OOTS #1196 - The Discussion Thread

[Peelee]

True. But consider that A: the Oracle is used to being brutally murdered, to the point of having an auto-rez squad (see following assertion that his next death will be a brutal mauling via angry druid).

I don't know if I'd call that "used to it." And even then, that doesn't mean he wouldn't take pleasure in the guy who killed him himself getting offed soon.

And B: has he ever given a straight prophecy with no twist?

Eugene's. Roy's regarding where Xykon was. Roy's regarding where Xykon was going to be first. Haley's. Elan's. V's Blackwing's. Belkar's. The Adult Black Dragon's.

Come to think of it, only Durkon's was a twist, because he wasn't an inanimate corpse like we all thought he would be. So one. One had a twist.

I'd be disappointed if this one was just simple and straight. Could just be me, though.

Think of it this way: is there any way the Oracle could have phrased the prophecy that you would accept Belkar would definitely die, and there be no way to twist the words into something other than Belkar dying? Because so far, the Oracle has said that he wasn't long for this world, should savor his next birthday cake, shouldn't bother funding his IRA, and would draw his last breath ever before the end of the year. All together, that sounds pretty definitive. Even if the Oracle said "Belkar Bitterleaf will die permanently," one could still make the metaphorical argument.

The Oracle doesn't tend to give prophecies that have twists. The Oracle does tend to give prophecies that are unhelpful. He does this to humanoids, and he also openly exhibits a marked disdain for humanoids, and Belkar in particular (or, at least, for the Order of the Stick specifically, and Belkar in particular).

[Jasdoif]

Come to think of it, only Durkon's was a twist, because he wasn't an inanimate corpse like we all thought he would be. So one. One had a twist.

I object: It happened after Durkon died and Durkon was (still) dead; so there was no twist in saying it would happen "posthumously".

Like the rest of the Oracle's prophecies, there are no twists in the meaning of the words; only in the context/expectations of when they come true.

[InvisibleBison]

Strip 1194.
"Never gave a damn what they thought before..." (clear implication that he has been caring what they think)

I don't see how you could possibly think the quote implies that Belkar has started caring about what other people think about him, given that the very next thing he says is that he's not going to start caring about what other people think about him.

[Ruck]

That predated Belkar's "last breath ever" prophecy.

But it doesn't predate the first time we see the Oracle snark about Belkar's short lifespan.

And B: has he ever given a straight prophecy with no twist?

That is basically all he's given. Why do you think otherwise? (I see others replied first. Basically this, and hey, let's bookend this post with Jasdoif quotes why not:

I object: It happened after Durkon died and Durkon was (still) dead; so there was no twist in saying it would happen "posthumously".

Like the rest of the Oracle's prophecies, there are no twists in the meaning of the words; only in the context/expectations of when they come true.

[Jasdoif]

The biggest mark against it (or, the hardest-to-argue-against for proponents) is a simple "why would the Oracle take such delight in gloating over the guy who killed him not getting any comeuppance at all?"

No comeuppance? What about the Mark of Justice and the village of "Lickmyballshalfling"?

That predated Belkar's "last breath ever" prophecy.

But it doesn't predate the first time we see the Oracle snark about Belkar's short lifespan.

True; but like I think Peelee might be getting at, there's not much sense to the Oracle deciding to start equivocating precisely when people don't want to believe what he's saying lying if the only comeuppance Belkar is actually going to get is what Roy had already witnessed.

[Peelee]

I object: It happened after Durkon died and Durkon was (still) dead; so there was no twist in saying it would happen "posthumously".

Like the rest of the Oracle's prophecies, there are no twists in the meaning of the words; only in the context/expectations of when they come true.

Eh, I have a tendency to cede arguable points in favor of the opposition, if only to make my own argument seem that much stronger due to holding even in the opposition's best possible case scenario.

True; but like I think Peelee might be getting at, there's not much sense to the Oracle deciding to start equivocating precisely when people don't want to believe what he's saying lying if the only comeuppance Belkar is actually going to get is what Roy had already witnessed.

....yyyyyes, I am indeed arguing intelligently and meant that all along!

[Rrmcklin]

No, Belkar is not trying to become LG, or to affect his alignment at all. He is pretending to have character growth.

That "faking sincerity" thing is pretty useful too.

In this case, he pretended to have character growth by faking a sincere interest in Vaarsuvius's welfare, but dropped it too soon to be believable.

No, he is not trying to have actual character growth. [He's having character growth, because we tend to slowly become more like the thing we are pretending to be, but he's not trying to grow; he's trying to fake growth.]

I feel like Belkar stopped trying to fake growth awhile ago (in real time); now he's actively trying to improve and is just bad at it because those kind of changes take actual time. But, yes, the reason he even got to the point to try and sincerely change at all is because his fake character growth jump started real growth.

[F.Harr]

Yay! Belkar's trying! I'm not sure this is the the most important thing to work on, but he's still trying!

[factotum]

I object: It happened after Durkon died and Durkon was (still) dead; so there was no twist in saying it would happen "posthumously".

In fact, I'm pretty sure the idea that the prophecy could mean Durkon returned home as an undead and brought death and destruction that way was suggested by people right back when it was first made, albeit they thought he would be an undead raised by Xykon rather than a vampire.

[Emanick]

I object: It happened after Durkon died and Durkon was (still) dead; so there was no twist in saying it would happen "posthumously".

Like the rest of the Oracle's prophecies, there are no twists in the meaning of the words; only in the context/expectations of when they come true.

I mean, isn't that basically what a twist is? A subversion of expectations, leading someone (such as Durkon) to expect one thing while in reality meaning something else entirely?

A twist isn't a wrong prophecy, it's just not a very helpful one, because it leads the recipient to expect something other than the true outcome. And that's what happened with Durkon.

So yeah, I don't necessarily have a problem with believing that The Oracle can give prophecies that may not be straightforward. If there were a plausible way in which Belkar's prophecy could be read that didn't lead to him dying, I'd consider it. That said, unless he's going to be imprisoned in a small cell in the Astral Plane forever, I don't see how any plausible interpretation could leave him alive.

I guess it's possible that the prophecy could have intentionally been false, given by Tiamat to The Oracle in order to ensure that the Order tolerates Belkar long enough for him to be instrumental in saving the multiverse from The Snarl. That said, I don't see Roy abandoning or killing Belkar even without the knowledge that he's going to die soon, so that's not a very compelling theory.

[happycrow]

I don't see how you could possibly think the quote implies that Belkar has started caring about what other people think about him, given that the very next thing he says is that he's not going to start caring about what other people think about him.

Since Minrah explicitly tells him ~"you have permission to change and not be held back by worrying about what people think about that change" literally in the preceding sentence?

Notice that I've also cherry picked the least favorable interpretation of Belkar in the last thread, too. He could have just rolled that thing about the cinnamon because he's flustered at V's "yeah ****ing right" reaction to ~"glad you're back safely," because it's an unspoken "what's your angle now, you evil scum?" So he provided one and trying to be better and having that rejected hurts.

[Jasdoif]

I object: It happened after Durkon died and Durkon was (still) dead; so there was no twist in saying it would happen "posthumously".

Like the rest of the Oracle's prophecies, there are no twists in the meaning of the words; only in the context/expectations of when they come true.

I mean, isn't that basically what a twist is? A subversion of expectations, leading someone (such as Durkon) to expect one thing while in reality meaning something else entirely?

That's the general family of "plot twists", yes.

It's a big family, however. "Literally true with unexpected context" is different from "figuratively true with expected context", "lying", "reasonably true if under different context", and "obviated by the author".

[Quizatzhaderac]

I'm not saying Belkar is/isn't planning to share now, but he did share his rations with Elan (and possibly Roy and Haley) in one of the DCF bonus strips.

The spice was a finite quantity exotic substance that Belkar may never see again. It also may have been wildly addictive. The sandwhich was after an extended period of not eating/digesting properly.

I'd guess Belkar not sharing is like lying. He'd do it if he has something to gain, can hurt someone, just to be funny, or if he just forgets. But he doesn't have a principled stance against sharing. That pound of cinnamon flavored oats is going to be more than Belkar can eat in a day.

But would he put sugar on it? And does it make any difference if it is cinnamon sugar?

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

DO you mean a sugar/cinnamon mix or sugar magically re-flavored to cinnamon?

Eugene is hardly an antagonist for the epic tale

He's absolutely not the antagonist of the story. But consider this, how many stories are in an epic?

Classically, an epic is several related stories told in sequence. The modern epic tends to have stories going in parallel as well (note the kajillion settings in Game of Thrones). When one breaks an epic down into enough sub stories, one can clearly see the have different styles, subjects, and even genres.

One of the many sub stories is the Greenhilt family drama. Eugene obviously doesn't fit the mold of "standard fantasy villain", but he can be a low-key antagonist for a low-key sub-story.

[JonahFalcon]

Remember: antagonist does not mean "villain".

[Hekko]

Think of it this way: is there any way the Oracle could have phrased the prophecy that you would accept Belkar would definitely die, and there be no way to twist the words into something other than Belkar dying? Because so far, the Oracle has said that he wasn't long for this world, should savor his next birthday cake, shouldn't bother funding his IRA, and would draw his last breath ever before the end of the year. All together, that sounds pretty definitive. Even if the Oracle said "Belkar Bitterleaf will die permanently," one could still make the metaphorical argument.

The Oracle doesn't tend to give prophecies that have twists. The Oracle does tend to give prophecies that are unhelpful. He does this to humanoids, and he also openly exhibits a marked disdain for humanoids, and Belkar in particular (or, at least, for the Order of the Stick specifically, and Belkar in particular).

These are also not prophecies as in "paid for products". These are his ramblings about things that he learnt from seeing future that no-one asked about.

Even if the Oracle intentionally phrased the prophecies to be ambigous, unclear, or misleading, Belkar's death is something he mentions in casual conversation with the expectation that everyone else will forget the information upon leaving the valley.

[Jannoire]

These are also not prophecies as in "paid for products". These are his ramblings about things that he learnt from seeing future that no-one asked about.

Even if the Oracle intentionally phrased the prophecies to be ambigous, unclear, or misleading, Belkar's death is something he mentions in casual conversation with the expectation that everyone else will forget the information upon leaving the valley.

Except for comic #572, where the oracle even pulled out his prophecy mode

[Peelee]

These are also not prophecies as in "paid for products". These are his ramblings about things that he learnt from seeing future that no-one asked about.

Even if the Oracle intentionally phrased the prophecies to be ambigous, unclear, or misleading, Belkar's death is something he mentions in casual conversation with the expectation that everyone else will forget the information upon leaving the valley.

Ya know, as much as I hammer on that being the only reason for the memory charm, I've never even thought about that aspect of it. Kudos!

[Doug Lampert]

DO you mean a sugar/cinnamon mix or sugar magically re-flavored to cinnamon?

I intended a sugar/cinnamon mix, but the other sounds fine too. Either one. Will a True Halfling put sugar on his porridge if it is mixed with cinnamon, or if it is flavored like cinnamon.

Both legitimate questions about the nature of true halflingdom.

[Scizor]

I intended a sugar/cinnamon mix, but the other sounds fine too. Either one. Will a True Halfling put sugar on his porridge if it is mixed with cinnamon, or if it is flavored like cinnamon.

Both legitimate questions about the nature of true halflingdom.

Sugar and cinnamon, accept no substitutes!

Also butter.

[littlebum2002]

That's the general family of "plot twists", yes.

It's a big family, however. "Literally true with unexpected context" is different from "figuratively true with expected context", "lying", "reasonably true if under different context", and "obviated by the author".

So you're saying it wasn't a twist even though it fits in the definition of the word "twist"?

[Jasdoif]

So has the "Belkar's prophesied 'death' is metaphorical" camp gained any more traction with this and other recent strips?

The self-delusional hard line hasn't really moved in the past several years, no.

The biggest mark against it (or, the hardest-to-argue-against for proponents) is a simple "why would the Oracle take such delight in gloating over the guy who killed him not getting any comeuppance at all?"

No comeuppance? What about the Mark of Justice and the village of "Lickmyballshalfling"?

The Oracle was brutally murdered and Belkar was sick for a week. Yeah, I'm sure the Oracle considers it even.

No clue how long Belkar was out for, actually.

And B: has he ever given a straight prophecy with no twist?

Come to think of it, only Durkon's was a twist, because he wasn't an inanimate corpse like we all thought he would be. So one. One had a twist.

I object: It happened after Durkon died and Durkon was (still) dead; so there was no twist in saying it would happen "posthumously".

Like the rest of the Oracle's prophecies, there are no twists in the meaning of the words; only in the context/expectations of when they come true.

I mean, isn't that basically what a twist is? A subversion of expectations, leading someone (such as Durkon) to expect one thing while in reality meaning something else entirely?

That's the general family of "plot twists", yes.

It's a big family, however. "Literally true with unexpected context" is different from "figuratively true with expected context", "lying", "reasonably true if under different context", and "obviated by the author".

So you're saying it wasn't a twist even though it fits in the definition of the word "twist"?

Pretty sure I'm saying that twisting a twist as another kind of twist is just twisted. Much like manually assembling an eleven-layer quote to establish the context of the conversation....

The "metaphorical death" scenario would require the Oracle to abruptly break his pattern of "literally true with unexpected context" twists that's he's been doing consistently all along. Even if the Oracle is capable of doing it, I've yet to see any evidence nor reason for the Oracle to go through with it.

[Rogar Demonblud]

You're really having fun with nesting quotes this week. This one approaches art.

[Jasdoif]

You're really having fun with nesting quotes this week. This one approaches art.

Even cosmic knowledge fish need an occasional reminder of what they were saying; and this week has been rather turbulent, and this conversation rather branchy o_o

[Emanick]

Pretty sure I'm saying that twisting a twist as another kind of twist is just twisted. Much like manually assembling an eleven-layer quote to establish the context of the conversation....

The "metaphorical death" scenario would require the Oracle to abruptly break his pattern of "literally true with unexpected context" twists that's he's been doing consistently all along. Even if the Oracle is capable of doing it, I've yet to see any evidence nor reason for the Oracle to go through with it.

I'm not sure the Oracle has a pattern in his prophecies. Which other prophecies were "literally true with unexpected context"? It's true that he seems to enjoy not being as helpful as possible, but beyond that, I'm struggling to see commonalities between the form of his answers. Belkar's, Roy's, and Elan's prophecies seem to have been fairly straightforward (although I guess we'll have to wait and see with Elan, technically), and while I personally would have found Haley's prophecy fairly useless, she seems to have found it helpful, despite the fact that it was basically the opposite of literal. It's true that he didn't have much choice as to what to tell Roy, given Roy's too-clever-by-half wording, but that was also a rare case of when he actually seemed to WANT to be helpful (albeit probably out of self-interest as much as anything else). Besides Durkon's prophecy, V's is the only other one where I could see "literally true with unexpected context" being a somewhat accurate description, and even then, I'd argue that his answer was too vague to really mislead in any way. It's only a case of "unexpected context" because he gave V pretty much no useful information around which to form expectations whatsoever, besides the fact that "yes, you will achieve ultimate arcane power."
Also, like Rogar, I would like to applaud your quote-nesting art.

[Schroeswald]

Due to the fact that I usually have two windows open side by side when I first saw that layering it was amazing, because the innermost layer was so thin that it wasn't even a character wide.

[Jasdoif]

Which other prophecies were "literally true with unexpected context"?

Near as I can recall, all of them that we've seen completed thus far have been true with the obvious meaning of the words.

• Spoiler: Start of Darkness

  Show

  Eugene: Xykon is what Fyron's killer is called.
• Durkon: Did return home posthumously.
• Vaarusvius: Did achieve complete and total arcane power by saying four words to the right beings at the right time for the wrong reasons.
• Haley: I suppose you could fault me for not coming up with a pithy phrase meaning "parses idioms but otherwise literal", but her refusal to question the opportunity with (who she thought was) Elan did lead to getting her speech back.
• Belkar: Certainly killed one of them....
• Roy: Xykon did arrive near Girard's Gate before Kraagor's Gate.

As you note, not all of these were twists; but they are all straightforwardly true in their meaning....So if prophecy about Belkar does have a twist, nothing supports it being due to a non-straightforward meaning; and a "metaphorical death" twist would be such a non-straightforward meaning.

(Layering the quotes in now would just be copy-and-pasting from my earlier post; where's the fun in that? Also, I wouldn't want Schroeswald's monitor to explode from the pressure.)

[Peelee]

You're really having fun with nesting quotes this week. This one approaches art.

On my phone, the most nested one only displays as a single character per line. It is mighty impressive.

[danielxcutter]

Mine doesn’t squish the comments nearly as much. Weird. Is that a trait of iPhone 11s or something else?

[Schroeswald]

(Layering the quotes in now would just be copy-and-pasting from my earlier post; where's the fun in that? Also, I wouldn't want Schroeswald's monitor to explode from the pressure.)

I'm not certain it could get any more exploded than it was with that many quotes (also, the thing on my phone was one character long too, its not an IPhone 11s btw)

[Emanick]

Near as I can recall, all of them that we've seen completed thus far have been true with the obvious meaning of the words.

• Spoiler: Start of Darkness

  Show

  Eugene: Xykon is what Fyron's killer is called.
• Durkon: Did return home posthumously.
• Vaarusvius: Did achieve complete and total arcane power by saying four words to the right beings at the right time for the wrong reasons.
• Haley: I suppose you could fault me for not coming up with a pithy phrase meaning "parses idioms but otherwise literal", but her refusal to question the opportunity with (who she thought was) Elan did lead to getting her speech back.
• Belkar: Certainly killed one of them....
• Roy: Xykon did arrive near Girard's Gate before Kraagor's Gate.

As you note, not all of these were twists; but they are all straightforwardly true in their meaning....So if prophecy about Belkar does have a twist, nothing supports it being due to a non-straightforward meaning; and a "metaphorical death" twist would be such a non-straightforward meaning.

(Layering the quotes in now would just be copy-and-pasting from my earlier post; where's the fun in that? Also, I wouldn't want Schroeswald's monitor to explode from the pressure.)

I think I see the issue now; you're just defining "straightforwardness" a lot more broadly than I am. To me, while The Oracle isn't given to lying, or strained interpretations of the truth, his answers seem to vary quite a bit in how straightforward they are. Giving a helpful, straightforward answer to some people, an answer so vague as to be of no use to anyone to others, and giving an answer that, while true, will obviously be taken the wrong way to still others doesn't strike me as being particularly consistent. I fully agree with you that there are no lies, half-truths, or any other kind of deceit there, though, so in that sense all of his answers are pretty straightforward and consistently honest.

The variation in his answers does strike me as significant enough that I wouldn't rule out tricksiness on principle when it comes to interpreting the prophecy about Belkar. That said, as has been noted by both me and plenty of other people, there isn't a convincing explanation for how to interpret the prophecy in any way besides "oh, he'll just straight-up die" unless you basically just assume The Oracle or his sources are liars. So the difference is more or less moot, I suppose.