Hey, Mom!

[ChaosDefender24]

Considering that she's an ancient black dragon, does anyone here wonder why she hasn't been able to hook up with a True Res at this point?

She may be destitute now (as far as we know), but that doesn't mean that she can't find someone who can cast the spell and make an offer they can't refuse. And it doesn't explain why Dad hasn't come back, for Mom had time to build up a hoard after that one.

[Kish]

For one thing, it's entirely possible, as per Haley and Belkar's exchange here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0579.html), that there is exactly one cleric in the entire campaign world high level enough to cast ninth-level spells--a fellow named Redcloak, who would probably be extremely sympathetic to her distress but who is less than safe to approach (and who is also a humanoid and a mammal, so that, particularly ironically, she might consider him more similar to Vaarsuvius than to herself, and be unwilling to trust him accordingly).

For another, "make an offer they can't refuse"--finding a level 17+ cleric and telling him or her, "I'm threatening you to make you do what I want, and even if I have you helpless right now I have to give you an opportunity to cast one of your most powerful spells with only your word that the spell you cast will be True Resurrection" sounds suicidally stupid. Then, too, the 25000 GP worth of diamonds is a spell component, not a fee. If she found a level 17 cleric who was susceptible to threats and not smart enough or aggressive enough to trick her (or who simply wanted to help her), but she didn't have the diamonds and the cleric didn't have the diamonds, the best will in the world wouldn't make the spell work.

[Warren Dew]

Two possibilities spring to mind:

(1) She's not very smart.

(2) She doesn't really care about her son - if he was so weak he fell before mere humanoids, maybe she needs to make a better son - but getting revenge and playing with Vaarsuvius' mind is a lot of fun for her.

[Liwen]

Do not make a assumption that Redcloak is the only 17th level cleric of this campaign. Everyone knows that D&D merchants are just retired epic characters which excel at protecting their stuff. One of them should be a cleric.

[Flickerdart]

Do not make a assumption that Redcloak is the only 17th level cleric of this campaign. Everyone knows that D&D merchants are just retired epic characters which excel at protecting their stuff. One of them should be a cleric.
You are thinking of bartenders.

[Zevox]

Do not make a assumption that Redcloak is the only 17th level cleric of this campaign.
For that matter, don't make the assumption that Redcloak is 17th level himself. We've never seen him cast anything that would put him as above 15th level.

Zevox

[Aron Times]

Speaking of retired high level adventurers...

Durnan comes to mind. In NWN: Hordes of the Underdark, he's portrayed as a retired adventurer who now runs an inn. What the game doesn't mention is that this innkeeper is a level 18 character who is also a Masked Lord of Waterdeep.

That's like finding out the guy who runs the local Holiday Inn is Barack Obama. :smalleek:

[FoE]

From what we've seen and learned, there are relatively few high-level casters in all of the OOTS world. And those that do reach high levels might be entirely inaccessible; they're sequestered in their own dungeons and castles, or maybe they're hopping through the various planes of existence.

[Green Bean]

Heck, a couple of Wish scrolls would work just as well, and she wouldn't have to bother with trusting anyone else.

[Finwe]

Heck, a couple of Wish scrolls would work just as well, and she wouldn't have to bother with trusting anyone else.

One wonders why V didn't try to make a bargain along the lines of "Spare my children, and when I'm able to cast level 9 spells, I'll use two wishes to bring your son back."

Sure, mama dragon would probably want more compensation, perhaps in the form of her horde returned, or something else. I imagine that at the very least she would probably eat one child and soul-bind it as insurance, too, but at least V would have a chance at saving his children.

[GSFB]

As Spike once said:

"How many times do I have to tell you people, I'M EVIL?!"

That's it in a nutshell. The dragon is evil. Evil by nature. Evil to the core. Healing, resurrecting, saving life... not her nature. Killing, maiming, torture, suffering, revenge... totally her nature.

It's that simple.

[TheBlackArcher]

Read the FAQ man...

Plot always comes first, not logic. + the dragon is clearly evil + it would be hard to find someone strong enuff to rez

[factotum]

That's like finding out the guy who runs the local Holiday Inn is Barack Obama. :smalleek:

That, however, is par for the course in the Forgotten Realms setting, where simple peasant farmers are 10th level fighters and the guys who actually RUN the place are so powerful they've turned into plot devices. Other D&D worlds are not like that, and it seems pretty clear that OotS is nothing like as high powered--when epic level characters like Dorukan and Xykon are considered extremely rare and dangerous, and a party of 13th level adventurers like the Order are so powerful that the lord of a major city keeps them next to him during a siege so he can deploy their talents to the best location, you know you're not in Faerun anymore...

[TengYt]

The dragon probably will end up rezzing her son if she has the resources to do so. Doesn't mean she won;t get revenge anyway. She is evil, after all.

[Tre of the Wood]

I don't know about 3.5'th edition, but in 1'st some player races can't even be rezzed :smalleek:, and most monsters cannot be. My druid has tried and failed many times to come up with a was to bring back animals, and had to get reincarnated when he was melted by a green slime. Talk about inconvienient. And destroyed bodies can only be rezzed through the use of 2 wishes and a rezz. No true rezzes.

[Tempest Fennac]

I know that Elves didn't have souls for some reason, which is why they couldn't be brought back. I'm guessing it was the same with animals, right?

[Assassin89]

I know that Elves didn't have souls for some reason, which is why they couldn't be brought back. I'm guessing it was the same with animals, right?

If you are assuming that the elves in D&D are the same as Tolkien elves, then your assessment would be correct, but the main problem is that this is 3.5 edition D&D, and the rules might be different, meaning that animals could be resurrected, but not many people would bother to do so.

[Optimystik]

And destroyed bodies can only be rezzed through the use of 2 wishes and a rezz. No true rezzes.

Ouch. In 3.5, the second Wish is the rez. (The first reconstitutes the body from planar memory.) And True Resurrection does the same thing in one shot for a lot less exp, albeit with a hefty price tag.

[Finwe]

If you are assuming that the elves in D&D are the same as Tolkien elves, then your assessment would be correct


Where did you get that silly idea? Both elves and men have souls in Tolkien - the difference is that Elven souls do not leave the earth, but mens' do.

[Tempest Fennac]

I don;t know much about Tolkin's world. I just remember reading on a site which listed the 1st Edition rules (it was called OSRIC, or something like that) that Elves lack souls for some reason.

[Molant]

I'd just like to point out that saying the dragon is 'evil' is rather narrow minded* and nearly certainly incorrect, especially considering Rich's articles on play theory, which note that ALL characters (including and especially NPCs) should make their decisions based on an emotional reaction to the situation, not based on some vague alignment text.

We can see this further in the characterization of Miko, which Rich has described as the worst way to play a paladin (I don't know whether he's actually said this, but Hinjo is one of the much better ways to play a paladin). The entire point of this weak character was zero emotional response and consequently, her decisions were nearly always poor.

Were we to consider the Kübler-Ross stages of grief, I'm sure we could find that the dragon is probably in the anger stage and has not yet reached the bargaining stage, in which thoughts of bringing her son back would begin to come clear.


*I stopped just short of saying it was an excuse to get out of thinking, which it actually could be, but it is definitely narrow minded.

[hamishspence]

true- its a starting point, no more. An evil character in D&D can have many virtues and still be evil (Exemplars of Evil and Champions of Ruin go into more detail on this)

More useful would be noting personality traits- like "the dragon is bigoted" referring to Humanoids in general as if theey were all the same, or "the dragon is vindictive" in wanting V to "suffer the full measure of pain she has" no matter what the cost.

[Finwe]

I'd just like to point out that saying the dragon is 'evil' is rather narrow minded* and nearly certainly incorrect, especially considering Rich's articles on play theory, which note that ALL characters (including and especially NPCs) should make their decisions based on an emotional reaction to the situation, not based on some vague alignment text.

We can see this further in the characterization of Miko, which Rich has described as the worst way to play a paladin (I don't know whether he's actually said this, but Hinjo is one of the much better ways to play a paladin). The entire point of this weak character was zero emotional response and consequently, her decisions were nearly always poor.

Were we to consider the Kübler-Ross stages of grief, I'm sure we could find that the dragon is probably in the anger stage and has not yet reached the bargaining stage, in which thoughts of bringing her son back would begin to come clear.


*I stopped just short of saying it was an excuse to get out of thinking, which it actually could be, but it is definitely narrow minded.

An emotional reaction to your son's death might be to seek out the murderer and kill and/or physically torture him. That's something an otherwise good or neutral person might be brought to doing in a terrific fit of rage. However, the dragon's actions represent coldly thought out plan to inflict as much emotional pain as dragonly possible on V, without regard for the innocent lives of others. Clearly very evil.

[Warren Dew]

However, the dragon's actions represent coldly thought out plan to inflict as much emotional pain as dragonly possible on V, without regard for the innocent lives of others. Clearly very evil.

Evil yes. Not all that well thought out, though. The dragon plans to spend eternity banished to another plane. If she actually cares about her kid, she'll spend most of that time thinking about her lost kid. Even if she doesn't, gloating about a well planned revenge seems likely to pale rather quickly.

[Optimystik]

Evil yes. Not all that well thought out, though. The dragon plans to spend eternity banished to another plane. If she actually cares about her kid, she'll spend most of that time thinking about her lost kid. Even if she doesn't, gloating about a well planned revenge seems likely to pale rather quickly.

She might have been planning to leave anyway - with her family dead, life on this plane may have become meaningless to her. Every swamp she would have flown over, for example, may represent a painful memory of flying over them with her husband and whelp. This doesn't make her act against V's family any less evil, of course.

[MCerberus]

Wasn't that dragon's hoard looted and later lost by the OotS? It seems that may be a roadblock to getting a true resurrection. Revenge just seems both easier and more economical (I'm betting the oracle offers a draconic discount).

edited because homonyms are fun.

[Quorothorn]

I don;t know much about Tolkin's world. I just remember reading on a site which listed the 1st Edition rules (it was called OSRIC, or something like that) that Elves lack souls for some reason.

Of course they have souls. Although I need to brush up on my Tolkien (:smallredface:), IIRC here's a decent explanation: with Elves, the soul and body are basically one unit, and both units go across the sea to the West, whether by choice or when they're killed (obviously if it was the latter, they get a fresh body, or something). The souls of Men, by contrast, are rather more tenuously linked to their physical forms, which is why they eventually die of old age, and, when they do die, in whatever manner, their soul goes...somewhere else; no one really knows where.

Dwarves are another barrel of fun entirely.

[CliveStaples]

Or...maybe the Giant wanted the dragon's son to be dead. Y'know, for narrative/plot reasons. It's like asking why the Fellowship didn't just fly to Mordor on the backs of the Eagles: because then there would be no story.

[Quorothorn]

Or...maybe the Giant wanted the dragon's son to be dead. Y'know, for narrative/plot reasons. It's like asking why the Fellowship didn't just fly to Mordor on the backs of the Eagles: because then there would be no story.

Except there has to be in-universe explanations (as there are for that case you mentioned) as well, otherwise the story often falls apart for its readers.

[CliveStaples]

Except there has to be in-universe explanations (as there are for that case you mentioned) as well, otherwise the story often falls apart for its readers.

No, there doesn't. Sometimes, things just happen. Why did Roy happen to want to be a fighter? Why was Haley born a female? It's part of the suspension of disbelief that occurs with every work of fiction.

[Quorothorn]

No, there doesn't. Sometimes, things just happen. Why did Roy happen to want to be a fighter? Why was Haley born a female? It's part of the suspension of disbelief that occurs with every work of fiction.

Because he chose to be a fighter, with reasons for doing so that can be easily noticed in his background?

Edit: And if you can;t see the difference between the question as to why the YABD can't be rezzed and Haley being a human female...I honestly don't even know what to say: it hurts my brain. The two aren't remotely equivalent.

[Optimystik]

Or...maybe the Giant wanted the dragon's son to be dead. Y'know, for narrative/plot reasons. It's like asking why the Fellowship didn't just fly to Mordor on the backs of the Eagles: because then there would be no story.

That, and they'd probably stand out in Mordor pretty easily that way. Maybe Frodo could have gotten a lift to the gate? :smallwink:


No, there doesn't. Sometimes, things just happen. Why did Roy happen to want to be a fighter? Why was Haley born a female? It's part of the suspension of disbelief that occurs with every work of fiction.

Roy explains in the strip (and a great deal more in OtOoPCs) why he wants to be a fighter. As for Haley being born a female, that's hardly a plot-significant occurrence.

[CliveStaples]

Because he chose to be a fighter, with reasons for doing so that can be easily noticed in his background?

Right, but my question was about why those reasons occurred in the way they did? Surely alternate possibilities could have been realized; why didn't the Giant write about those instead? Because he wanted to write this particular story.


Edit: And if you can;t see the difference between the question as to why the YABD can't be rezzed and Haley being a human female...I honestly don't even know what to say: it hurts my brain. The two aren't remotely equivalent.

Does it really matter to you? If it does, just pretend that there's some special exception in this case--raising a dragon is more difficult or impossible, it is against the dragon's religious beliefs, etc.

It's like asking how V got those lines on his face. It's artistic license. Don't get stuck on stupid details.

[Quorothorn]

Right, but my question was about why those reasons occurred in the way they did? Surely alternate possibilities could have been realized; why didn't the Giant write about those instead? Because he wanted to write this particular story.

Yes, and the story he writes gives reasons for why things happened the way they did, implicitly or explicitly. Because otherwise, that suspension of disbelief would fall apart. That's why people hate the Deus Ex Machina.


Does it really matter to you? If it does, just pretend that there's some special exception in this case--raising a dragon is more difficult or impossible, it is against the dragon's religious beliefs, etc.

It's like asking how V got those lines on his face. It's artistic license. Don't get stuck on stupid details.

Because he hadn't tranced for months, I'm guessing. Seriously now, why do you keep providing examples that, in fact, have in-universe explanations?

Quite frankly, I'm not particularly bothered by this, and in point of fact there have been plenty of plausible reasons for why YABD can't be rezzed posted by various people. My point is that those reasons MUST be there. Otherwise, what's the point? The world isn't consistent.

[CliveStaples]

Yes, and the story he writes gives reasons for why things happened the way they did, implicitly or explicitly. Because otherwise, that suspension of disbelief would fall apart. That's why people hate the Deus Ex Machina.

The entire plot is a Deus Ex Machina. And it always is.


Because he hadn't tranced for months, I'm guessing. Seriously now, why do you keep providing examples that, in fact, have in-universe explanations?

Right, but why would not trancing have that particular effect on his physiology? The in-universe explanation is that "Well, that's just what happens when you don't trance."

So what's the in-universe explanation for why the mother hasn't raised her child from the dead? "Well, that's just what happens when a dragon is killed."

What's interesting to me is why you'd make the presumption in the first case, but not the second.


Quite frankly, I'm not particularly bothered by this, and in point of fact there have been plenty of plausible reasons for why YABD can't be rezzed posted by various people. My point is that those reasons MUST be there. Otherwise, what's the point? The world isn't consistent.

Oh? Have other dragons been raised from the dead in OOTS? Have other young dragons been raised from the dead in OOTS? Have other young black dragons been raised from the dead in OOTS? There are more potential factors in play than simply death and the resurrection spell.

[Kish]

The entire plot is a Deus Ex Machina. And it always is.
The term "Deus Ex Machina" has a specific literary meaning, which has to do with bad writing, and doesn't neutrally describe all fiction.

Would it be theoretically possible to replace all discussion of literature with, "This happened because the author wanted it to happen"? Yes, but it's not going to happen. Not only are you emulating Sisyphus here, I for one am very glad you will never get that boulder to the top of that hill.

[Optimystik]

The entire plot is a Deus Ex Machina. And it always is.

You are very clearly wrong. A Deus Ex happens when a writer has narratively painted himself into a corner. Foreshadowing is the literary device specifically designed to counter this phenomenon, and Rich uses it in spades.


So what's the in-universe explanation for why the mother hasn't raised her child from the dead? "Well, that's just what happens when a dragon is killed."

The dragon's mother specifically explains what prevented her child's resurrection in #628. His remains dissolved into the swamp. V even sets up dissolution of disintegrated remains while attempting to zap Qarr. Foreshadowing again.

[Quorothorn]

The entire plot is a Deus Ex Machina. And it always is.

...........Right, that's it. You have now killed your credibility in my eyes if you actually think that. Good day, Staples.

[CliveStaples]

You are very clearly wrong. A Deus Ex happens when a writer has narratively painted himself into a corner. Foreshadowing is the literary device specifically designed to counter this phenomenon, and Rich uses it in spades.

You're talking about when a Deus Ex Machina happens. But what is it, really? It's a device created entirely by the author that is created without any purpose or cause other than to resolve a conflict.

Similarly, the entire story itself is a device created entirely by the author without any purpose or cause other than to create and resolve conflict. Ultimately, when you ask why an event has occurred in any story, you will end up at "Because that's just how he wrote it."


The dragon's mother specifically explains what prevented her child's resurrection in #628. His remains dissolved into the swamp. V even sets up dissolution of disintegrated remains while attempting to zap Qarr. Foreshadowing again.

That's not really material to my point; that explanation is only meaningful insofar as it has relevance on subsequent events or characters in the narrative. But if the Giant wanted to abandon the fate of the son, he wouldn't have any need to explain what happened.


The term "Deus Ex Machina" has a specific literary meaning, which has to do with bad writing, and doesn't neutrally describe all fiction.

Would it be theoretically possible to replace all discussion of literature with, "This happened because the author wanted it to happen"? Yes, but it's not going to happen. Not only are you emulating Sisyphus here, I for one am very glad you will never get that boulder to the top of that hill.

I understand that it is a term of art, although I'm not trying to "replace all discussion of literature". But when people get too focused on the line of reasoning to explain an event in the novel, they'll always end up at "This happened because the author wanted it to happen." The discussion is ultimately fruitless at the event horizon.

Short of that, and more frequently, there actually are reasons why things occur in a narrative. It does have either intrinsic meaning or some bearing on other plot or character elements. But the flip side of that coin is that sometimes there aren't reasons why things occur in a narrative. Sometimes what happens to a character after he or she is killed off isn't important or relevant enough to describe in the narrative.

And sometimes, a lack of explanation--or an explanation given by an unreliable narrator (yes, you really don't have to explain literary terms to me)--can have its own benefits for the story.


...........Right, that's it. You have now killed your credibility in my eyes if you actually think that. Good day, Staples.

If that's true, then you really have a lot to learn about literary criticism.

[B. Dandelion]

Every story is an inherent plot contrivance. That doesn't mean it's an inherent Deus Ex Machina as well. Contrivance can be sloppy, but its function is to promote the willing suspension of belief. Deus Ex Machina is what happens when the suspension of disbelief fails because the contrivance doesn't remain consistent in its limitations.

[Lunawarrior0]

Staples, you say that any story happens just because that is just how the author wrote it, not because it has to be internally consistent? I challenge you to find me a couple good stories that are not internally consistent. Even if you can find a few that aren't consistent, this story has so far been very consistent with the 3.5 rules of D&D, I don't see why he would break that without very good reason.
Besides, some reasonable answers have been given, so you don't need to fall back to "because that is what the writer said would happen."

[Runa]

Were we to consider the Kübler-Ross stages of grief, I'm sure we could find that the dragon is probably in the anger stage and has not yet reached the bargaining stage, in which thoughts of bringing her son back would begin to come clear.

I would not rely on the "Kübler-Ross stages of grief" (aka DABDA stages of grief) in quite that manner if I were you; not that I'm faulting you for it much, since it's been one of those things "everyone knows", for so long that even some psychologists often don't think to question it (especially thanks to Kübler-Ross's apparent acceptance and admiration within the field). However, some have, recently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model#Research), mostly because... well, the way it's usually quoted? Is, um... wrong.

DABDA (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance) are, in fact, originally the Kübler-Ross stages of dying, and their supposedly universal progression, though taken for granted, is actually not always universal even then. Here's what happened with the original research project: a bunch of psychologists talked to and observed patients dying of terminal illness. They then went and discussed it amongst themselves (not independently of each other, but in a group, that is) and came to the collective conclusion that they were seeing a consistent pattern of the DABDA "stages" ... however, not only is this a somewhat questionable way of running a study (since it allows an awful lot of personal bias and subjective interpretation to sneak in as well as giving the researchers ample opportunity to unintentionally or even intentionally influence each other towards agreeing on a pattern, etc.)... it by no real stretch of the imagination covered the grievers; it was only covering those themselves dying of a long-term condition. Yet Kübler-Ross later tried to apply it to every single kind of loss there is, like some kind of magic silver bullet theory of loss.

And yet, if you look at the actual "stages" of the theory, even Kübler-Ross admitted that not everyone will react to every loss (or "catastrophic event") with all five "stages", let alone necessarily in the same progressive order they're usually listed in. In other words, all she did was identify common reactions to being really, really, really upset, which she claims you don't even necessarily have to exhibit more than two of anyway, except then she called them... stages, and gave them a specific listed order. Which of course, strongly implies a progressive, consistent order that even she admitted did not consistently happen, with some "stages" being out of order or skipped altogether (begs the question of what her definition of the word "stage" is and whether the theory might not be better off referring to them as states). The theory is treated as revolutionary, as a great discovery, and as a sort of Word of God thing that always happens... it's really not any of that. It's just an observation that "hey, sometimes? When people die [or lose people, or become infertile or...]? They get mad... sometimes. And sometimes they get depressed. And sometimes..."

Don't get me wrong, I respect the lady for having at least tried to understand one of the most common, powerful, painful experiences of the human condition... but the DABDA "stages" the way most people remember them are, effectively, an urban legend. :smallwink:


That said, the dragon? She is DEFINITELY pissed, and I'm not entirely sure I can blame her - certainly, I can understand it. My guess is that from her perspective, she's a superior, mighty, powerful, intelligent creature... whose entire family has been picked off by arrogant little flame-throwing, sword-swinging, upstart pipsqueaks who see no problem at all with slaughtering sentient creatures left and right, just because they've got big teeth and are sitting on a pile of gold. And yet, they - and their gods! - see nothing Evil in this, even allowing themselves to get into Lawful Good heaven. Even if her alignment was evil, from her perspective she really is treating them no worse than they treated her.

Makes you think, doesn't it. :smallsmile: (Especially re: the standard D&D treatment of morals, heh)


Right, but why would not trancing have that particular effect on his physiology? The in-universe explanation is that "Well, that's just what happens when you don't trance."

Um. Wow.

Gee, I don't know... maybe it has to do with the fact that trancing is generally portrayed as the elven equivalent of sleeping within the story? - that a character (V) who refuses to trance also increasingly is shown to have pale, bloodshot skin, circles under their eyes, and a generally ghastly expression, all similar to how one would portray sleep loss? And that coordination and concentration (including memory and focus) are among the things that tend to suffer when you suffer too much sleep loss? It's not an unreasonable assumption in the least, and thus I can't help pointing out that your argument is a bit of a strawman.

Considering that the Rule of Drama actually works considerably better if she can't rez her son for the moment, well, then for the moment it would make sense to assume that as well. Yes, we could be proven wrong; and that would be an interesting turn of events, I'm sure. We will have to wait and see on that one. In the meantime... while you have an... interesting perspective on literary theory, I think you have missed the point somewhat.

Your argument that "none of it matters anyway because in the end the only explanation is that it's that way because the writer wrote it that way" is... well... stupid, to be honest. Or, I should say, scoff-worthy under the circumstances.

Because it is an attempt to kill debate. That's honestly the only thing it actually could possibly function as in this context. You are effectively trying to frame the debate in an "all debate is useless and pointless because que sera sera" way; in other words, you are trying to one-up everyone in the thread by arguing that in the end, there's no need to debate or discuss it, because there is no point to debating in the first place.

You claim others are "not familiar with literary criticism". I would say that you are unfamiliar with the concept of literary discussion.

The point is not necessarily to be right. The point is to engage an intellectual puzzle with one another. To interact, and make educated guesses and respond to each other's educated guesses. To, you know... discuss.

You are, of course, trying to kill that, by basically saying over and over now that "it doesn't matter what you say, because what you say doesn't matter"; trying to "win" by trivializing the arguments of every person in the thread who's disagreed with you. In short? You are going against the very spirit of true debate and discussion. You are trying to "trump card" win, instead of genuinely discuss the actual merits of any given point of view at this point.

I suggest that if you're going to keep doing that... to just stop and leave, please. Some of us would rather not have some nihilistic, pseudo-existentialist pedant snearing at us instead of actually trying to discuss anything interesting. "Que sera sera", while poetic enough on its own, is not an actual argument. In this kind of discussion it is little more than an aposiopesis preceding an arrogant shrug; useless in discussion, if not outright insulting to those actually trying to put intellectual effort into their analysis.

[whatchamacallit]

Considering that she's an ancient black dragon, does anyone here wonder why she hasn't been able to hook up with a True Res at this point?

She may be destitute now (as far as we know), but that doesn't mean that she can't find someone who can cast the spell and make an offer they can't refuse. And it doesn't explain why Dad hasn't come back, for Mom had time to build up a hoard after that one.

Seems to me there's a possibility dragons can't be ressurected.

[Wanton Soup]

I'd just like to point out that saying the dragon is 'evil' is rather narrow minded*

Not in a fantasy setting.

DM games spent lawyering about whether someone is guilty of their crimes or whether they were innocent by some other means would not make a fantasy setting.

Rich DOES play with that a lot but RC is still Evil. Xykon will never be anything other than evil.

And this black betty is definitely by its own actions condemned, it is absolute evil.

Or is torturing children a nice happy-bunny-land candy-store thing to do?

[Wanton Soup]

Even if her alignment was evil, from her perspective she really is treating them no worse than they treated her.

Makes you think, doesn't it. :smallsmile: (Especially re: the standard D&D treatment of morals, heh)


Hmm. And so if she killed in her 3,000 year lifespan 10 million husbands, children, brothers, sons, wives, daughters, are we treating her no worse than she treated us?

And D&D is meant to be a game. Sitting about arguing epistomology, forensics, moral relativism and so on is not generally seen as part of the fantasy setting.

Bad Guys: Them

Good Guys: Us

And they made a most satisfying thump when they hit the ground.

IT'S A GAME!!!