View Full Version : resurrecting a vampire
Let's pretend for a moment that Durkon is able to appeal to the tiny remaining bit of Malack that lived 200 years ago, and does convince him to be resurrected.
*Yes, I know there is ZERO chance of that - this is for discussion only.*
So, they go through with it, and 10 minutes later, the living Malack is back. What happens to all the knowledge and class abilities he obtained while a vampire? Does it all fade, as Roy's memory of the afterlife did?
What other questions might you have?
Xelbiuj
2013-02-28, 04:28 PM
I imaging he'd lose all and only his vampire feats and bonuses.
Olinser
2013-02-28, 04:34 PM
Let's pretend for a moment that Durkon is able to appeal to the tiny remaining bit of Malack that lived 200 years ago, and does convince him to be resurrected.
*Yes, I know there is ZERO chance of that - this is for discussion only.*
So, they go through with it, and 10 minutes later, the living Malack is back. What happens to all the knowledge and class abilities he obtained while a vampire? Does it all fade, as Roy's memory of the afterlife did?
What other questions might you have?
It seems to me the most logical result would be that he would resurrect Malack exactly as he was when he was converted to a vampire. So he would revert to that EXACT state - all vampire bonuses, and knowledge, skills, spells, experience and levels he gained as a vampire would be lost.
However, it also would not be unreasonable that Malack retained knowledge of all actions that he took when he was a vampire - so he would just lose all vampire-related abilities, but be otherwise unchanged class wise.
IF it were to happen (and that's a very big IF - remember that it's already been established through the Drakentooth clan that Malack has to CONSENT to be resurrected), Rich could reasonably choose either avenue - so dunno, flip a coin?
Alaris
2013-02-28, 04:50 PM
Rules as Written? His "Vampire Template" would be revoked, and he would lose all Vampire Related abilities. He would revert to a "Living Lizardfolk" (if that's what he is), with all Cleric Class Levels intact (minus 1, if it's not True Resurrection).
It is likely that Malack sees his "Vampirsm" as a part of himself at this point, a vital part of himself. Losing it would mean killing part of himself.
Mr.Rictus
2013-02-28, 05:07 PM
I agree, he has "lived" far longer as a vampire than as a living being, it is now a great part of himself. However, were he to be resurrected, I suspect he would still have his clerical powers, and keep most of his memories, however they might be muddled and hard to recollect, just as we have vague memories of our early years. A living malack would be a very confused being indeed.
SteveDJ
2013-02-28, 05:21 PM
Slightly off topic, but might blend into the topic depending on the answer (since I don't know it myself):
Is "Raise Dead" an option on a vampire? After all, the body is still there.
If so, what effect might that have on Malak?
Slightly off topic, but might blend into the topic depending on the answer (since I don't know it myself):
Is "Raise Dead" an option on a vampire? After all, the body is still there.
If so, what effect might that have on Malak?
Three things prevent this. One, there is a time limit on raise dead that Malack long since past. Two, there is a minute long casting time, so Malack would need to be helpless. Three, Raise Dead fails on any body killed by a death effect or raised as an undead.
As for Resurrection, it specifically says undead bodies must be destroyed before being raised. And it has a ten year per caster level time limit that Malack overshot, so unless we are counting time of death from destruction of the undead body forward, or there is some house ruling going on, (which is fine, could be Durkon's Fantastic Life Bringing spell,) is mistaken in his ability to raise Malack. (I am sure he isn't lying.)
SteveDJ
2013-02-28, 05:43 PM
Thanks. That answers a lot of questions. :smallsmile:
Three things prevent this. One, thre is a time limit on raise dead that Malack long since past. Two, there is a minute long casting time, so Malack would need to be helpless. Three, Raise Dead fails on any body killed by a death effect or raised as an undead.
As for Resurrection, it specifically says undead bodies must be destroyed before being raised. And it has a ten year per caster level time limit that Malack overshot, so unless we are counting time of death from destruction of the undead body forward, or there is some house ruling going on, (which is fine, could be Durkon's Fantastic Life Bringing spell,) is mistaken in his ability to raise Malack. (I am sure he isn't lying.)
He probably just didn't realize Malack was 200 years old.
If Malack had been a vampire for anything up to 150 years (and quite possibly 160, at this point), Durkon could Resurrect him.
KillianHawkeye
2013-02-28, 07:14 PM
He probably just didn't realize Malack was 200 years old.
That's it exactly. Malack didn't reveal his "age" until after Durkon's offer of a ressurection.
King of Nowhere
2013-02-28, 07:54 PM
Am I the only one thinking at the implication on xykon? If xykon was destroied and his philacter too, he could still be resurrected as a living sorceror and then turned into a lich again.
Feddlefew
2013-02-28, 08:04 PM
Xycon's phylactery is his soul. If it gets destroyed he's deader than dead.
Gift Jeraff
2013-02-28, 08:05 PM
Xycon's phylactery is his soul. If it gets destroyed he's deader than dead.
According to SoD, it's more of a safety net. His soul is in his body and when his body is destroyed his soul hides in the phylactery.
KillianHawkeye
2013-02-28, 08:07 PM
Xycon's phylactery is his soul. If it gets destroyed he's deader than dead.
No, a phylactery is a container for the soul. It's what stops his soul from passing on during the transformation from life into unlife (and it has the handy side effect of allowing him to regenerate his bodily form).
If the phylactery is destroyed, the soul will escape. If his body is subsequently destroyed, he will pass on to the afterlife like any other dead soul. A lich is harder to destroy than most any other kind of undead, but what happens to them afterwards is no different.
Feddlefew
2013-02-28, 08:13 PM
No, a phylactery is a container for the soul. It's what stops his soul from passing on during the transformation from life into unlife (and it has the handy side effect of allowing him to regenerate his bodily form).
If the phylactery is destroyed, the soul will escape. If his body is subsequently destroyed, he will pass on to the afterlife like any other dead soul. A lich is harder to destroy than most any other kind of undead, but what happens to them afterwards is no different.
Let me check.
Huh. I must have misinterpreted "get rid of the lich for good" to mean annihilation. My bad.
Roland Itiative
2013-02-28, 09:14 PM
Am I the only one thinking at the implication on xykon? If xykon was destroied and his philacter too, he could still be resurrected as a living sorceror and then turned into a lich again.
Who would resurrect Xykon, though? Redcloak? I think he'd be happier than most to see Xykon meet his end by this point, he'd probably try to find another arcanist to perform the other half of the ritual instead.
Who would resurrect Xykon, though? Redcloak? I think he'd be happier than most to see Xykon meet his end by this point, he'd probably try to find another arcanist to perform the other half of the ritual instead.
Perhaps Darth V will perform the other half.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.