Killing two small beings with one strip. [Archive]

Gamerlord

2008-06-12, 08:25 PM

FujinAkari

2008-06-12, 09:14 PM

Not me.

Belkar caused Roy's Death by giving him the Ring of Jumping. Belkar committed the action with full knowledge of the possible result (he even bet money on if Roy would be stupid enough to do it!)

The Oracle didn't say Belkar would KILL Roy et all, merely cause their death, which he did.

Edit: And your explaination makes no sense anyway. if the Oracle thought he could prevent his own death, he wouldn't have predicted it!

OOTS_Rules 2

2008-06-12, 09:17 PM

The Oracles prophesies work in mysterious ways. It never said Belkar can't fufil his prophecy TWICE. Look at Haley running around because Belkar talked about parrots.

FujinAkari

2008-06-12, 09:26 PM

The Oracles prophesies work in mysterious ways. It never said Belkar can't fufil his prophecy TWICE. Look at Haley running around because Belkar talked about parrots.

True, but we certainly shouldn't ASSUME Belkar is going to cause two+ deaths because the Oracle said he'd cause at least one.

Edit: I'm also not sure why you think Haley remembering that the Oracle exists because Belkar made reference to her prophesy caused her prophesy to be fulfilled twice...

TigerHunter

2008-06-12, 11:47 PM

:belkar:: So hey, why haven't I gotten to kill anyone yet?
Oracle: Oh, you're back. You caused Roy's death by giving him the Ring of Jumping. Your prophesy's been fulfilled.
:belkar:: WHAT?! That was it?!
Oracle: Maybe.
:belkar:: *stab*
Oracle: I would like to change my 'maybe' to a 'no'. *dies*

David Argall

2008-06-13, 12:28 AM

Well, depending on circumstances... the Oracle would know he is going to die, so instead of trying to prevent what he can't, he arranges for a cleric to stop by and cast Raise Dead.
Most likely this is to be considered a city and so Belkar will be too scared to try anything, tho he was pretty free with threats last time.

Borris

2008-06-13, 12:54 AM

Am I the only one understanding that the "birthday cake" comment has nothing to do with real litteral cake? It's more of a comment along the lines of "You should savor your next birthday cake... It might your last." A comment that goes perfectly with the one saying that Belkar shouldn't bother funding his IRA (or Individual Retirement Account), implying he might not reach retirement.

Seen this way, the birthday cake comment implies that Belkar has less than two years to live, enough to celebrate his next birthday, but not the one after (maybe I'm taking it too litteraly myself, but he clearly hasn't much time left). And how much time has passed since then? Six months? That was before Cliffport and then the siege at Azure City, after all. Belkar's lifespan is quickly running out. Depending on how fast things go in the comic, he may not even live to see the end of the story.

Red XIV

2008-06-13, 01:07 AM

Six months since the visit to the Oracle? I'd say it could easily have been six months since Azure City fell. It had been 3 & a half months when Kazumi and Daigo got married. Kazumi was 8 weeks pregnant at the time. She's obviously a good deal further along than that two chapters ago. Then I'd say add at least a week (probably more) for V's animal messengers to actually reach Haley's group.

Add the time between the visit to the Oracle and Roy's death and we're talking about, what? 8 or 9 months? Maybe more. Belkar could easily have already had that birthday that the Oracle aluded to.

Learnedguy

2008-06-13, 02:16 AM

Prophecy or not, what stops Belkar from killing the Oracle anyway:belkar:?

Occasional Sage

2008-06-13, 02:31 AM

In strip http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0329.html we learn belkars going to wanna savor his next birthday cake.
In strip http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html we learn the belkar might kill the orcale,miko,mikos horsie,roy or V-dude.
V-dude is to far away ATM.
Roys dead.
Mikos dead"
Mikos horsie cannot come to the matreial plane ATM.
They're heading for the oracle.
I bet....
The orcale knows he is the one belkar's gonna kill so he tries to feed belkar poisened cake,this works and belkars fails his fort save and then he trys to kill the orcale in a fit of anger causing the orcale to fall out a window and then a minute or two later belkar succumbs to the poison and dies.
Who agrres with me?

My bet:
The oracle is YikYik's grandfather and swears vengeance for his son's and grandson's deaths, only to be killed by Belkar.
And yes, I know that there's a half-dozen reasons that doesn't work.

Well, depending on circumstances... the Oracle would know he is going to die, so instead of trying to prevent what he can't, he arranges for a cleric to stop by and cast Raise Dead.
Most likely this is to be considered a city and so Belkar will be too scared to try anything, tho he was pretty free with threats last time.

Why in the world would this be a city, any more than a woodsman's hut in the middle of the forest is a city?

Red XIV

2008-06-13, 02:35 AM

Prophecy or not, what stops Belkar from killing the Oracle anyway:belkar:?
The Oracle being (presumably) a high-level cleric of Tiamat who can probably take care of himself?

Learnedguy

2008-06-13, 03:41 AM

The Oracle being (presumably) a high-level cleric of Tiamat who can probably take care of himself?

Bah, excuses!

Max_Sinister

2008-06-13, 05:02 AM

He / It couldn't defend against Roy & Durkon then (OK, so they were two, but they also were presumably on a lower level. And Belkar is definitely more ruthless.)

SPoD

2008-06-13, 05:14 AM

The Oracle's tower is shown from the outside in Start of Darkness; it's a lone tower in the middle of an empty valley. No city.

TigerHunter

2008-06-13, 05:19 AM

The Oracle's tower is shown from the outside in Start of Darkness; it's a lone tower in the middle of an empty valley. No city.
Really? I don't remember that.

Oh well, time to re-read.

Saninae

2008-06-13, 06:14 AM

While belkar can cause the death of more than one of those mentioned, as far as what the oracle said we cannot assume he does. Unless you do not interpret giving roy the ring of jumping as causing his death.

GooeyChewie

2008-06-13, 06:38 AM

On the subject of Belkar's lifespan...

I think Belkar may actually live a long life. The oracle doesn't say he's going to die, he just implies it. It may be that someone managing the IRA is stealing money out of it (so don't fund the crook) and Belkar's next birthday cake will be particularly tasty. Prophecies in the OotS world tend to work out in ways that make them literally true, but not what you might expect.

Or maybe none of it is actually prophecy and the oracle is just messing with the Order.

SPoD

2008-06-13, 06:46 AM

Really? I don't remember that.

Oh well, time to re-read.

It's during the scene where Eugene is recounting how the Blood Oath got started.

gamerboy6000

2008-06-13, 08:11 AM

Kato

2008-06-13, 08:38 AM

Hm... though I also consider the death of Roy to be Bs fulfillment.. I wouldn't mind him yelling at the oracle for such a cheap kill ('I didn't even get any XP for it!!!') Then, as already mentioned, he might kill the oracle as well, for getting at least some ^^ Also, I don't think the oracle, being a cleric, can stand any chance against a close range expert as B, being ranger and barbarian. He'd cut his throat before he can incant any spell at all.

Red XIV

2008-06-13, 02:46 PM

He / It couldn't defend against Roy & Durkon then (OK, so they were two, but they also were presumably on a lower level. And Belkar is definitely more ruthless.)
Roy also had a considerable size advantage. When it comes to grappling (and I think grabbling the Oracle to dangle him out a window counts), that matters (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html). Belkar, quite obviously, has no such advantage.

David Argall

2008-06-13, 03:11 PM

Why in the world would this be a city, any more than a woodsman's hut in the middle of the forest is a city?
The question more is what does Belkar want to risk? He has to abide by the spell's definition of city, and has no way to determine what that was. So if it might be a city, Belkar had best assume it is.

The Oracle does not live alone in his tower. He has a staff, and given Goblin Dan, there may be a substantial population, plus a steady stream of visitors asking questions. So calling the area a city is not impossible, and so Belkar may well decide that city rules had better be followed.

On the subject of Belkar's lifespan...

I think Belkar may actually live a long life. The oracle doesn't say he's going to die, he just implies it.

Implies is stronger in such cases than says. It is almost a given that what a prophet says is only "right", and will be grossly wrong from a less technical view. Thus we have Belkar if he will cause the death of, meaning killing, and is told yes, and it seems likely he will kill none of the above.
But the implications are there as hints to us, and are much more solid clues. So Belkar is looking at a short lifespan. It can be extended a little, say by not eating birthcake, but some time not too distant, the OOTS world will be a little safer.

Ziren

2008-06-13, 03:38 PM

Belklar caused Roy to die, he gave Roy the ring of jumping, letting him get on the dragon, causing his death. Belklar has already fufilled his prophecy.

I've always thought that this was a pretty far-fetched theory. If you argue like that, you could also say that Sara Greenhilt caused his death by giving birth to him.

FujinAkari

2008-06-13, 04:07 PM

I've always thought that this was a pretty far-fetched theory. If you argue like that, you could also say that Sara Greenhilt caused his death by giving birth to him.

Not according to the definition of causality. Causality requires two things to be true:

1) The actor must commit a deliberate action. (Thus, Durkon cannot be said to have caused Roy's death due to not talking him out of attacking Xykon alone, failing to stop something is not a deliberate action.)
2) A reasonable person must be able to foresee the possible consequences of said deliberate action. (This is what prevents Sara Greenhilt from having caused his death.)

So yes, Belkar DID cause Roy's death. He wasn't the primary cause (that would be Xykon) but was still a cause. He committed a deliberate action (giving Roy the ring) and was aware of the consequence (so much so that he bet on where Roy would be stupid enough to do it.)

Xykon, Roy, and Eugene also helped cause Roy's death, but not Durkon, Sara, or The Ground :P

Occasional Sage

2008-06-13, 04:26 PM

The question more is what does Belkar want to risk? He has to abide by the spell's definition of city, and has no way to determine what that was. So if it might be a city, Belkar had best assume it is.

The Oracle does not live alone in his tower. He has a staff, and given Goblin Dan, there may be a substantial population, plus a steady stream of visitors asking questions. So calling the area a city is not impossible, and so Belkar may well decide that city rules had better be followed.
*snip*

A single populous and oft-visited building is not a city, by any definition of the word. The MoJ doesn't specify "civilized area" or "population center" or even "urban area" for its effects, but a city.

If either of the first were used I could see your point, and could perhaps stretch to the third. But, please explain how you see this as being interpretable as a city: what definition of "city" would the Tower fit, or in what way does the oracle's home exceed the definition of even a village?

Ziren

2008-06-13, 04:44 PM

2) A reasonable person must be able to foresee the possible consequences of said deliberate action. (This is what prevents Sara Greenhilt from having caused his death.)

Well, if you give birth to a human, you can be sure that he/she will die some day. Unless that person becomes a lich or something and for most people, that would be an even worse outcome :smalltongue:

MrEdwardNigma

2008-06-13, 04:57 PM

I say Belkar kills the Oracle. It is simply too much of a coincidence they return here when he was mentioned in the prophecy. As he knows he's going to die, there's likely to be a cleric present, allowing them to ressurect Roy and the orcale. It all works out.

FujinAkari

2008-06-13, 05:07 PM

Well, if you give birth to a human, you can be sure that he/she will die some day. Unless that person becomes a lich or something and for most people, that would be an even worse outcome :smalltongue:

*bap*

This is what I get for trying to be reasonable :smallsmile:

Emperor Ing

2008-06-13, 05:23 PM

we all know Belkar caused Roy's death
there was a thread or something a while ago or something (sorry about nonsense,)
That Belkar is very indirectly responsible for Miko's death.
however, let me develop into this a bit more.
Miko was unhappy with belkar. She never could read his alignment with the lead sheet, but it arose suspicions in her. As a result, she became untrusting of the OOTS. When she overheard Shojo talking about how he saved their skins...illegally. Miko went berserk, and went on a tangent about how the OOTS and Shojo are working with Xykon to destroy Azure City. The results? Miko kills Shojo, loses her palladin-ness, and lands in the AC jails. Where she escapes to defend the throne room, thinks that all hope is lost, so she destroys the gate, causing her death.

My apologies if this doesnt make any sense. I can try to clarify.
The prophecy has been fulfilled twice!

Now my theory is that the Oracle will die by indirect cause of Belkar. Say, seeing his own death at the hands of the evil halfling, and accidentally getting himself killed.
Prolly wont happen though.

chiasaur11

2008-06-13, 05:31 PM

Nah.
The Oracle has some sense. He wouldn't set things up so as to be killed by Belkar if he had another option.

FujinAkari

2008-06-13, 05:49 PM

Miko was unhappy with belkar. She never could read his alignment with the lead sheet, but it arose suspicions in her. As a result, she became untrusting of the OOTS. When she overheard Shojo talking about how he saved their skins...illegally. Miko went berserk, and went on a tangent about how the OOTS and Shojo are working with Xykon to destroy Azure City. The results? Miko kills Shojo, loses her palladin-ness, and lands in the AC jails. Where she escapes to defend the throne room, thinks that all hope is lost, so she destroys the gate, causing her death.

My apologies if this doesnt make any sense. I can try to clarify.
The prophecy has been fulfilled twice!

No. Again, refer to the definition of causality.

It has to be clear, to a reasonable person, that antagonizing Miko could lead to her killing Shojo, being placed in prison, escaping, and thus being in position to sacrifice herself for Azure City... that just isn't the case. There is NO WAY anyone could predict that chain of events.

Therefore, Belkar did not cause Miko's death.

David Argall

2008-06-13, 09:37 PM

Causality requires two things to be true:

1) The actor must commit a deliberate action. (Thus, Durkon cannot be said to have caused Roy's death due to not talking him out of attacking Xykon alone, failing to stop something is not a deliberate action.)
While this is indicative, it is not a requirement. Generally, passive action, or inaction, is simply too hard to prove as a cause. However negligence cases are often cases of causing something by inaction. In the comic we have SoD Right-eye blaming Xykon for the death of his family since he sat and watched them being killed.

It has to be clear, to a reasonable person, that antagonizing Miko could lead to her killing Shojo, being placed in prison, escaping, and thus being in position to sacrifice herself for Azure City... that just isn't the case. There is NO WAY anyone could predict that chain of events.

However, if one is not so precise in the prediction, a reasonable person might be able to predict bad results. [You send a perfumed letter from "Cuddles" to a husband so it ends in the hands of his wife. You can be blamed whether she shoots him or he shoots her.]
In the Azure City case, Belkar and party were engaged in illegal activity. They are assumed to be able to figure out that bad things will happen if their crime is discovered. It doesn't matter whether that bad things is Miko running amuk or a civil war or... The party took the risk and bears some of the responsibility.

Now as to Miko in particular...

Belkar is very indirectly responsible for Miko's death.

Miko was unhappy with belkar. She never could read his alignment with the lead sheet, but it arose suspicions in her. As a result, she became untrusting of the OOTS. When she overheard Shojo talking about how he saved their skins...illegally. Miko went berserk, and went on a tangent about how the OOTS and Shojo are working with Xykon to destroy Azure City. The results? Miko kills Shojo, loses her palladin-ness, and lands in the AC jails. Where she escapes to defend the throne room, thinks that all hope is lost, so she destroys the gate, causing her death.
Now the basic point is that almost all of these actions happened before Belkar asked his question. And Belkar's question is asking about the future, meaning that past causes are not to be considered.
Belkar's interactions with Miko after this point are distinctly limited, and on the face of it, not a notable contribution to her death. So for the purpose of the Oracle, Belkar didn't cause Miko's death.

Red XIV

2008-06-13, 10:30 PM

There's one other reason for Roy's death to be the fulfillment of the Oracle's prophecy to Belkar: it's funnier that way. As Kato aluded to earlier in this thread, imagine Belkar's reaction if he finds out. He'd be quite angry that his "kill" was neither deliberate nor even directly his doing.

Liwen

2008-06-13, 11:47 PM

Wait what about the fact that the theory of Roy's death being the fulilment of belkar's prophecy is well known and thus wouldn't be as funny as something unexpected? What if Belkar is going to kill someone named "You"? What if the oracle lied just so Rich can laugh at us making predictions and fabulously pointless theories?

factotum

2008-06-14, 12:37 AM

What if the oracle lied just so Rich can laugh at us making predictions and fabulously pointless theories?

The Oracle is supposed to be 100% accurate, and certainly every prophecy which has definitively come true so far has turned out to be correct--I don't see Rich suddenly deciding the Oracle *isn't* all that accurate after all, because it would be a really cheap shot if he did.

Personally I'm in the camp that thinks Belkar didn't cause Roy's death with the Ring of Jumping, so I'm really interested to see if this visit to the Oracle proves me wrong!

Emperor Ing

2008-06-14, 07:21 AM

It has to be clear, to a reasonable person, that antagonizing Miko could lead to her killing Shojo, being placed in prison, escaping, and thus being in position to sacrifice herself for Azure City... that just isn't the case.
Therefore, Belkar did not cause Miko's death.

He indirectly led to Miko's demise, which, to be fair, in my opinion, was set into course before they saw the Oracle.

There is NO WAY anyone could predict that chain of events.
The oracle said yes, that belkar would cause the death of Roy, Miko, V, and the oracle. Besides, I dont recall the oracle giving the specifics on how Belkar is the indirect cause of Miko's destruction. The way I see it, he saw miko's death, and ran down the really complicated chain of events to come to the same conclusion I am.

Greg

2008-06-14, 09:04 AM

The Oracle is supposed to be 100% accurate, and certainly every prophecy which has definitively come true so far has turned out to be correct--I don't see Rich suddenly deciding the Oracle *isn't* all that accurate after all, because it would be a really cheap shot if he did.
His prophecies are 100% accurate. What he said to Belkar about savouring his next birthday cake was an offhand comment, which IMO was just to annoy Belkar.

puzpuz

2008-06-14, 10:01 AM

Gamerlord

2008-06-14, 10:09 AM

Well, you'v detailed it too much, but the general idea sounds very logical.

SPOILER:

But if Rich Burlew is not stupid, and I bet he is not stupid, he won't let Belkar die, ot if he WILL let Belkar die - Durkon will bring him back to life. And that's beacause Belkar is one of the most admired characters in this comic.
"Most admired" what webcomic are you reading, I WANT belkar to die for crimes against goblinkind!

EDIT:and so does 70% of the CG,NG, and LE and also NE population of the forums.

puzpuz

2008-06-14, 10:18 AM

"Most admired" what webcomic are you reading, I WANT belkar to die for crimes against goblinkind!

EDIT:and so does 70% of the CG,NG, and LE and also NE population of the forums.

I didn't understand all these CG, NG, LE and NE words... :smalltongue: And I don't know about any crimes that he did to the goblins and didn't do to any other specie... He's a criminal against the WHOLE world, as much as I know... And I don't know about you, but everyone that I know likes Belkar, and 2 of my friends think that he's the collest character... I pur him in 2nd place, right after Xykon and Elan. :smalltongue:

Red XIV

2008-06-14, 11:38 AM

Well, you'v detailed it too much, but the general idea sounds very logical.

SPOILER:

But if Rich Burlew is not stupid, and I bet he is not stupid, he won't let Belkar die, ot if he WILL let Belkar die - Durkon will bring him back to life. And that's beacause Belkar is one of the most admired characters in this comic.
The Oracle implied that Belkar had less than two years to live. That could easily put Belkar's death at the end of the story.

puzpuz

2008-06-14, 12:18 PM

we all know Belkar caused Roy's death
there was a thread or something a while ago or something (sorry about nonsense,)
That Belkar is very indirectly responsible for Miko's death.
however, let me develop into this a bit more.
Miko was unhappy with belkar. She never could read his alignment with the lead sheet, but it arose suspicions in her. As a result, she became untrusting of the OOTS. When she overheard Shojo talking about how he saved their skins...illegally. Miko went berserk, and went on a tangent about how the OOTS and Shojo are working with Xykon to destroy Azure City. The results? Miko kills Shojo, loses her palladin-ness, and lands in the AC jails. Where she escapes to defend the throne room, thinks that all hope is lost, so she destroys the gate, causing her death.

My apologies if this doesnt make any sense. I can try to clarify.

Objection! Miko made some decisions which have caused Roy's death. It's because Miko is idiot, it's not Belkar's fault! :smallmad:

FujinAkari

2008-06-14, 02:14 PM

The oracle said yes, that belkar would cause the death of Roy, Miko, V, and the oracle. Besides, I dont recall the oracle giving the specifics on how Belkar is the indirect cause of Miko's destruction. The way I see it, he saw miko's death, and ran down the really complicated chain of events to come to the same conclusion I am.

No. The Oracle said that belkar would cause the death of AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: Roy, Miko, V, The Oracle, or Miko's Horse.

Since it it clear that Belkar was a partial cause of Roy's death, the prophesy is fulfilled, and it cannot be used as support for some wild conclusion of how Belkar caused Miko's death.

You need to be able to show direct causation. Merely contributing to a situation that creates an environment which allows events to occur is not the same as causing the end result to happen.

David Argall

2008-06-14, 03:25 PM

He indirectly led to Miko's demise, which, to be fair, in my opinion, was set into course before they saw the Oracle.
And thus would not be covered by the question. "Do I get to", Not "Did I" or "Have I caused". Only events after 331 can be counted as causing anything for this question.

The oracle said yes, that belkar would cause the death of Roy, Miko, V, and the oracle.
That is OR, one of the above. It does not negate the prophecy if he gets more than one, but there is no implication here he does.

Besides, I dont recall the oracle giving the specifics on how Belkar is the indirect cause of Miko's destruction. The way I see it, he saw miko's death, and ran down the really complicated chain of events to come to the same conclusion I am.
There are two major objections here. As noted above, the fact that nearly all the factors listed have already happened by 331 means they do not fit the question and are not ways that Belkar would get to cause the death of Miko.
Then there is the point that this argument requires the use of a very loose definition of "cause", roughly so loose that the Oracle has to answer yes. Belkar would be a cause of the death of nearly everyone who died after 331.

His prophecies are 100% accurate. What he said to Belkar about savouring his next birthday cake was an offhand comment, which IMO was just to annoy Belkar.
And on the record to date, his offhand comments have also been 100% accurate. We have no sign that his prophecy is limited to the official spell [which seems only to be there to give immunity to the memory wash]. Nor does the kobold seem particularly annoyed at Belkar. He has much more reason to be annoyed with Roy.
But most important is that this would be cheating by the writer. We are being told to rely on the "word" of the prophet and for that to be outright false raises hackles. The statement doesn't mean exactly what seems obvious, but it means something.

puzpuz

2008-06-14, 03:32 PM

LOL, I see where Rich Burlew is going... He wanted us all to talk about it for monthes, waiting in tension, when he knows that it'l just be the damn horse... :smallbiggrin:

Gamerlord

2008-06-14, 06:34 PM

LOL, I see where Rich Burlew is going... He wanted us all to talk about it for monthes, waiting in tension, when he knows that it'l just be the damn horse... :smallbiggrin:
I don't think so, Rich whould'nt suicide bomb his career

puzpuz

2008-06-14, 11:17 PM

Why do you call it like that? I think it would be hilarious... :smalltongue:

Admiral_Kelly

2008-06-15, 01:44 PM

Belkar caused Roy's Death by giving him the Ring of Jumping. Belkar committed the action with full knowledge of the possible result (he even bet money on if Roy would be stupid enough to do it!)No. Belkar may have provided the means, and may have had intent on Roy dying, but giving Roy the ring had nothing to do with his death. Otherwise, not only did Belkar cause his death but also everyone who had helped got him to that point (Haley figuring out Xykon's 'con-game' tactic, the seer spotting Xykon on his dragon, Durukon dispelling the invisibility, Miko finding Roy, Sojo ordering Miko to find Roy, the list goes on forever up to and beyond the gods) is also a quasi-killer; which is absurd.

To further add to my argument, what if Xxykon deiced to capture Roy, imprison him, then twenty years later slit his throat? Clearly Belkar had nothing to with that - oh wait! He gave the ring of jumping. None of this would have happened if Belkar did not give Roy the ring of jumping. Therefore, Belkar caused Roy's death of having his throat slit by Xxycon twenty years before it happened!

Xxycon killed Roy by making him fall to his death. Xxycon was the only one involved in Roy's death; end of discussion.

Paladin29

2008-06-15, 02:55 PM

No. Belkar may have provided the means, and may have had intent on Roy dying, but giving Roy the ring had nothing to do with his death. Otherwise, not only did Belkar cause his death but also everyone who had helped got him to that point (Haley figuring out Xykon's 'con-game' tactic, the seer spotting Xykon on his dragon, Durukon dispelling the invisibility, Miko finding Roy, Sojo ordering Miko to find Roy, the list goes on forever up to and beyond the gods) is also a quasi-killer; which is absurd.

To further add to my argument, what if Xxykon deiced to capture Roy, imprison him, then twenty years later slit his throat? Clearly Belkar had nothing to with that - oh wait! He gave the ring of jumping. None of this would have happened if Belkar did not give Roy the ring of jumping. Therefore, Belkar caused Roy's death of having his throat slit by Xxycon twenty years before it happened!

Xxycon killed Roy by making him fall to his death. Xxycon was the only one involved in Roy's death; end of discussion.

Well, I am not sure about the "Belkar cause Roy death" theory, but I think it is plausible, i mean: the oracle never said that Belkar will KILL anyone of them, he only said that he WILL CAUSE the death of at least one of them.. Belkar knows that Roy will fight with a epic lich who probably will kill Roy without much effort (remember the defeat of Xykon in the first encounter has much to do with luck and surprise). Belkar gives the ring knowing all of that.. so in some way he causes the death of Roy letting him go to a certain death. But if it is the true fullfilment of the prophecy, only Rich Burlew knows.

And BTW, I don´t like that "end of discussion".. your arguments are really far to be conclusive.

David Argall

2008-06-15, 03:52 PM

No. Belkar may have provided the means, and may have had intent on Roy dying, but giving Roy the ring had nothing to do with his death. Otherwise, not only did Belkar cause his death but also everyone who had helped got him to that point (Haley figuring out Xykon's 'con-game' tactic, the seer spotting Xykon on his dragon, Durukon dispelling the invisibility, Miko finding Roy, Sojo ordering Miko to find Roy, the list goes on forever up to and beyond the gods) is also a quasi-killer; which is absurd.

Nope, simple reality for the most part, tho it depends in part on the definition of cause.

Xxycon killed Roy by making him fall to his death. Xxycon was the only one involved in Roy's death; end of discussion.
Hardly even the beginning.

Now except for specialized meanings we don't talk of anything having only one cause. All events have many, even infinite numbers of, causes. We can call Xykon the proximate cause, but he is not at all the only cause.

John and Jack get together to kill Sam. Is Jack innocent just because he didn't pull the trigger? He lured Sam there, knocked him out, supplied the gun to John, and urged him to shoot. So how is he not a cause? We can go further, and have Moe lure him there, Al knock him out, Larry supplying the gun, and Max paying all the others for the hit. Are they all not causes? We can argue that some are more important than others. Indeed some may be trivial in blame. But each and every one of them has been a cause of the killing.
We look at accidents. An [incorrect, but still wise] saying goes that it takes two idiots to cause a traffic accident, and thus you should not be the first one. A is speeding and B makes a turn without looking. Did they not both cause the accident? The cops may well give them both tickets.
You step on a ladder, and the step breaks, giving you a nasty fall. Was the accident caused by you failing to check the ladder? By termites? By the ladder company not making the ladder termite proof? Are not all of these causes of the accident?
We look at the law. There is an illegal public disturbance. The cops may arrest any number of people on the charge of causing that disturbance, not just the alleged ringleader.

Any time an alternate set of your actions would have prevented something, you are a cause of what happened. We blame you when that is or should be apparent to you, but you are still a cause even when no flaw is found in your behavior.

hamishspence

2008-06-16, 08:11 AM

Cause is iffy. I like the example of the enemies paradox: person is going into desert, his two enemies independantly decide to murder him. One poisons his waterskin, the other, not knowing about it, cuts the bottom. The victim dies of thirst. Who is guilty of murder?

There are arguments for both sides. the poisoner has guaranteed that if his enemy goes into desert he will die. Yet enemy has not died of poison.

The waterskin cutter has tried to ensure the enemy died of thirst, and he did, yet he has actually unknowingly prolonged the life of his enemy, and removing poisoned water does not count as killing him.

So we have a blurry area. Both guilty of intent to murder, yet hard to say who actually killed him.

So, again, you can't just say that Belkars involvement makes him a cause of Roys death, it was Roy's decision. Belkar is not guilty of murder, manslaughter, or negligence in this context.

David Argall

2008-06-16, 03:10 PM

Both guilty of intent to murder, yet hard to say who actually killed him.

So, again, you can't just say that Belkars involvement makes him a cause of Roys death,
We pretty much can. The example here is irrelevant since there is no confusion here about who caused what. Belkar gave him the ring and as a result Roy died. We can argue how serious a cause he was and where he ranks among causes, but he is clearly a cause.

it was Roy's decision. Belkar is not guilty of murder, manslaughter, or negligence in this context.
That depends on the judge and the legal system. Assisting with a suicide is often a crime, even if one rarely punished. And assisting Roy to engage in a dangerous activity thus also is potentially criminal.
Now in a rational system [which is not to be assumed], Roy's decision should protect Belkar from criminal sanctions. He knew the odds at least as well as Belkar, and should be able to evaluate the situation better.
But that does not mean Belkar is not a cause of Roy's death, not at all. Roy probably does not blame Belkar at all for giving him the ring, but if he had not got the ring, he would not have been able to annoy Xykon enough to get himself killed.

turkishproverb

2008-06-16, 04:39 PM

Prophecy or not, what stops Belkar from killing the Oracle anyway:belkar:?

Lol. I can see that.

"HA! So this is how the prophecy comes true! I get to kill you!"
"...You've already caused the death of someone on the list"
"****it! How?"
"You caused your *erm* friend roy's death by giving him the ring of jumping"
"So the prophesy is fulfilled?"
"...yes."
"****it!"

*Three panels later*

"I just realised something. Your prophesy was fulfilled about me killing one of the following you, Roy..."
"They can look at the Achives."
"Right anyway, So, whats to keep me from killing you. YOu know, right now, even though the prophecy has been fulfilled?"
*Wide eyed oracle*
*STAB*

FujinAkari

2008-06-16, 05:06 PM

Otherwise, not only did Belkar cause his death but also everyone who had helped got him to that point (Haley figuring out Xykon's 'con-game' tactic, the seer spotting Xykon on his dragon, Durukon dispelling the invisibility, Miko finding Roy, Sojo ordering Miko to find Roy, the list goes on forever up to and beyond the gods) is also a quasi-killer; which is absurd.

Didn't I already cover this? :smallmad:

Causality requires an aspect of forseeability. If an average person cannot know that a specific action might lead to a certain result, then that actor cannot be trying to cause that result, as it could not be anticipated. For this reason, all of your examples are invalid. Durkon had no way of knowing that Roy would leap up to challenge Xykon one-on-one, nor did Miko have any way of foreseeing that Xykon would even be attacking Azure City when she found the OOTS.

Belkar, by contrast, knew full well what would happen if he provided the ring, so much so that he wagered money on it. This is why he is a cause of Roy's death, along with Eugene, Roy himself, and Xykon (who is the main cause).

Xxycon killed Roy by making him fall to his death. Xxycon was the only one involved in Roy's death; end of discussion.

Yes, Xykon killed Roy, but claiming that he was the only cause of his death is nothing short of ludicrous. Roy chose to fight an epic level lich one-on-one and refused several offers to back out of the fight. SURELY Roy bears some responcibility for what happened. Events pretty much never have just ONE cause, as David said, and trying to pretend otherwise is, frankly, kinda silly.

Xykon killed Roy, but kill and cause are different words, don't treat them as synonyms.

Cause is iffy.

Cause does provide some wiggle room, but not in this case. Cause requires you to preform an action which can be shown to lead directly to a result (which Belkar, along with pretty much everyone else present did) and it requires an aspect of foreseeability, which the comic PROVES Belkar had by demonstrating that he gambled on whether Roy would be "stupid enough to do that."

Without the gambling, you MIGHT be able to argue that Belkar legitimately thought Roy could defeat Xykon, but the bet proves he didn't. This is what makes him a cause of Roy's death, pretty much beyond the point of contrition.

I like the example of the enemies paradox: person is going into desert, his two enemies independantly decide to murder him. One poisons his waterskin, the other, not knowing about it, cuts the bottom. The victim dies of thirst. Who is guilty of murder?

This is a decent paradox, but seems irrelevant. No one is saying Belkar murdered Roy, merely that he caused his death. As I said to Kelly, don't treat the terms as synonymous, they aren't.

So, again, you can't just say that Belkars involvement makes him a cause of Roys death, it was Roy's decision. Belkar is not guilty of murder, manslaughter, or negligence in this context.

Except that murder, manslaughter, and negligence all have nothing to do with what is actually being discussed.