Prophecies, Twists, and Predictions

[hamishspence]

Doesn't that rule state that some gods may have exceptions to that rule (with a Cuthbert guy or something?). If so, considering Thor's and the dawrves' history regarding the Bet, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Thor is both Chaotic Good and allowed to have dwarvish clerics of any non-Evil alignment.

Cuthbert is a LN deity that does not allow LE clerics despite the fact that they are within 1 step. So is Kord (CG, does not allow CN clerics).

But there's plenty of examples of the reverse in Forgotten Realms's Faiths & Pantheons - deities which list "available cleric alignments that are more than 1 step away".

And, I think, in Deities and Demigods, Kord is a CG deity with "available cleric alignments" CG, LG, NG. Which would exactly fit with the proposed "CG deity that allows LG clerics" idea for Thor.

Kord is the most like D&D Thor of the Greyhawk deities, fluffwise and statwise.

[Peelee]

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html

I think we've been seeing Belkar slowly turning into someone else ever since meeting Shojo. I think he's going to impulsively have a hero's death and find himself very confused in the chaotic good afterlife.

I'll take that bet. My money is on us never seeing Belkar's afterlife.

OOTS deity alignment (and characterisation more broadly) doesn't really line up with past D&D takes on said deities. Deities and Demigods stats Thor up as Chaotic Good, which we know he can't be in OOTS

The "one-step rule" is not necessarily in effect. We do not know that Thor can certainly be Chaotic Good in OotS; the author explicitly said he will buck standard D&D rules when he sees fit.

Also, there are totally exceptions in RAW:

Alignment: A cleric's alignment must be within one step of his deity's (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful-chaotic axis or the good-evil axis, but not both). Exceptions are the clerics of St. Cuthbert (a lawful neutral deity), who may choose only between lawful good and lawful neutral for their alignment. A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity's alignment is also neutral.

St. Cuthbert takes an exception in the other direction, but in Stockworld Thor could well have an exception that extends to Lawful Good, especially given his history with how the dwarves turned that way. This, for the record, is my belief - the rule is in effect but Thor has an exception.

[Rater202]

Io as depicted in Races of the Dragon is another example of a deity with exceptions: Normally a True Neutral deity can, by RAW, only have TN, NG, NE, LN, or CN Clerics, which are all within one step of True Neutral, but per Races of the Dragon Io can have Clerics of any Alignment. For some reason, the book lists all nine of them out instead of just saying "any."

(Unless thre's some other ruling about TN deities that I'm not aware of.)

I don't remember which one off the top of my head, but when a description of Durkon was required "worships Thor" did not narrow it down at all, implying that worship of Thor is very common among Dwarves as a race, possibly even the majority religion.

If the majority of a race worships a deity, said deity might have exceptions to their Cleric requirements to accommodate for the fact that the majority of worshipers are going to be of diverse alignments.

With how OOTs Thor is depicted, I could see the exception being as big as "any non-evil."

[Fyraltari]

I'm going to let people who know what they're talking about discuss the rules from now on, but I just want to say that a Chaotic Thor having to accept lawful clerics as part of fixing the damage he unwittingly caused fits my reading of the character.

I don't remember which one off the top of my head, but when a description of Durkon was required "worships Thor" did not narrow it down at all, implying that worship of Thor is very common among Dwarves as a race, possibly even the majority religion.

[Url=https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html]This one[/quote], add to that that the High Priest of Thor was a Firmament dwarf twice in a row and it seems that Thor is indeed the major dwarven deity. (Dvalin is probably second.)

[dancrilis]

With how OOTs Thor is depicted, I could see the exception being as big as "any non-evil."

Always felt it was somewhat short-sighted for deities to exclude any worshipper based solely on alignment - this might be especially true in OOTS where gods need worhip, dedication and souls.

[Fyraltari]

Always felt it was somewhat short-sighted for deities to exclude any worshipper based solely on alignment - this might be especially true in OOTS where gods need worhip, dedication and souls.

If I had to guess, I would say that the idea is either that a mortal and a god too far apart in alignment have too different worldviews for that mortal to worship that deity, they'd consider them foolish, tyrannical or toonalien for their taste, or that mortals with the wrong alignment can't give the gods the proper divine nutrients, they're just not digestible. Or both.

Edit: or it may be that they're completely fine with having laypeople of any alignment worshipping them, but they're only going to give the magical powers to the people they actually trust with them and who can be relied upon to pass on their teachings faithfully.

[brian 333]

If such a rule exists, it's not in the SRD. Given your example mentions a Greyhawk deity, it's obviously not something that would have made it into the OGL content word-for-word. That said, the SRD description of the Cleric's alignment restrictions is pretty straightforward:


No exceptions are stated.

And yet, in 3.0 Forgotten Realms Sune, (CG,) can have Paladins.

As the patron of dwarves, Thor can have dwarf clerics without regard to alignment.

[Scottzg]

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html

I think we've been seeing Belkar slowly turning into someone else ever since meeting Shojo. I think he's going to impulsively have a hero's death and find himself very confused in the chaotic good afterlife.

I'll take that bet. My money is on us never seeing Belkar's afterlife.

Oh i totally agree. It's better narrative to not show too much of Belkar's halfling-manity. But i definitely think he's going to have a Good death. I'll bet on that fosho. I'm looking forward to how it plays out.

[Rrmcklin]

Regarding Belkar ascending to godhood, it strikes me as missing the point of the character in much the same way it would for Redcloak. And just like Redcloak answer to his increasing diving into the Sunk Cost Fallacy isn't going to be "you get to be literally deified" the story isn't going to say to Belkar "because you managed to maybe stop being a terrible person, you deserve to be literally deified" either.

In line with this, I very much doubt Belkar will ever register as Chaotic Good by the end. Maybe he'll just barely register as Neutral and not Evil, but I give that as like 50/50 odds.

It almost strikes me as a sort of an insult to the Giant's writing and themes to think the story ends by validating and/or glorifying either of them like that.

[brian 333]

I agree with the above post. Belkar has a lot of kiloNs to balance against a very few attaboys.

That said, I think The Giant could glorify redemptions and show that new beginnings are possible without absolving B-man or RC of their cumulative crimes.

[Synesthesy]

While I think that redemption (that is a rare thing, after all) would be well spent on Belkar, both with Redcloak or without Redcloak, I still think that the Giant is not so banal to make Belkar simply die just because the oracle said that.

The problem with Belkar is giving an happy ending to an evil character, and while I see no problem with it at all (an evil character deserves some kind of reward for saving the world, then we'll see), I don't think the Giant would like it so linear. It is the same reason why Belkar has no backstory. However, a way to resolve it is simply to make Belkar no more evil.

Oh, and for the prophecy, I simply think that we'll discover that the oracle can be wrong. There is so much we don't know about the Gods that we shouldn't trust a power given by Tiamat apparently without anything to gain.



Please don't hate me for my opinion I know that almost no reader agree with me

[Rrmcklin]

While I think that redemption (that is a rare thing, after all) would be well spent on Belkar, both with Redcloak or without Redcloak, I still think that the Giant is not so banal to make Belkar simply die just because the oracle said that.

The problem with Belkar is giving an happy ending to an evil character, and while I see no problem with it at all (an evil character deserves some kind of reward for saving the world, then we'll see), I don't think the Giant would like it so linear. It is the same reason why Belkar has no backstory. However, a way to resolve it is simply to make Belkar no more evil.

Oh, and for the prophecy, I simply think that we'll discover that the oracle can be wrong. There is so much we don't know about the Gods that we shouldn't trust a power given by Tiamat apparently without anything to gain.



Please don't hate me for my opinion I know that almost no reader agree with me

I won't hate, but I still have to ask "what does this add to the story?" If this were a typical "defying destiny" story or whatever I could see the point, but that's not the case - there have been attempts or even starts at attempts to prevent Belkar's death. There is no indication there is ever going to be such an effort. You mention it being "banal" to just play his death straight (I don't understand how , but that's not the main point right now) but how is it not banal to just go "oh, I guess the Oracle was wrong for no reason, funny that." In what way is that supposed to be satisfying?

I'd also say you're working backwards - the Giant is not having Belkar die because the Oracle said it, the Oracle said it because the Giant wanted us to know, well in advance, that Belkar would die. That's why all of the prophecies exist, because he wanted us to know, in advance, a direction the story would lead to without actually giving us the details as to how the story would get there.

So, yes, you're entitled to your opinion, but I do still feel the need to say that opinion seems based on faulty premises.

[Fyraltari]

I agree with the above post. Belkar has a lot of kiloNs to balance against a very few attaboys.

That said, I think The Giant could glorify redemptions and show that new beginnings are possible without absolving B-man or RC of their cumulative crimes.

[hroþila]

While I think that redemption (that is a rare thing, after all) would be well spent on Belkar, both with Redcloak or without Redcloak, I still think that the Giant is not so banal to make Belkar simply die just because the oracle said that.

Surely you have it backwards. Belkar wouldn't die because the Oracle said he would – the Oracle said he would because Belkar would die.

[Emanick]

Surely you have it backwards. Belkar wouldn't die because the Oracle said he would – the Oracle said he would because Belkar would die.

You're mistaken. Belkar will be killed in the final panel of the final strip by a hitman sent by the Oracle.

[dancrilis]

I suspect that Belkar will die no loopholes.

However there is a potential loophole that might be use - namely that Belkar has already died and not been raised, if the Oracle looked into the future saw into the illusion without noticing noted all the elements of the quest completed with a dead Belkar and a statue of him and didn't bother looking further then he could have effectively made a mistake (in a similiar manner to trusting the memory spell to wipe Roy's memory).

This is unlikely I think (for a number of reasons) but if it happens that way/had happened that way I would be fine with it (subject to delivery etc).

[Rrmcklin]

I suspect that Belkar will die no loopholes.

However there is a potential loophole that might be use - namely that Belkar has already died and not been raised, if the Oracle looked into the future saw into the illusion without noticing noted all the elements of the quest completed with a dead Belkar and a statue of him and didn't bother looking further then he could have effectively made a mistake (in a similiar manner to trusting the memory spell to wipe Roy's memory).

This is unlikely I think (for a number of reasons) but if it happens that way/had happened that way I would be fine with it (subject to delivery etc).

That strikes me as the same as saying that illusion was Elan's happy ending; I'm really not seeing a way that acts as a satisfying answer (well, not unless the only thing you're interested in is Belkar not dying).

[Ruck]

I think the most popular theory about Belkar's ending is that he will die sacrificing himself for someone, perhaps the whole world. This will complete his arc, and move him out of evil into some other alignment. This theory seems as likely to me as any, and if so I'd expect it to happen in the final battle because it's fitting that a protagonist character remains part of the story to the end.

I have been expecting something like this.

The prophecy isn't just that Belkar will die. The exact wording is that he will "draw his last breath - ever".

Being turned into a golem or an undead or whatever wouldn't necessarily contradict it, but any conventional return to life most definitely would.

The official, on record prophecy, sure.
But all the other little comments* about his future?
Belkar
- shouldn't bother funding his IRA
- should savour his next birthday cake
- won't be long for this world
- will draw his last breath ever before the end of the year.

So yeah, Belkar's probably a goner.

*Which are prophecies. That's why there's a memory charm in the first place

Yeah, these comments are indicative to me that Belkar will die, full stop, no twists or subversions. The Oracle is basically taunting him about his upcoming death with those comments.

While I think that redemption (that is a rare thing, after all) would be well spent on Belkar, both with Redcloak or without Redcloak, I still think that the Giant is not so banal to make Belkar simply die just because the oracle said that.

The Giant wrote the Oracle saying that.

[ebarde]

Belkar bullrushes Xykon into the snarl, mirroring what Roy did in the first volume. Roy then walks over and destroys Xykon soul thingie.

Also, the gate will be transported to Xykon's astral fortress, where the final battle will take place.

Since we're still in really specific territory, gonna go out on a limb and say that the ritual is gonna happen but Redcloak and Xykon won't be the ones to cast it.

[Dion]

Since we're still in really specific territory, gonna go out on a limb and say that the ritual is gonna happen but Redcloak and Xykon won't be the ones to cast it.

But where will we find two epic spellcasters!

It’s not like there are two epic spellcasters just hanging out in Chekhov’s soul gem, waiting to be freed for revenge on Xykon during the final battle. So I can’t see how that idea would work.

[Fyraltari]

But where will we find two epic spellcasters!

It’s not like there are two epic spellcasters just hanging out in Chekhov’s soul gem, waiting to be freed for revenge on Xykon during the final battle. So I can’t see how that idea would work.

It doesn't need two Epic spellcasters. However it does require one high-level priest of the Dark One wearing the Crimson Mantle.

[Dion]

It doesn't need two Epic spellcasters. However it does require one high-level priest of the Dark One wearing the Crimson Mantle.

[blue]
Or maybe... an epic level rogue with crazy high level “use magic device” skills could use the crimson mantle!

But we haven’t seen one of those either...
[/blue]

[BloodSquirrel]

While I think that redemption (that is a rare thing, after all) would be well spent on Belkar, both with Redcloak or without Redcloak, I still think that the Giant is not so banal to make Belkar simply die just because the oracle said that.

The problem with Belkar is giving an happy ending to an evil character, and while I see no problem with it at all (an evil character deserves some kind of reward for saving the world, then we'll see), I don't think the Giant would like it so linear. It is the same reason why Belkar has no backstory. However, a way to resolve it is simply to make Belkar no more evil.

Oh, and for the prophecy, I simply think that we'll discover that the oracle can be wrong. There is so much we don't know about the Gods that we shouldn't trust a power given by Tiamat apparently without anything to gain.

I'm pretty sure at this point that the reason for the Giant giving us the prophecy was that it makes Belkar's redemption arc more poignant. "Redemption = death" is common enough that it wouldn't be much of a twist on its own. So the Giant flipped it- we knew he was going to die first. Roy called it "running out the clock" because he was evil and destructive and his death was, frankly, going to be a welcome event. Now we're seeing that... maybe not quite so much. Knowing that Belkar is going to die when he doesn't adds a lot of tragic irony to his character arc.

People assume that prophecies must be subverted because, otherwise, what's the point? It's just a spoiler. But now we know what the subversion really is- Belkar isn't going to die a villain like we thought he was. So it doesn't need to be double-subverted with some kind of semantic loophole.

[Fyraltari]

People assume that prophecies must be subverted because, otherwise, what's the point? It's just a spoiler.

Dramatic irony is a valid narrative tool, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[hroþila]

For much of its history, literature was about telling and elaborating on stories that the audience was already familiar with. We tend to focus a bit too much on plot twists for their own sake these days.

[BloodSquirrel]

Dramatic irony is a valid narrative tool, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Even in the case of dramatic irony, subversion is often involved. The most classic case- the self-fulfilling prophecy- is about the attempt to avoid the prophecy having the opposite outcome as expected.

[Fyraltari]

For much of its history, literature was about telling and elaborating on stories that the audience was already familiar with. We tend to focus a bit too much on plot twists for their own sake these days.

Yup, if you can't enjoy a story knowing the end, then it's a bad story.

Even in the case of dramatic irony, subversion is often involved. The most classic case- the self-fulfilling prophecy- is about the attempt to avoid the prophecy having the opposite outcome as expected.

That's not a subversion, though. The things that were prophecized happened as prophecized.

[Rrmcklin]

For much of its history, literature was about telling and elaborating on stories that the audience was already familiar with. We tend to focus a bit too much on plot twists for their own sake these days.

I recently watched a really good video on mistakes of the final seasons of Game of Thrones, and one of the most succulent points was that being subversive and being surprising are not the same thing, and that the writers (and a lot of people) apparently don't understand that.

Subversion only has value if the turn makes you analyze things in a new way such that it adds more than what you were expecting. Also, it should make sense, if only in hindsight. This is distinct from the idea of "well the writer said this, so we should do something completely different and unexpected, because that's good writing" that doesn't take time to think about if the "twist" actually adds anything new or better, or even makes sense.

[Ruck]

I recently watched a really good video on mistakes of the final seasons of Game of Thrones, and one of the most succulent points was that being subversive and being surprising are not the same thing, and that the writers (and a lot of people) apparently don't understand that.

Subversion only has value if the turn makes you analyze things in a new way such that it adds more than what you were expecting. Also, it should make sense, if only in hindsight. This is distinct from the idea of "well the writer said this, so we should do something completely different and unexpected, because that's good writing" that doesn't take time to think about if the "twist" actually adds anything new or better, or even makes sense.

"Surprising yet inevitable" is how Aristotle described it, and I don't think I've found a more succinct description since.

(For my money, the biggest problem with the final seasons of Game of Thrones was that Benioff and Weiss seemed more interested in checking off every box on the Plot Events George R.R. Martin Told Them Needed To Happen, without bothering to develop character motivations in such a way that the decisions that led to those events made sense.)