Could Tarquin's party have kill the ABD's mate?

[paladinofshojo]

I know it's a hunch but in the flashback of strip 758, Tarquin seems to be wearing worn down black(ish) armor, and the Ancient Black Dragon did state that her mate was killed and been made into armor for the party's leader.

[HappyBlanket]

1) And this is significant... How? Oh, I know! Maybe the ABD's relative will- OH WAIT.

2) I'm pretty sure that more than one party leader has skinned an ABD to make into armor. That sounds pretty unlikely when you first say it, but it's really not that uncommon.

[Cizak]

1) And this is significant... How? Oh, I know! Maybe the ABD's relative will- OH WAIT.

Win. blahblah

[Dr.Epic]

1) And this is significant... How? Oh, I know! Maybe the ABD's relative will- OH WAIT.

It's just an interesting Easter Egg.

I don't think so. If Malack was with them, I think he'd be against killing a reptile.

[Procyonpi]

I don't find it that plausible. There really isn't much to support the theory.

[ThePhantasm]

I don't think we'll ever be told. If it is an easter egg, well, we haven't been told so far. And if it isn't... it wouldn't have much bearing on the plot anyways. I'm not even sure it would be that interesting of an egg...

So nah, I don't think so.

[Lemonus]

Probay not, but with Tarquin, you never know.

[Morquard]

It's just an interesting Easter Egg.

I don't think so. If Malack was with them, I think he'd be against killing a reptile.
Yeah, because Belkar would totally object to killing a halfling too.

[Swordpriest]

It seems a bit far fetched and pointless, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

[137beth]

Yeah, because Belkar would totally object to killing a halfling too.

Nergul (and likely Malack as well) is LAWFUL evil, Belkar is CHAOTIC evil.

Regardless, there's essentially no evidence to support it, as black armor could come from another black dragon, and doesn't need to come from a black dragon at all.

[theinsulabot]

1) And this is significant... How? Oh, I know! Maybe the ABD's relative will- OH WAIT.

2) I'm pretty sure that more than one party leader has skinned an ABD to make into armor. That sounds pretty unlikely when you first say it, but it's really not that uncommon.

Hi, I'm a RED dragon here to avenge my best friend's death, and was not in any way effected by familicide because it is, in fact, possible to deeply care for someone you aren't related to by blood or marriage.


Not that I think that's actually what will happen, but the spell was horribly illogical.

[RndmNumGen]

Nergul (and likely Malack as well) is LAWFUL evil, Belkar is CHAOTIC evil.

Regardless, there's essentially no evidence to support it, as black armor could come from another black dragon, and doesn't need to come from a black dragon at all.

We actually don't know what Malack's alignment is. While the Empire is definitely Lawful Evil, Malack might not be Lawful, or even Evil. It's not a definite answer, but here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) Malack claims that neutrality is better suited to gods of death(and by extension, their followers). It could be that Malack is Lawful Evil, but we really don't have enough evidence one way or the other to say for certain.

[LikeAD6]

The other black dragon was probably killed by an adventuring party who wrote "good" on their sheets and killed anything that could be classified as an evil monster, especially if it had a lot of loot and was worth a lot of XP.

[3SecondCultist]

I agree with LikeAD6 here. This seems much like a much more likely outcome.

[Swordpriest]

The other black dragon was probably killed by an adventuring party who wrote "good" on their sheets and killed anything that could be classified as an evil monster, especially if it had a lot of loot and was worth a lot of XP.

And, that was probably terrorizing the countryside, eating anyone it could catch, and plundering left and right in order to accumulate that giant treasure hoard to begin with. But, yeah, of course, it's always the big mean adventurers trying to defend their people who are vicious, evil, wretched clowns who are just in it for the money. :smallsigh:

People always sympathize with the monsters nowadays and don't consider that story-wise they're almost always, well, monstrous. Comes from rampant relativism, I suppose.

[Firemeier]

1) And this is significant... How? Oh, I know! Maybe the ABD's relative will- OH WAIT.

Dry wittiness aside, it is very much possible that the family of ABD's mate seeks revenge. By Darth V's explanation of familicide (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html) it only affects blood relatives. Depending on how incestuous the black dragon population really is, the ABD and her mate did not share the same bloodline, thus leaving the relatives of the mate untouched.

That said, it's likely that the familicide spell will come back to haunt V in new and exciting ways, instead of the other side of the family plotting revenge against him. :smallwink:

[Thanatosia]

I'm reasonably certain Malak is Lawful Nuetral.

[137beth]

We actually don't know what Malack's alignment is. While the Empire is definitely Lawful Evil, Malack might not be Lawful, or even Evil. It's not a definite answer, but here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) Malack claims that neutrality is better suited to gods of death(and by extension, their followers). It could be that Malack is Lawful Evil, but we really don't have enough evidence one way or the other to say for certain.

We do, however, know that Malack is not a homicidal maniac, which means the main point of my argument remains intact: the fact that Belkar would be inclined to kill a halfling doesn't mean that Malack would be inclined to kill a dragon.



The other black dragon was probably killed by an adventuring party who wrote "good" on their sheets and killed anything that could be classified as an evil monster, especially if it had a lot of loot and was worth a lot of XP.
Win!

[Dr.Epic]

Yeah, because Belkar would totally object to killing a halfling too.

Malack actually has respect for his people and it's a sociopath that'll kill anything.

[Shoelessgdowar]

Malack actually has respect for his people and it's a sociopath that'll kill anything.

Malack does worship a Death Deity, so killing all things, especially Draconic and Reptilian, may actually be very much a religious and proper practice. Like a Hindi would protest people cooking beef, but in another culture it is not only okay but actually considered a wondrous and holey ritual to cook a cow and eat it as part of a major holiday.

Many religions believed sacrificing members of their people as a sacred act.

Heck, even Catholicism spent centuries taking its smartest, most wise, and enlightened members and making them swear vows of celibacy so they would not spoil those blessings.

[Thanatosia]

Malack does worship a Death Deity, so killing all things, especially Draconic and Reptilian, may actually be very much a religious and proper practice
Death <> Killing

Not all gods of death advocate wanton murder and killing sprees. Only some of the more evil ones do. And as Malak went out of his way to portray his faith as nuetral not evil, I'm inclined to believe his Death Diety is not one of the murder spree condoning variety.

[Shoelessgdowar]

Death <> Killing

Not all gods of death advocate wanton murder and killing sprees. Only some of the more evil ones do. And as Malak went out of his way to portray his faith as nuetral not evil, I'm inclined to believe his Death Diety is not one of the murder spree condoning variety.

Oh yes, a deity who is frequently referenced as an aspect of if not specifically entirely the 'Devil' himself is not one that murder spree condoning...

Think of it this way, if Malack is evil, and a Lawful Good Priest of Thor is before him, would he say, "Oh yes, I am a evil, murderous, vile villain, MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"...

I was going to quote Malack, and show how it was all goody-goody on purpse, but it turns out his actual statement isn't much better:

"My master is Nergal the Lion Headed Deity of Death and Destruction. His fiery rage brings the end to all things..." "You know neither deities of Death nor their are necessarily Evil..." he actually lampshades the fact of his being Evil instead of neither outright stating nor denying it.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html

Go ahead, he actually admits do Nergal being about Death, Destruction, and bringing and end t all things... He might as well have said he was Evil... and as we know, he is an active ally of Tarquin, doing Evil, vile, villainous deeds.

[Nimrod's Son]

I know it's a hunch but in the flashback of strip 758, Tarquin seems to be wearing worn down black(ish) armor, and the Ancient Black Dragon did state that her mate was killed and been made into armor for the party's leader.
Tarquin's armour in that strip doesn't look "worn down" in the slightest, and it's medium grey, not black. It's not even close to black (it's much lighter than the cloak he usually wears, and even that isn't actually black).

So basically this thread boils down to "Tarquin is wearing some armour. Could it be made of dragon?" to which the answer is, obviously, "Who knows? Um... it's possible... I guess... seems a bit of a reach though...". :smallconfused:

[martianmister]

I don't think so. If Malack was with them, I think he'd be against killing a reptile.

Yeah, because Tarquin would totally object to killing a human too. :smallamused:

[hamishspence]

People always sympathize with the monsters nowadays and don't consider that story-wise they're almost always, well, monstrous. Comes from rampant relativism, I suppose.

Don't think so.

If anything, the "monsters may turn out to be people too" view seems to spring from beliefs that a creature should not be judged entirely by its physical appearance. Which is not tied to moral relativism.

Quite a few fairy tales do this- so its not a new trend. That said, more often than not, the monsters in those fairy tales are transformed humans (Beauty and the Beast, most notably).

[Logalmier]

"My master is Nergal the Lion Headed Deity of Death and Destruction. His fiery rage brings the end to all things..." "You know neither deities of Death nor their are necessarily Evil..." he actually lampshades the fact of his being Evil instead of neither outright stating nor denying it.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html

Go ahead, he actually admits do Nergal being about Death, Destruction, and bringing and end t all things... He might as well have said he was Evil... and as we know, he is an active ally of Tarquin, doing Evil, vile, villainous deeds.

Neither death nor destruction are evil. They are both simply forces in the universe. IMO we do not have enough information to tell, but Malak seems to be in the Neutral zone to me. Worshiping a god of death is not the same as rampantly killing the way Belkar does.

[Forlong]

It'll be explained in the next prequel book.

Okay, probably not.