfectly plain answer. (I call BS on all the people who think he caused Roy's death, just like I'd call BS if a judge tried to charge me with manslaughter for lending a car to a friend who got in a wreck with a drunk driver.)
If your friend was the drunk driver, yes, you could easily be liable. You may deem it BS, but the law says you may have known he was going to be driving in an unsafe manner, and thus your allowing him to drive is a tort.


There is absolutely no actual indication that the Oracle gives misdirecting answers.
But then why has nobody apparently gotten a useful answer?


The only reason I think people are even assuming that kind of thing is because bad GMs tend to play oracles and prophecy using the "screw the player because it's funny" method,
But this is the same method that is used in the great majority of literature. And since this a comedy of D&D, the fact that bad GMs play oracles this way is how we should expect the comic to screw the PCs too.



No, Durkon is going back after he dies. Whether or not he is alive at the time is open to interpretation,
Now notice right away you are saying the prophecy may be misleading. Durkon assumes he will be dead when he goes home, but you do not consider that a certainity.


but "posthumously" clearly and beyond any doubt means he is going to croak before he (or his body) is back in the homelands,
Not certain either. Durkon asks when he will "finally" return, which is not the same as when he will return. He could thus, under the prophecy, return to his homeland any number of times before he dies and later returns to his homeland for a final time, which may or may not be when he is dead since Raise Dead may be easily available.

[Alair]

According to dictionary.com, posthumously (from the Oracle's Prophecy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html)) means 'after one's death'. But I don't think it would be wrong to interpret it as 'after SOMEONE's death'.

Could it be that Durkon will be visiting home after Roy's resurrection? :smallbiggrin:

That might fly if Durkon's question had been something like "When will I return home with my friends?" but... no, just no. Posthumously has a clear meaning and Durkon's question allows for no other subject than himself without abusing the English language.

[ObeeKris]

Yet almost any of us, if we had been in the oracle's position and had wanted to give a better answer, would have said something like "Xykon will go to the gates in the order Azure City, Girrark, Tornor." The oracle answered the question asked, not the question to which an answer was desired.

Very possibly, he can ONLY answer the question that is asked.
The comic in question:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html

He specifically tries to get Roy to ask a different question:
"OK, but I'm just saying, wouldn't it be easier to just ask 'Which gate is Xykon heading towards next?'"

And the very next comic, Roy realizes *HE* not the oracle screwed up with the question.

[BisectedBrioche]

That might fly if Durkon's question had been something like "When will I return home with my friends?" but... no, just no. Posthumously has a clear meaning and Durkon's question allows for no other subject than himself without abusing the English language.

Technically the word posthumous need not apply to the subject. For example a "posthumous child" means a child born after the death of their father, rather than something like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1409581&postcount=1).