Raise Dead?

[SavageWombat]

Wait a minute - is there a reason Durkon can't Raise Dead the undead Belkar? Or kill him and then raise him?

Was there an official 3.5 ruling on this point?

[Morty]

A Ressurection spell could bring Belkar back as a living person after he's destroyed. But we know Durkon won't do it, because then Belkar would breathe again. So either Belkar stays a vampire or is destroyed - but he won't live again.

[hamishspence]

Given that True Ressurrection emphasises that it can raise creatures that have been killed by death effects- or turned into undead, then destroyed:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm

the implication is that Raise Dead can't.

[Winter]

Wait a minute - is there a reason Durkon can't Raise Dead the undead Belkar?

The undead Belkar sucking him dry at that moment might be an issue. ;)

Apart from that: The rules do not stand in the way of "kill & call back". Apart from Durkon only limiting himself to the "kill" part and then letting Belkar stay dead of course.

[Xelbiuj]

Why would Durkon raise Belkar?
At best, he's a moderately useful fighter that causes unnecessary trouble.

Anyway,s they'd have to kill Belkular before raising him, just like with the bone golem and Roy. Maybe a wish would work.

[Winter]

Maybe a wish would work.

A wish would probably work. Now, the Order just has to convince Xykon to cast one. Or bug Redcloak about a Miracle. :smalltongue:

[Themrys]

Roy has implied that he doesn't plan to raise Belkar. If they kill vampire!Belkar, they will let him stay dead.

[Winter]

Roy has implied that he doesn't plan to raise Belkar. If they kill vampire!Belkar, they will let him stay dead.

Acutally, before that, they have to kill Belkar. And before that, Belkar has to become a Vampire in the first place (which has not yet happened ;)).

[Themrys]

Acutally, before that, they have to kill Belkar. And before that, Belkar has to become a Vampire in the first place (which has not yet happened ;)).

I still hope Malack will just kill him.

[pendell]

ISTR earlier versions of D&D allowed raise dead to be used to destroy high level undead with one shot. It was a plot point in multiple game books I read back in the '80s.

I think they changed the rules back around 3rd edition so that the undead body had to be destroyed or neutralized first. But once the body has been returned to a properly naturally dead state, resurrection should bring him back if the other conditions are met.

Why Durkon WOULD do this I have no idea.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[SilverStar101]

I still hope Malack will just kill him.

Malack saying "Perhaps I SHOULD make more children" would imply that he would be making him into a being like him(a Vampire). So I doubt that he's just killing him.

[Kish]

Wait a minute - is there a reason Durkon can't Raise Dead the undead Belkar? Or kill him and then raise him?
Why would he want to?

[Malanthyus]

Why would he want to?

This is kind of the heart of the matter. As fun as Belkar is from our perspective, His body count is on levels with The Joker. And all pretending aside, Belkar doesn't feel sorry for his actions, he doesn't regret anything, and he doesn't see any action he has taken -ever- as a crime.

The reason the rest of the order of the stick haven't simply killed him, is because that's not how they do things. As unlikely they think the possibility is, on some level they want to give belkar the opportunity to change, because he has been a teammate and ally to them, and it would be evil and wrong to just kill him in his sleep, or just try to kill him outright.

It's not a question of whether raise dead or even true resurrection being able to restore Belkar to life, it's a question of why would they really want to do that? Is he good in a fight? Yes. Are there equal or better fighting companions around that aren't homicidal psychopaths? Yes.

And the truth is, if they weight it all together, the world is a better and safter place for people without Belkar in it.

[SavageWombat]

Why would he want to?

Nothing wrong with that point - but since (via the prophecy) we know he won't, we need to establish whether he can't for purpose of speculation.

Can but doesn't is a different storyline then can't.

[hamishspence]

It could be that this breath is not Belkar's last breath of the year after all- his actual permanent death will be a few days (weeks?) later.

Still, seems unlikely.

[Wizard]

As hamishspence pointed out already, under 3.5 rules you need a True Resurrection spell to bring back destroyed undead. This means they would need a 17th level cleric at least. Haley mentions on 579 that she doesn't know any clerics at that level, which also implies that Durkon isn't one.

So it's definitely not possible to resurrect Belkar if he croaks, at least not for now. So, the Order meets Malack, he orders him to attack them, they have to kill him, and he can't be resurrected. Seems fairly straightforward. But it might not be like this at all. :smalltongue:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I want to point out, just for completeness sake, that Belkar would also need to agree to be raised. If his soul goes to the afterlife (which I understand is necessary to undo vampirism), he will find himself in an appropriate afterlife, probably some hellish plane with some eternal kill-or-be-killed scenario where he will be so utterly happy that I doubt he'd want to come back.

Grey Wolf

[Shred-Bot]

As hamishspence pointed out already, under 3.5 rules you need a True Resurrection spell to bring back destroyed undead. This means they would need a 17th level cleric at least. Haley mentions on 579 that she doesn't know any clerics at that level, which also implies that Durkon isn't one.

So it's definitely not possible to resurrect Belkar if he croaks, at least not for now. So, the Order meets Malack, he orders him to attack them, they have to kill him, and he can't be resurrected. Seems fairly straightforward. But it might not be like this at all. :smalltongue:

Well, that was also almost 300 strips ago, so in theory he could have leveled up to that point by now (though I agree that the chances of that are pretty much zero- we haven't even seen him use a level 8 spell yet).

Also, he only has enough diamonds for a regular resurrection spell, and I doubt the order will have time to go to Jared after this gate.

[gorocz]

As hamishspence pointed out already, under 3.5 rules you need a True Resurrection spell to bring back destroyed undead. This means they would need a 17th level cleric at least. Haley mentions on 579 that she doesn't know any clerics at that level, which also implies that Durkon isn't one.

So it's definitely not possible to resurrect Belkar if he croaks, at least not for now. So, the Order meets Malack, he orders him to attack them, they have to kill him, and he can't be resurrected. Seems fairly straightforward. But it might not be like this at all. :smalltongue:

Actually you can use normal Ressurection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm):

You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.

[SilverStar101]

A wish would probably work. Now, the Order just has to convince Xykon to cast one.

A wish is a 9th level spell and so is time stop, Vaarsuvius has used time stop on a few occasions so that means that V can(according to the rules on wizards for 3.5)also use wish. The only problem with this is that Vaarsuvius is trapped in a pit in an unknown location somewhere underneath Girard's... temple? tomb? is that right? I don't remember exactly what it is.

[Kish]

Vaarsuvius used Time Stop once and tried to use it a second time. Both times, s/he was Soul Spliced. If Vaarsuvius was able to cast ninth-level spells on his/her own, we'd know about it.

[SilverStar101]

Vaarsuvius used Time Stop once and tried to use it a second time. Both times, s/he was Soul Spliced. If Vaarsuvius was able to cast ninth-level spells on his/her own, we'd know about it.

Oh right! I had forgotten about the soul splice.

[theNater]

Roy has implied that he doesn't plan to raise Belkar. If they kill vampire!Belkar, they will let him stay dead.
Roy has implied he doesn't plan to raise Belkar if Belkar proves uncontrollable. Belkar has been playing his helpful party member act pretty consistently, so we can't assume that this applies.

Why Durkon WOULD do this I have no idea.
Because Belkar's a member of the Order of the Stick, and that's one of the things teammates do for each other?

Are there equal or better fighting companions around that aren't homicidal psychopaths? Yes.
Who? Remember, it needs to be someone that the Order can contact and recruit.

[Themrys]

Roy has implied he doesn't plan to raise Belkar if Belkar proves uncontrollable. Belkar has been playing his helpful party member act pretty consistently, so we can't assume that this applies.

Haley and Roy both think that Belkar's "character development" is just faked. They also think that the warning about one of their party members becoming evil - which was about Vaarsuvius - is about Belkar. Where did Roy state that they will raise Belkar if he proves controllable?

[theNater]

Haley and Roy both think that Belkar's "character development" is just faked. They also think that the warning about one of their party members becoming evil - which was about Vaarsuvius - is about Belkar. Where did Roy state that they will raise Belkar if he proves controllable?
Let's review the transcript (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html), shall we?

:haley:: What do we do if we can't control him?
:roy:: We run out the clock. Pretty soon, Belkar's fate will be someone else's problem. Someone bony with a black robe and a big scythe. Until then, we do what we can to keep him pointed at the bad guys.
:haley:: That may be easier than ever before-ever since he woke up from that coma, he's been Employee of the Month.
:roy:: Do you think it's a legitimate change of heart?
:haley:: Hell, no. I think it's a ploy.
:roy:: Well, if it's a ploy that takes...let's see...more than seven weeks for him to pull off, we don't have a problem.

Running out the clock is not clearly what Roy intends to do regardless, but is explicitly what Roy intends if they can't control Belkar. Roy has indeed seen through Belkar's act, but Belkar has largely stayed both under control and pointed at the bad guys, which is exactly what this exchange suggests Roy's aims are.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying Roy will definitely try to raise Belkar. I am saying there are reasons for Roy to do so(loyalty, combat prowess) in addition to the reasons not to(resources, futility, Belkar being a murderous little jerk). I am also saying that Roy's comments here do not imply what you say they do.

[Kish]

Let's review the transcript (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html), shall we?

:haley:: What do we do if we can't control him?
:roy:: We run out the clock. Pretty soon, Belkar's fate will be someone else's problem. Someone bony with a black robe and a big scythe. Until then, we do what we can to keep him pointed at the bad guys.
:haley:: That may be easier than ever before-ever since he woke up from that coma, he's been Employee of the Month.
:roy:: Do you think it's a legitimate change of heart?
:haley:: Hell, no. I think it's a ploy.
:roy:: Well, if it's a ploy that takes...let's see...more than seven weeks for him to pull off, we don't have a problem.

Running out the clock is not clearly what Roy intends to do regardless,
It isn't? I seem to be missing the parts of that transcript where Roy adds, "But if we can control him, then we need to find a way to avert Belkar's death!"
"Pretty soon, Belkar's fate will be someone else's problem."->The accuracy of this statement is not contingent on Roy not being able to control Belkar.
"Someone bony with a black robe and a big scythe."->The accuracy of this statement is not contingent on Roy not being able to control Belkar.
"Until then, we do what we can to keep him pointed at the bad guys."-> This statement directly concerns Roy's intention to control Belkar as much as he can.

Belkar will be dead in seven weeks, Roy says. You can, though I'd find it to be quite a stretch, suggest that Roy is only pleased about this fact if he can't control Belkar in the meantime. But there is no case to be made that it causes him to demonstrate any emotion south of mellow.

[theNater]

It isn't? I seem to be missing the parts of that transcript where Roy adds, "But if we can control him, then we need to find a way to avert Belkar's death!"
That's good, because it's not there.

"Pretty soon, Belkar's fate will be someone else's problem."->The accuracy of this statement is not contingent on Roy not being able to control Belkar.
"Someone bony with a black robe and a big scythe."->The accuracy of this statement is not contingent on Roy not being able to control Belkar.
"Until then, we do what we can to keep him pointed at the bad guys."-> This statement directly concerns Roy's intention to control Belkar as much as he can.
And none of this contradicts the idea that there is value in keeping a controlled Belkar alive for as much of the seven weeks as possible. Indeed, a dead Belkar is one not pointed at any bad guys.

Belkar will be dead in seven weeks, Roy says. You can, though I'd find it to be quite a stretch, suggest that Roy is only pleased about this fact if he can't control Belkar in the meantime. But there is no case to be made that it causes him to demonstrate any emotion south of mellow.
Whatever he feels about Belkar, Roy has a powerful sense of responsibility. Belkar is his team member and his responsibility. Losing Belkar will likely hit him hard on that front, even if he accepts it's for the best.

[Vemynal]

Truth be told, I think we will see Belkar turned into a vampire and that he either will be destroyed at the end of this book (probably a self-sacrifice) or that he will continue on into the next book.

I say this because Belkar is 1 of 2 OOTS members to have not been featured on the cover of a book. Inside this book we have already seen Belkar start to empathize with others for the first time ever, it'd be an interesting exploration of character for Belkar in his undead "now confirmed to be forever evil" self to continue this advancement towards being able to relate to others.

i.e. it would give him the character advancement and the plot focus necessary to merit being on the cover of a book

[Wizard]

Actually you can use normal Ressurection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm):

Whoops, looks like I screwed up there. Sorry about that.

[quasit]

About the order having or not means for efectively bringing back a character no matter what (snarl "kills" aside), it's implied that V might have wish on his spellbook; thought need to level up to 17 before casting it. I'm of course assuming that in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html V wasn't just mocking z'dritt for being so uncooperative.

Should they reach that level, Durkon would be able too; though his days might be numbered.

But as the oracle profetizes ,despite being prone of "exact wording" antics as he is, his profecies seems to be quite accurate. So I think that if Belkar gets turned into a vampire, killed outright or both he won't come back.

[Peelee]

About the order having or not means for efectively bringing back a character no matter what (snarl "kills" aside), it's implied that V might have wish on his spellbook; thought need to level up to 17 before casting it. I'm of course assuming that in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html V wasn't just mocking z'dritt for being so uncooperative.


I'm assuming that in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html V was just mocking Zz'dtri for being so uncooperative. The Drow was not willing to trade any spell V seemingly had, so V threw out 3 9th Level spells to see if she could get any reaction. Not because she actually had those in her spellbook. Just my take on it.

[rodneyAnonymous]

But we know Durkon won't [resurrect him], because then Belkar would breathe again.

This is extremely unlikely, but keep in mind that Belkar could be turned into a vampire, destroyed, resurrected... and then killed again later. The prophecy makes it less likely Belkar would be resurrected, but it doesn't rule that out completely.

[The Pilgrim]

This is extremely unlikely, but keep in mind that Belkar could be turned into a vampire, destroyed, resurrected... and then killed again later. The prophecy makes it less likely Belkar would be resurrected, but it doesn't rule that out completely.

It does unless Belkar was able to hold his breath between his resurrection and his second demise. "Last breath ever".

[rodneyAnonymous]

I don't understand. The "last breath" in that scenario would be the one drawn right before the second death.

(Not the one drawn before being turned into a vampire. That was maybe not his last breath ever... that might happen later. No need to hold his breath unless his last breath is the one before Malack kills him, which we don't know for sure.)