OotS 634

[WalterKovacs]

a) V rarely sticks to saying only 4 words.

b) Having V be the "right being" is just enough of a twist to be part of a "misleading prophecy" without it being tortured (like the Prophet's attempts to avoid his own death at the hands of Belkar).

c) While on one hand, the 4 words are V commiting to getting the powers (all V needed to do was touch the orb, but the words were necessary to convince V's self to do so), it is also possible, that the words indicate V realizing that this is the moment the Prophet spoke of ... a sort of self fufilling prophecy. [This is made a bit more interesting in that, it's possible that, had he chosen the other path, he may have recieved another chance at ultimate arcane power, as it required a stutter to get "I must succeed" to work as 4 words, so this may not have been meant to be the moment, but was made so by V conciously, or perhaps subconciously, choosing to make this "the moment". That may be overthinking it.]

However, the name of the strip seems to indicate this is the moment, since likely all the rights, and the one wrong, need to be simultaneous. The words were essentially a verbal contract that was "made official" by the orb, as essentially any corruption based deals rely more on the person giving up their soul to do so for the "right" reasons, more so than being held legally responsible. The act of accepting the deal has to basically damn the sould anyway, so that the contract is essentially a formality. That is often the case in Faustian deals.

 

[ruemere]

[...]
PS: I am the only one who thinks that the dragon is partially justified to take revenge? Of course she overdoes it in a very evil way, but generally V is the one who started it. (Thats the problem I see when someone worships deities of revenge in the game. Most of the time many creatures have justified reasons to take revenge against teh characters).

Evil is evil is EVIL. Moreso in D&D world, where moral absolutes are absolute.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Derren]

Evil is evil is EVIL. Moreso in D&D world, where moral absolutes are absolute.

Regards,
Ruemere

So killing someone evil is never wrong, even when the evil being didn't really do anything?
I really wonder why so many people had problems with detect smite paladins then.

 

[PoeticJustice]

I don't think anyone but Rich Burlew could have conned fantasy fans, who ought to be aware of the finicky and vague nature of prophecy, into arguing over the exact meaning of a prophecy. Well done, Maestro!

For what it's worth, I used to be sure that the 4 words were said to Kubota, but this strip seems to imply that this is the fulfillment of the prophecy. Still, it's vague. Could go either way. That's the whole point.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I don't think anyone but Rich Burlew could have conned fantasy fans, who ought to be aware of the finicky and vague nature of prophecy, into arguing over the exact meaning of a prophecy. Well done, Maestro!

For what it's worth, I used to be sure that the 4 words were said to Kubota, but this strip seems to imply that this is the fulfillment of the prophecy. Still, it's vague. Could go either way. That's the whole point.

It's likely an issue of inevitability. There are three likely instances of the 4 words, each being basically pivotal. The killing of Kubota did force V to make the decision to sever ties with the rest of the party, "I cannot fail again" fits to, and this last one occurs just before V seals the deal. In a way, it has to do with how one sees inevitability. As a prophecy, it was always bound to occur, thus it's possible the 4 words start the sequence of events. However, ultimately, it's only inevitable that the Kubota killing leads to the ultimate arcane power if V accepts that it was inevitable, and doesn't take the outs available, especially the one given by the demons in the end.

However, if Disintegrate Gust of Wind are what fufills the prophecy, it is only because V accepts that it was the point of no return. However, V makes that decision, and does so by saying four words, for the wrong reasons as well. It could very well be that V was in effect tricked into saying the four words (and more importantly, doing what the four words implied) because V believed that the four words were already spoken, and the point of no return had been crossed, in effect creating a self-fufilling prophecy. V knows to look for 4 words just like the rest of the audience does, and only suffers from being unable to recognize that what V is doing is for the wrong reason at the time it's done. If V realized, in retrospect, than the 4 words to Kubota were said for the wrong reason, that reasoning could be the "wrong reason" V agreed to deal [believing V had already damned V's self] causing the most recent 4 words to be spoken.

What it comes down to is that after killing Kubota, V continued to make decisions that lead up to the choice made in this comic, and was given many opportunities to make different choices. Thus, only the final one truly led, inevitably, to Ultimate Arcane Power. Killing Kubota did not cause V to gain Ultimate Arcane Power, it was merely the first of many choices by V that led to the opportunity of gaining it. Many decisions, including those before Kubota was killed led to V's decision. Choosing conjuration as a banned subschool and killing the dragon by using disintegrate, for example, predate the prophecy, and also lead to the situation at hand, not to mention the prophecy itself.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Ouch. My head hurts.

 

[Wolfwood2]

The trick with the prophecy is that it is utterly irrelevent to the plot at hand and matters not a whit whether it was this four words or that four words. The whole thing was a magnificent distraction for readers, making them think the prophecy somehow mattered.

 

[ruemere]

So killing someone evil is never wrong, even when the evil being didn't really do anything?
I really wonder why so many people had problems with detect smite paladins then.

The emphasis is on D&D relying on moral absolutes. Evil is Evil. You're trying to apply moral relativism ("it did not do anything") to inherently Evil creature (in other words, you're forgetting about "... yet" and "this is a big black dragon").
It also does not help your case that said black dragon would have tried OOTS dudes and dudettes to have for lunch anyway.

Please, do note that dragon parent, besides being a parent (which makes us biased toward it) is also evil black dragon. By sparing life of young adult, they would have been risking existence of another creature with similar mindset: "skinning alive adults and eating children is fine" (this is a quick recap of words of wronged dragon parent, and no, Evil beings need no justifications to do such things anyway).

You feel bad about OOTS team killing the young dragon because the dragon parent made a convincing case appealing to your humanity. Where you err, however, is that you attempt to judge dragon parent using your own, humane, viewpoint.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[RangerWickett]

If only he'd had V say, "I have to succeed." So much less arguing would have ensued.

 

[PoeticJustice]

If only he'd had V say, "I have to succeed." So much less arguing would have ensued.

Ah, but that would destroy the ambiguity. So much of comic would be lost, just to settle one little argument. It's a tribute to his craftmenship.