Is everything pre-determined in OOTS world?

[mjasghar]

Maybe prophecy is Dune style.

The future is fixed at the point that a prescient individual observes it. So only things specifically observed by a prescient like the Oracle are determined and anything not so observed are still undetermined.

No
This is a story with the endings pretty much fixed in the authors head
So it will happen but as it’s written over a period of time Rich may decide to alter things so they are technically true
As an example I think (willing to be corrected) he would not have that scene where the group lets Belkar kill some random bloke for convenience sake. At that point he was still having Belkar be the murder hobo joke about how role-playing groups let people get away with stuff so that they can keep playing together

[Schroeswald]

Didn’t Spoiler Alert reveal something about Sangwaan’s prophecy powers? Never read it but I think I’ve heard something vague about that.

[GloatingSwine]

No
This is a story with the endings pretty much fixed in the authors head
So it will happen but as it’s written over a period of time Rich may decide to alter things so they are technically true
As an example I think (willing to be corrected) he would not have that scene where the group lets Belkar kill some random bloke for convenience sake. At that point he was still having Belkar be the murder hobo joke about how role-playing groups let people get away with stuff so that they can keep playing together

The thread is clearly looking for diagetic answers, so trying to look smug by giving non-diagetic ones is not helpful to the original inquirer.

[woweedd]

The thread is clearly looking for diagetic answers, so trying to look smug by giving non-diagetic ones is not helpful to the original inquirer.

I mean, 4th-wall breaking is common in-comic, particularly as regards The Oracle: He explicitly states that he can read Haley's speech by "looking forward to the point where this particular strip is complied into a book and reading the translation". Or his noting the difference between a real-world year and in-comic year. And unlike other 4th-wall gags, these ones are actually called out as unusual by other characters, which leads me to read them as diegetic. So...It's entirely possible that IS how his powers work on a diegetic level

[mjasghar]

Give me a diagetic explanation of how a character obtained a diamond for a raise dead spell by taking it from a cover strip of the comic

[KorvinStarmast]

Is everything pre-determined in OOTS world?

Yes and no.

Yes, that's the point of a prophecy. You say something vague and people interpret it.

Yes. The story of Oedipus and a similar thing done by Robert Jordan in Waste of Time Wheel of Time: prophesy is only partly understood by those receiving it.

(As it happens, as far as I am concerned, you and Peelee combined have the full answer: OotS is Doylist deterministic, what with it being a story Rich is telling, and Watsonian free-willed)

My answer was pithier, but I think it fits your template.

How so? Just because the Giant knew, doesn't mean he told Tiamat or that Tiamat told the oracle.

Giant gets to talk to dragons. Nice deal. (Also, this post put me to thinking about a story from a few decades ago by R.A McAvoy: Tea With a Black Dragon.

Give me a diagetic explanation of how a character obtained a diamond for a raise dead spell by taking it from a cover strip of the comic

The self aware parody world was already established "in world" and the breaking of the fourth wall as a thing that happens was established in book 1. (Lawyers taking the ililthid away).

In world, fourth wall breaking is part of how this world works.

(And we see here an argument for ultimate power (the power of the narrator) being a very doily-ist structural component of this tale. )

[mjasghar]

My comment was directed at the person who was basically saying we need an in world explanation to cover something that is entirely due to the realities of writing and production

[KorvinStarmast]

My comment was directed at the person who was basically saying we need an in world explanation to cover something that is entirely due to the realities of writing and production

I wasn't sure which post that was referring to, so I just riffed off of that as a general idea. (I now see that it was a response to woweed, or was it to gloating swine?). In an on line forum, we sometimes reply to a post and as we are so doing, a few other replies in between. (So I use the quote function a lot to be clear).

[Schroeswald]

My comment was directed at the person who was basically saying we need an in world explanation to cover something that is entirely due to the realities of writing and production

But it um, wasn’t? That is not what the statement you responded to was Gloating Swine giving a possible (diagetic) explanation for how prophecies work in the Oots world (it’s like Dune), and then you said:

No
This is a story with the endings pretty much fixed in the authors head
So it will happen but as it’s written over a period of time Rich may decide to alter things so they are technically true
As an example I think (willing to be corrected) he would not have that scene where the group lets Belkar kill some random bloke for convenience sake. At that point he was still having Belkar be the murder hobo joke about how role-playing groups let people get away with stuff so that they can keep playing together

Disagreeing with the completely diagetic explanation with completely non-diagetic logic, you basically responded to the assertion that perhaps only what you see in the future has to happen with the idea that Rich might change what the prophecies meant over the writing of the strip, which doesn’t actually disprove anything gloating swine said (diagetic and non-diagetic), was pretty smug, and the idea that the reason Rich made the prophecies vague was so he could change his mind is IMO ridiculous, when you make prophecies in a work of fiction it’s vague for obvious storytelling reasons, I am almost that every prophecy we have seen come true came true much the same as Rich planned when he gave it (with small changes for little details, maybe V’s four words were slightly different, maybe the destruction was meant to be all Greg).

[mjasghar]

Thank you for completely missing my point

[Schroeswald]

Thank you for completely missing my point

Okay then, what is your point, and spell it out for me as simple as possible because I can’t see it.

[mjasghar]

You’re not interested in a debate, instead you repeat personal attacks so no.

[Schroeswald]

I am interested in debating you, but since I clearly don’t understand your argument I would like to understand it better because what I read seemed smug, silly and a very bad argument against what Gloating Swine said.

[woweedd]

Give me a diagetic explanation of how a character obtained a diamond for a raise dead spell by taking it from a cover strip of the comic

They already had the diamonds needed, and they only lost them for the purposes of that joke. It was just a random gag, might as well never have happened, aside from giving us a good joke.

[Morgana]

No, simply because that would go against pretty much everything Rich tries to achieve with his writing. How would characters not having free will work towards conveying any of the messages Rich has explicitedly said he was trying to convey in his work? Why would he go to such great lengths to show characters breaking away from expectations and defying odds if all of them were just puppets on a string? The type of cynism that would come with the inevitability of everything is frankly extremely out of place in a story like this, and would just serve to add a needless layer of cynism, something that Rich actively strives to avoid doing.

[Morgana]

Also just cause the comic has some meta elements doesn't mean that the ending being already planned in the real world means that free will doesn't exist inside the story. Tarkin's whole thing was that he failed to understand that while following narrative rules to some extent, the people he was hurting weren't just characters, and as far as the comic is concerned although self aware at times the stickverse is actually a real place with real people that don't exist just as props for a story, and have aspirations and agency of their own.

[woweedd]

No, simply because that would go against pretty much everything Rich tries to achieve with his writing. How would characters not having free will work towards conveying any of the messages Rich has explicitedly said he was trying to convey in his work? Why would he go to such great lengths to show characters breaking away from expectations and defying odds if all of them were just puppets on a string? The type of cynism that would come with the inevitability of everything is frankly extremely out of place in a story like this, and would just serve to add a needless layer of cynism, something that Rich actively strives to avoid doing.

What about the Oracle? Or Odin?

[Morgana]

Oracle isn't omniscient, otherwise Tiamat would be rulling the world by now, and there's no evidence to determine either can accurately predict the future to a fineprint

[woweedd]

Oracle isn't omniscient, otherwise Tiamat would be rulling the world by now, and there's no evidence to determine either can accurately predict the future to a fineprint

He can predict the moment of his death down to the minute. Plus, you know, the massive number of successful prophecies, and his explicitly stated ability to read future books, which, unlike other 4th-wall breaks, is acknowledged as unusual in-universe, implying it's diagnetic.

[KorvinStarmast]

implying it's diagnetic.

Let's leave L. Ron Hubbard out of this.

[Dion]

He can predict the moment of his death down to the minute. Plus, you know, the massive number of successful prophecies, and his explicitly stated ability to read future books, which, unlike other 4th-wall breaks, is acknowledged as unusual in-universe, implying it's diagnetic.

So are you saying you believe the Oracle is omniscient, i.e has complete, total, and absolute knowledge of all events future and past?

Does he, for example, know exactly how many bits will be drawn on sigdi’s axe in the next comic?

[HorizonWalker]

So are you saying you believe the Oracle is omniscient, i.e has complete, total, and absolute knowledge of all events future and past?

Does he, for example, know exactly how many bits will be drawn on sigdi’s axe in the next comic?

That's more than a bit disingenuous. You're the one saying omniscient and then posing a question that we will never get an answer to in an attempt to discredit a specific theory that, again, you're the one who raised.

[KorvinStarmast]

So are you saying you believe the Oracle is omniscient, i.e has complete, total, and absolute knowledge of all events future and past?

From what the kobold oracle has done on screen, he appears to have to go into a partciular state in order to get the view into the future. (Assist from Tiamat, it appears). That suggests to me that the oracle has a limited form of prescience, not omniscience, and that it isn't walking around 24/7 knowing all possible futures.

Does he, for example, know exactly how many bits will be drawn on sigdi’s axe in the next comic?

That's irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

[Dion]

That's more than a bit disingenuous. You're the one saying omniscient.

No, you’ve misread the thread. Woweed and Morgana were discussing the question of whether or not the oracle was omniscient.

The question of omniscience was certainly not raised by me first, and I confess to bristling at the accusation that discussing it is disingenuous.

That's irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

Ah... I’ll bring it back on point, then. Does the oracle know how many blades rey’s Lightsaber will have in the next movie?

[woweedd]

From what the kobold oracle has done on screen, he appears to have to go into a partciular state in order to get the view into the future. (Assist from Tiamat, it appears). That suggests to me that the oracle has a limited form of prescience, not omniscience, and that it isn't walking around 24/7 knowing all possible futures.

That's irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

Not really. Oh, he's not all-knowing: He needs to willingly think ab out the future to see it, hence his propensity for getting interrupted, but he doesn't need to be in the trance to do it: He knew Belkar was gonna die, and when, literally within seconds of meeting him, or his knowledge that Roy and Elan have "family reunions" coming up. Routine check-forward on new clients, to ensure payment and such. So he doesn't need the trance, but he does need to think ahead enough to check: That's how Roy got around the memory charm, as The Oracle didn't bother to ensure it would effect him.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not really.

yes, really.

Does he, for example, know exactly how many bits will be drawn on sigdi’s axe in the next comic?

Whatever the amount of omniscience the Oracle may or may not possess, it is limited to "in world" of the OoTS world, not how Rich will draw the comic using bits and pixels.

That isn't even fourth wall breaking: its a cartoon character (not real) predicting its creator's(real) next move.
That sentence by Dion, it's irrelevant to the discussion of the level of an in world (not real) omniscience measurement.

[woweedd]

yes, really.
Whatever the amount of omniscience the Oracle may or may not possess, it is limited to "in world" of OoTS world, not how Rich will draw the comic. That's the context.

I was disputing the part where he needs to enter a trance, which he clearly doesn't, judging by, for instance, his power to understand Haley.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was disputing the part where he needs to enter a trance, which he clearly doesn't, judging by, for instance, his power to understand Haley.

OK, I am not sure how that reads as "omniscient" rather than "plot service" but I have no dog in that fight. But let's examine some in world ideas here

1. I am pretty sure that there is a "comprehend languages" spell, and I will guess that there are feats that do something similar but I am not 3.5e expert so I can't point you to them.
2. Tiamat may have bestowed "comprehend languages" on the oracle.
3. There is a D&D 5e monk class feature that lets you understand all languages, but I am not sure if there is a 1 to 1 mapping of that to a similar 3.5e skill. Ya don't need omniscience, just a class feature.
Tongue of the Sun and Moon (5e)

Starting at 13th level, you learn to touch the ki of other minds so that you understand all spoken
languages. Moreover, any creature that can understand a language can understand what you say.

Given that 3.5e is a bit more 'overpowered' than 5e, I'd guess a monk in that edition has something similar.

EDIT:
OK, it is a level 17 Monk Class Feature in 3.5e per the SRD.

[woweedd]

OK, I am not sure how that reads as "omniscient" rather than "plot service" but I have no dog in that fight. But let's examine some in world ideas here

1. I am pretty sure that there is a "comprehend languages" spell, and I will guess that there are feats that do something similar but I am not 3.5e expert so I can't point you to them.
2. Tiamat may have bestowed "comprehend languages" on the oracle.
3. There is a D&D 5e monk class feature that lets you understand all languages, but I am not sure if there is a 1 to 1 mapping of that to a similar 3.5e skill. Ya don't need omniscience, just a class feature.
Tongue of the Sun and Moon (5e)

Given that 3.5e is a bit more 'overpowered' than 5e, I'd guess a monk in that edition has something similar.
(I'll check the SRD in a bit)

He explicitly states how he does that. He's reading the translations. Occam's Razor. Or, for that matter, how do you explain him knowing Belkar's eventual fate and Roy and Elan's forthcoming family meetings ahead of time?

[KorvinStarmast]

He explicitly states how he does that. He's reading the translations.

Fourth wall breaking, as with Haley's diamond retrieval.