Oots 628!!

[FireLance]

Ah, eating the spellbook. Yeah, that would hurt V, but as much as the dragon was hurt?

Don't ask me; ask the research-obsessed elf.

 

[FireLance]

And V identified the exact metaphor the dragon was making so she/he could be shocked?

Not a difficult thing to do if you don't actually have children (and I'm fairly sure that V has not mentioned any offspring - a mate, yes; children, no). So if V knows the dragon can't be talking about flesh and blood children, it must be referring to something else which V created.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think the REAL important thing that people are missing here, is that it clearly points towards the Oracle being the true main protagonist of the story.

 

[Merkuri]

If he doesn't have children it's always possible that V interpreted it as a threat to kill his future children. I don't have kids and it would certainly scare me if a dragon threatened to hunt down and kill my progeny. That's almost scarier than if you had kids... when you do finally have kids you'll be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

I'm firmly in the "Actual Children" camp. I mean, how surprising would it be if V never mentioned the children before this? V is incredibly forthcoming about the details of her personal life...

 

[ArisKatsaris]

It's V's real children.

If he doesn't have children it's always possible that V interpreted it as a threat to kill his future children. I don't have kids and it would certainly scare me if a dragon threatened to hunt down and kill my progeny. That's almost scarier than if you had kids...

That'd be just silly on the part of the dragon, since V would have years to hunt her down and kill her BEFORE procreating.

So if V knows the dragon can't be talking about flesh and blood children, it must be referring to something else which V created.

It's the artistic aspect of OoTS that makes this possibility impossible. This whole strip has broken through the previous emotional false ceiling of OOTS (Pattern 11 in Adam Cadre's evaluative patterns ), by portraying a vengeful grieving mother threatening to murder another character's children in retribution.

Though it would be *comforting* to some readers to reestablish the previous false ceiling, the Giant has broken through it already. It's a done deal. Reestablishing by making her threat metaphorical is simply beneath his craftmanship -- it'd be an artistic travesty.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yeah, I think the arguments against them being V's real children are on shaky ground. Frankly, I don't think a grieving parent seeking revenge is going to "metaphorically" threaten the children of her own child's murderer.

And as others have said, V isn't exactly forthcoming about his/her past and history. The fact that kids haven't been mentioned doesn't, IMO, in any way suggest that they don't exist.

 

[Rechan]

Plot-screwing PCs because the did their job and killed a monster. Whoop-de-doo.

I didn't know the OotS crew were hired to kill dragons. Ain't their job.

It's the plot.

I also suddenly love the idea of a dragon going after a PC with dragonscale armor because said armor is made from their relative, and they want it for sentimental value/burial.

 

[Dausuul]

Maybe, or it could be a world with verisimilitude, since the PC's actions have consequences. If the PC's have a reasonable chance to overcome the new challenge and have it further the plot, then I say verisimilitude. If it's a total DM-upset-his-monster-lost smackdown, then I say screw-job. We'll have to see how it plays out...

Or it could be a DM sick of Vaarsuvius's player pulling a lot of gratuitous crap - leaving the party for no good reason, rules-lawyering about being able to go without trancing, et cetera. This could be a none-too-subtle hint to V's player to get back with the rest of the group.

 

[Nymrohd]

They killed a dragon so they could loot his hoard. They had no terrified villagers begging for assistance or anything, they just wanted the starmetal which is pretty much greed. By the time the dragon attacked them, they were well into his lair. Moreover said dragon had a good reason not to negotiate with adventurers, given that adventurers had already killed his father, skinned him and decided to wear him around (I wonder what PETA would look like in a D&D world . . .). And I don't get the always evil alignment argument either. Black dragons are chaotic evil because they delight in certain less than favourable actions. They are not the kind of creature that considers themselves evil nor are they likely to act evil just for the sake of being evil. They are not evil outsiders. Killing one for no particular reason other than because you want to loot it is evil. And considering the OotS could have run after V charmed the dragon and get a decent head start, the fact that it attacked them first is irrelevant. This is why people should be unaligned until proven otherwise imo.