OOTS #572 - The Discussion Thread

[Dunesen]

I think it's kind of funny that there's been so much legal speculation about murder without anybody bringing up the obvious real-world parallel. When you kill somebody and they get revived, the charge you get is attempted homicide.

Oh, attempted homicide. Really now, what is that? Do they give XP for "attempted dragonslaying"?

(Sorry, it's just so hard for me to resist making Simpsons references)

[Kish]

And, given that for the rich enough, death is just a speed bump, murder isn't a whole lot bigger a deal than assault. Torture (such as that O'Chul underwent) is worse, because there's no way to undo the pain and suffering.

I'm not addressing the central argument here, but I have to take issue with this. The Oracle is the only person we've actually seen resurrected onstage, and it had less to do with him being rich than with him being able to see the future. If the richest man in the world dies, and he made no arrangements to be resurrected/those arrangements are derailed by any means, then he's no less permanently dead for the existence of means of theoretical resurrection.

Okay. Now I'll address the central argument. Eric, you've stated that there's no evidence that the Oracle's predictions are always right. Eugene wouldn't know Xykon's name without the Oracle, and every prediction the Oracle has made so far has come true, so I hope you're not going to assert that the Oracle has no ability to see the future. What would you classify as evidence that the Oracle's predictions are always right? Basic logic tells us it's impossible to prove a negative.

[Ninja]

Oh, attempted homicide. Really now, what is that? Do they give XP for "attempted dragonslaying"?

(Sorry, it's just so hard for me to resist making Simpsons references)

lol.......

[Warren Dew]

I'm not addressing the central argument here, but I have to take issue with this. The Oracle is the only person we've actually seen resurrected onstage, and it had less to do with him being rich than with him being able to see the future.

That's a valid point. I also suspect that getting stabbed is pretty painful even if you are getting resurrected.

[chef781]

note that roy's right shoulderpad is not colored the first two-or-so panels

[Selene]

If I picked an argument with you, is that your fault?

No, the argument is not my fault. You're arguing with everyone in the thread right now. Whose fault is it if one of us kills you? And will you then consider it justifiable, even though none of us are in imminent physical danger?

[DrivinAllNight]

ok, sounds like alot of people are going crazy in regards to whether the Oracle is right all the time or not. So far he has been right all the time, whether he manipulated anything or not. Just because some of the predictions we know about haven't come true yet doesn't mean he is wrong, at least not yet.

Belkar could have gotten a refund, but instead decided to just kill the only person left on the list who was available for killing, and that was the Oracle.

And as far as what X or Y or A,B,C or any other letter of the alphabet is valued as, the Oracle gives you what comes after the equation, he gives you the solution, how you get there matters not to the question. Since X+Y-B/Q-G*K=4, the point here being that even if it is convoluted to get there, the answer can still be the same as X+Y=4, the answer is the same, irregardless how it came about, manipulation or not.
We may not be able to say the oracle is never wrong, but we can say he has never been wrong before. Sure he could screw something up, but he hasn't done that yet or really showed a reason why he would.
And that is my 2cp.

[Ninja]

note that roy's right shoulderpad is not colored the first two-or-so panels

ah yes i noted that som time ago as well, just i saw it in panel 6 and 7 not in panels 1 and 2... but let us not talk normaly and without arguing now.... or we might attract the unwanted attention of all those people that ARE arguing....

[Pandabear]

I couldn't resist getting a wee bit involved with your equations here.

Let us simplify things. X + Y = Z. But what do we test in this discussion?
The oracle is always right or the oracle is usually right. Usually might be a subjective term. The threshold between always and usually should be one prediction. If all are true, then always is true, insert one false prediction and it becomes usually.. Even then, both the amount of states of the predictions and the answer to the question amount to two distinct possibilities. Either a prediction is true, or it is false. Barring the intermediate states of mostly true and mostly false that is. The answer should always be either true or false, the questions posed can still be answered by a definite yes or no.

Is the oracle always right? To prove this, we need two pieces of information.
We need to know if all his predictions ever have been true. The answer is false once we find even one prediction that is false. However, unless we have thus far seen a prediction that has become outright false, we need to know all to be certain. Not knowing the oracle's timeline outside the reference frame of the readers introduces this uncertainty. The answer is still unknown, but the question assures that it's either true or false. This bars unknown as a third state. Xn = Z can be solved conclusively if all the states of instances of X are given, or Z itself is given. If Z is true, then all instances of X must be true. If Z is false, at least one of X must be too. Anything based on probability to safely exclude possibilities still make it an assumption, regardless of it being a valid one or not. Toss heads 19 times, and the chance of the 20th time being heads is still 50%.

Is the oracle usually right? This too must be yes or no, but all asking must agree on the lower threshold of usually..

If one asks me, I'd say I don't know unless anything in the current known situation changed, but not seeing any false predictions yet, it is probably safe to assume he's at least usually right. This is not the same however, as saying that it's true that he's usually right.

[Eric]

He didn't provocate Belkar to kill him! It wasn't his intention to get Belkar to kill him! His intention was to save his own skin yet you call that provocating!?

He lied to belkar, but that only gave justified case for Belkar to get refund ,but not to kill him.



Oh wow.

Are you comparing murdering someone cold blooded to picking arguments?

Well, if you count "kill me!!!" as provoking, no.

However, incitement was done. The Oracle can have done several things to keep himself blameless but preferred to play the a-hole. He enjoyed (and knew beforehand) that Belkar would get the MoJ and would himself just be in a little temporary pain.

Heard of "sacrificial throw" in martial arts?

The oracle CAN have engineered it because his actions certainly would (even without the oracular power) have had a high liklihood of causing someone rated in kilonazis to kill you. The Oracle can see the future and could see that occurrence. So he could have avoided it. Unless that future REQUIRED him to act as he did to provoke the right reaction.

[Eric]

ok, sounds like alot of people are going crazy in regards to whether the Oracle is right all the time or not. So far he has been right all the time, whether he manipulated anything or not. Just because some of the predictions we know about haven't come true yet doesn't mean he is wrong, at least not yet.

Nope, that's not my problem.

My problem is that people have Blekar responsible for his action but deny any responsibility to the Oracle for his actions.

[Eric]

No, the argument is not my fault. You're arguing with everyone in the thread right now. Whose fault is it if one of us kills you? And will you then consider it justifiable, even though none of us are in imminent physical danger?

Well, who is responsible for murder? You (if you did it).

Whose responsible for aggravating you to it? Me.

Now, me being dead and not having "Raise Dead" memorised by the local parish priest (he may only be 3rd level), my punishment is moot. However, people may say "well, he had it coming".

Ohh.

Partly blamed.

Which is what I'm doing wrt B and O.

PS I'm not arguing with everybody. There are a number who agree and others who don't agree with either side.

[Eric]

Okay. Now I'll address the central argument. Eric, you've stated that there's no evidence that the Oracle's predictions are always right.

Nope, that's not my argument. My argument is that the Oracle is responsible for winding up Belkar until Belkar kills him. The Oracle is responsible for engineering a situation where Belkar is punished. "Vengeance is mine, saith the lord".

One way is that the Oracle isn't always right. And this one could have been true solely because the Oracle engineered it. So the lack of a failing prediction is not proof that that conjecture is wrong.

An aside here, does anyone here have ANY training in logic? It doesn't seem to be in evidence.

Now, unless the Oracle has only made the dozen or so predictions, we have no evidence his predictions are always right. Which is why I've never asked you to prove it. What I HAVE asked is that you take the idea as possible. Many of you feel unable. I have no idea why.

[Eric]

I'm not addressing the central argument here, but I have to take issue with this. The Oracle is the only person we've actually seen resurrected onstage, and it had less to do with him being rich than with him being able to see the future

So either

a) someone donated 50,000gp diamond out of the goodness of their heart
b) he has enough money lying about to spend on a 50k gem.

I'm afraid that is a really dumb argument (and there have been some zingers).

So, with that out of the way, we've seen the graveyard scene, in the origin of the PC's. We've already had unspoilered about how many times Eugene's been resurrected. Sure, not "in camera", but we know it's happened. A lot. According to the headstones a HELL of a freaking lot.

Can people PLEASE learn how to argue? There's more than just not changing your stance to it.

[Eric]

Oh, attempted homicide. Really now, what is that? Do they give XP for "attempted dragonslaying"?

(Sorry, it's just so hard for me to resist making Simpsons references)

To be serious about it, you get XP for defeating. Go back to the Chimera for an example of how they already know this due to living in a D&D OOTSiverse.

So with "attempted dragonslaying", you get the XP and best of all, a perpetual supply thereof!!!

Woohoo!

(see, this is why I'd never play an evil character in pen and paper: the DM doesn't deserve that level of Machiavellian manipulation).

[Eric]

The oracle is always right or the oracle is usually right. Usually might be a subjective term. The threshold between always and usually should be one prediction. If all are true, then always is true, insert one false prediction and it becomes usually..

How about "all swans are white".

Fine until we found one that wasn't.

Which is why I've never asked for proof.

All we KNOW is that the Oracle has always predicted correctly *for the ones we have seen*. However, in the case of Belkar, the Oracle looks to have ensured its correct completion.

[Pandabear]

How about "all swans are white".

Fine until we found one that wasn't.

Which is why I've never asked for proof.

All we KNOW is that the Oracle has always predicted correctly *for the ones we have seen*. However, in the case of Belkar, the Oracle looks to have ensured its correct completion.

Or how about "Planets are always more or less spherically shaped?"
We haven't seen otherwise, but unless we find out how space curves, the world could very well be a flat disc spatially curved along the line of least resistance. For example, an observer on the surface of a neutron star (admittedly, not a planet) would see it curve upwards after all..

With all the missing details I don't think there would be much point in asking for proof here.. my point was just showing the futility of asking for it.. You say you never asked for it, I don't recall otherwise, so I guess we're in agreement there

Helping a prediction come true doesn't make the prediction less true I guess..
Although I agree that altering the flow of events to match your prediction does subtract a bit of the psychic prowess required to do it.. the parallel can be drawn to real world psychics who know how people's minds work, and don't tell you things a critical thinker could've come up with himself..

However, in your line of thought I see something similar that has kept me thinking for several years.. If a omnipotent and omniscient deity creates a universe with a set knowledge of all the locations and momentums of all its building blocks, and knowing these would make this deity knowing all that has transpired and will ever happen, is there such a thing as free thought? If all one's actions are pre-destined, can you blame them for anything, or does a deity have the right to condemn them? Now because the thought itself isn't about religion, but the thinker behind the thought, replace the hypothetical deity with a casual observer from outside the universe. This observer has the forethought of taking a snapshot at the dawn of time and has a handy machine capable of predicting everything provided he has all the information first.. This means that everything you do in your life is technically your own choice, but you didn't have the choice to oppose yourself because the universe moving about already has decided what you will think and decide. You are in a fashion kept hostage by ego, or else a puppet of fate. To me that seems like a horrible idea.. luckily, this seems to be a notion already disproven.. determinism is apparent, and because of Heisenberg we know that
the more we know about a particle's location, the less we know about its momentum and vice versa, which adds a sense of randomness to what one can measure, and thus know.. We also know that a particle must follow every path it can possibly follow along a timeline (please correct me if I'm wrong)
From that follows that for every possible event there should be a seperate branch along the timeline to accomodate for the event. For example, there is probably a seperate branch where I chose not to write this post and do something useful.
I don't know if things are the same in the DnD or OOTS universe, but if things are similar, then the oracle saw the inevitable result of his choices, and those within his 'light cone', thus making it a bit futile to try and circumvent it.. of course, there's no blame in trying.. on the other hand, the sense of unfairness does lessen a bit if you knew that the way you're going to die was at least your own fault..

[Ninja]

[QUOTE=Eric;4531884My problem is that people have Blekar responsible for his action but deny any responsibility to the Oracle for his actions.[/QUOTE]

you cannot blame Belkar killing him on the Oracle. the only thing the Oracle is guilty is provoking Belkar, but he is not guilty that those provocations made Belkar kill him. Let say, someone insults you and your family, you kill him. Now, it is not his fault you killed him. He is guilty of insulting you, but he is not responsable for you killing him.

[Eric]

Helping a prediction come true doesn't make the prediction less true I guess..
Although I agree that altering the flow of events to match your prediction does subtract a bit of the psychic prowess required to do it.. the parallel can be drawn to real world psychics who know how people's minds work, and don't tell you things a critical thinker could've come up with himself..

No worries, but I'll dig my oar in to see if i can clarify my position.

I'm not even concerned about the prowess. Being able to see the consequences enough to steer the answer is still a well-awesome power.

However, altering the flow of events means you're assisting any bad acts that are the end result of those events.

And so the Oracle is somewhat to blame by manipulating Belkar into his actions.

Now, Roy wouldn't have done it, even under those conditions (except, maybe, if the Oracle was "doing a Miko" on the party: his loyalty is enough to make him take any steps *necessary*, even if he does like it...). Neither would Haley (unless her old pa could be freed by it). So Belkar is guilty of his act. He could (and should, as a thinking being) have had control over himself. But he does seem to have enough control over himself with the Oracle before. Death was only an option (as far as what we can see) when the Oracle acted as he did.

And maybe the Oracle's prediction predicted the Oracle would act like this and included its effects. But if Belkar is at fault for killing (when the prophesy said he would), then the Oracle is at fault for egging it on (when the prophesy said he would).

[hamishspence]

if the oracle can be said to be a "cause" of his own death, then Belkar is just as easily a "cause" of Roy's death- almost same amount of contribution: thus the Oracle was telling the truth, thus, no right to demand a refund.

[Eric]

you cannot blame Belkar killing him on the Oracle. the only thing the Oracle is guilty is provoking Belkar, but he is not guilty that those provocations made Belkar kill him. Let say, someone insults you and your family, you kill him. Now, it is not his fault you killed him. He is guilty of insulting you, but he is not responsable for you killing him.

If I were to kick Mike Tyson in the danglies and insult his mother to her face and then Mike would punch my lights out, what would happen?

1) Mike is done for assault with a deadly weapon
2) Everyone tells me I'm a freaking idiot for picking a fight with Mike

That I never threw even ONE punch doesn't make me any less of an idiot.

The difference here is that the Oracle COULD be ensuring his prophesy is true (neither Mike nor myself can see the future as an Oracle), therefore no matter how Belkar behaved, the Oracle would keep going until Belkar snapped. Even if that took 120 pages.

Why? (because several people have said it would be stupid)

a) If the Oracle is ever wrong, he's out of business
b) He's already arranged for revenge (not justice, revence)
c) He's already arranged for ressurection

All of these are events we have seen or inevitable consequences (in the same way as walking off a cliff will result in falling, we don't need to wait until Wiley sees the lack of ground).

a) is a reason to ensure completion
b) is what the Oracle is guilty of
c) is why he'd make a psycho kill him

[Eric]

if the oracle can be said to be a "cause" of his own death, then Belkar is just as easily a "cause" of Roy's death- almost same amount of contribution: thus the Oracle was telling the truth, thus, no right to demand a refund.

Which Remirach has said could be true (and the Oracle said was good enough).

However, she's not willing to say my theory could be true.

Go figure.

[hamishspence]

the word "incitement" is poorly chosen. When the Oracle never said "come on, do it" there is no words which can be interpreted as directly inciting belkar.

Provocation might be a better word. And not very serious provocation at that.

[Ninja]

\That I never threw even ONE punch doesn't make me any less of an idiot.

realy? so inslulting someone and punching him is the same to you? all that Oracle did was trying to convince Belkar his prophecy came true. he did not punch him, and neverthe less even if he did punch him would it still be his fault that Belkar killed him?his fault is being the idiot, but you cannot say that his fault is the kill. yes if you had of punched Mike that would mean you are an idiot, but if he were to kill you afterwards, doesn;t mean you are responsable for it. you are responsable for being an idiot and punching him, and not for him killing you.

[Dunesen]

However, in your line of thought I see something similar that has kept me thinking for several years.. If a omnipotent and omniscient deity creates a universe with a set knowledge of all the locations and momentums of all its building blocks, and knowing these would make this deity knowing all that has transpired and will ever happen, is there such a thing as free thought? If all one's actions are pre-destined, can you blame them for anything, or does a deity have the right to condemn them? Now because the thought itself isn't about religion, but the thinker behind the thought, replace the hypothetical deity with a casual observer from outside the universe. This observer has the forethought of taking a snapshot at the dawn of time and has a handy machine capable of predicting everything provided he has all the information first.

Occam's Razor really comes in handy here.

Not to bring religion into this conversation, but depending on whatever deity or omniscient being you're dealing with in a philosophical query, there's going to be different possibilities for the answer.

A being that is outside of time and space (such as the Judeo-Christian God is portrayed) would know what is going to happen, but does not exert influence on a person's mind or actions.

Imagine I throw a ball at you while saying "You will catch this." I am not making you catch it, but I am making the reasonable assumption that you will react in a reflexive action to the ball coming towards you, and you will instinctively catch it. My assumption is based on my knowledge and experience of how people behave in a situation like this.

I could be wrong. You could duck, rather than try to catch it, and the ball will hit the ground. But on average, I assume most people will try to catch it, and so I apply that assumption in the case with you.

An omniscient deity, though, does not have to make any assumptions because They have ALL knowledge. Not just how people generally behave, but what decisions someone will make in their future.

Just as important, They have all sight. I can only see the present and remember the past. The future is nothing but murkiness. Not so for Them. If time/space is a diamond, we humans can only see one facet at a time, but They can see it all at once. Their sight is what lets them know what we will do, not whatever power They could exert over us.

So just because a deity would know what I will do tonight, tomorrow, the day I die, does not mean they are making me do anything.

Free will is always there because I am making my own choices, even if on a subconscious, instinctual level.

[hamishspence]

Your Mike Tyon example began with a physical assault, and continued with insults.

Starting a fight might grant reasonable grounds for provocation. But the Oracle did not start a fight.

He did insult belkar. 3 times. "Cueball" "my dim-witted friend" and "the idiot" But belkar asked for a refund right after saying "this guys answers aren't worth a copper piece" Oracle has reason to be miffed. And reason to do his best to AVOID getting killed. Saying straight out "my prophesy will be fulfilled by you killing me" would be....risky. And giving a refund would spoil his reputation as infallible.

as a result of his actions, he is alive (again) and his reputation undamaged.

[Pandabear]

No worries, but I'll dig my oar in to see if i can clarify my position.

I'm not even concerned about the prowess. Being able to see the consequences enough to steer the answer is still a well-awesome power.

However, altering the flow of events means you're assisting any bad acts that are the end result of those events.

And so the Oracle is somewhat to blame by manipulating Belkar into his actions.

Now, Roy wouldn't have done it, even under those conditions (except, maybe, if the Oracle was "doing a Miko" on the party: his loyalty is enough to make him take any steps *necessary*, even if he does like it...). Neither would Haley (unless her old pa could be freed by it). So Belkar is guilty of his act. He could (and should, as a thinking being) have had control over himself. But he does seem to have enough control over himself with the Oracle before. Death was only an option (as far as what we can see) when the Oracle acted as he did.

And maybe the Oracle's prediction predicted the Oracle would act like this and included its effects. But if Belkar is at fault for killing (when the prophesy said he would), then the Oracle is at fault for egging it on (when the prophesy said he would).

According to what I've written earlier, both Belkar's and the oracle's actions are determined for their observed choices.. if they did otherwise, there would still be a branch where they did as observed now, simply because every way a chain of events can occur must exist somewhere.. there should even be a branch in the timeline where the oracle gives a straight answer in which he sees that Belkar doesn't kill him and Belkar therefore didn't.. I guess that's the way of the Weak Anthropic Principle, which states that the universe looks like the way we observe it because we wouldn't observe it at all otherwise.. Now the question of morally speaking, either of them is guilty of anything despite free choice or not, is too much a subjective point of view to objectively analyse.. I say that according to observed events, neither is guilty of anything, but I'd say that of everyone..

[Eric]

Your Mike Tyon example began with a physical assault, and continued with insults.

Mike Tyson's fists are lethal weapons.


Even if I didn't whack him in the clangers but kept riding him, insulting him, do you think he'd NOT punch me?

Yeah, 'course you will, because otherwise you'd have to be wrong, wouldn't you.

[Eric]

An omniscient deity, though, does not have to make any assumptions because They have ALL knowledge. Not just how people generally behave, but what decisions someone will make in their future.

An omniescent deity would only know the future if there was fate.

Without things being inevitable, all they'd know is everything going on now.

An omnipotent deity can make you catch the ball. Then it's the deity making you do it, not you.

[factotum]

An omniescent deity would only know the future if there was fate.

Without things being inevitable, all they'd know is everything going on now.

However, it's possible to argue that if you had absolutely perfect knowledge of what's happening here and now, you could foretell the future--you'd know how the chemical reactions in someone's brain would make them act, given perfect knowledge of their current state and what was happening to them. If a being was truly omniscient, he might have that level of knowledge.