Resurrection question

[Jubal_Barca]

OK, so I believe I'm right in saying that the following are the case:
- Durkon is dead, so his actual soul is not on the material plane, though Darth Durkon still has some of his memories etc
- Staking durkon then resurrecting him would return him to normal-durkon land

HOWEVER

I believe there's a form of resurrection that doesn't require a body, true resurrection or suchlike? (My D&D 3.5 knowledge is poor)

Soooo... not that there's anyone likely to have the necessary power at all, but in theory could Durkon therefore be true-resurrected? So there'd be a real AND a vampire Durkon?

NB I don't think this is likely, it just sounded like fun so thought I'd ask if it was possible.

[Chantelune]

Well, Word of Giant stated that True Resurection did not exist in the ootsverse as it makes death even less meaningfull.

As for Durkon's soul, we don't really know if it's still bound in his body or if it went to the upper planes wile something else inhabit his corpse. I'd like to think it's still there inside him makes this more interesting.

Now, if True resurection did exist, they would still need to destroy his current vampire's body in order to do so. They don't need to have it afterward, but still need it destroyed.

[hamishspence]

Here was where it was said:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13861815&postcount=12

Note that the characters may not know this- I believe Haley mentioned that they'd need a 17th level cleric to cast it, if they lose Roy's body. Belkar mentions that Redcloak's probably 17th level- but that isn't helpful.

[zero]

Here was where it was said:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13861815&postcount=12

Hmm...

(...)True Resurrection is a terrible, narrative-wrecking spell (...)

Is there any other kind of 9th-level spell? :smallwink:


Note that the characters may not know this- I believe Haley mentioned that they'd need a 17th level cleric to cast it, if they lose Roy's body. Belkar mentions that Redcloak's probably 17th level- but that isn't helpful.

Yep. here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0579.html).
Now, to answer OP's question, not even true ressurection can revive someone who has been turned into an undead without destroying it first. So no, the scenario of two Durkons is impossible. The exact nature of the undead in D&D has always been murky, but it definitely traps the soul of the deceased person.

[factotum]

The description for True Resurrection explicitly states that you can resurrect someone who's been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. So no, it isn't possible for there to be a living Durkon and a vamp-Durkon at the same time--destroying vamp-Durkon is a necessary step before resurrecting him in any way would be possible.

(Darn it, Swordsage'd!).

[hamishspence]

Now in 4E, it's different, especially when the undead has an animus rather than a soul.

But this isn't 4E.

[KillianHawkeye]

Now in 4E, it's different, especially when the undead has an animus rather than a soul.

But this isn't 4E.

The animus concept in 4E isn't instead of having a soul, it's in addition to it. Living creatures have both, while undead retain only the animus to power their bodies.

[hamishspence]

The point being that some undead have both an animus and a soul- whereas others have only an animus.

Being slain (and spawned)- by an animus-only undead doesn't prevent resurrection- I'm not sure if the same is true for a souled undead- though it might be.

So in 4E you could have Durkon brought back, and fighting Wraith Durkon- but I'm not sure if you could have Durkon fighting Vampire Durkon

[mattie_p]

Well, Word of Giant stated that True Resurection did not exist in the ootsverse as it makes death even less meaningfull.


Here was where it was said:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13861815&postcount=12

That isn't quite what he said.


From a storytelling point of view, the "Why didn't this person do X?" questions are sort of a waste of time. They didn't do that because something stopped them, obviously. Does it matter what that something was, really? Dragons don't have access to 17th level clerics because they just don't. That's not the way the world works. Assume, if you want, that she asked the Oracle, and the Oracle said there isn't anyone who would be willing to cast it for a black dragon.

And more to the point, True Resurrection is a terrible, narrative-wrecking spell that should not exist, as it has no real purpose for players who die in battle (as they can almost always be returned via simple Resurrection) and only ever comes in to play to undo plot points. I prefer to simply treat it as "not available" to everyone, and I don't want to waste any panel time explaining why.

No one would be willing to cast it for the black dragon, and it is not available to everyone. That isn't the same thing as saying it is not available to anyone.

[Chantelune]

Is there any other kind of 9th-level spell? :smallwink:

Not in the regard of making death looks like some "minor" inconvenience. Resurection already put a damper on a character's death as it's just a matter of time for him to come back again, as it was for Roy. But at least, the fact that you need the body for a resurection to work allow for some way to makes things difficult (like having the body with the side of the party which does not include the cleric and stuck in a place where there's no cleric high enough level to raise dead).

If Durkon was lvl 17 at the time and had access to true resurection, the party wouldn't even need to go and get roy's body (except maybe for Belkar as he couldn't be too far from it). They could just sail away, then raise Roy. He would have lost his stuff and might not be too happy with that, but he wouldn't have spent around 6 months in the afterlife.

And it's not only lvl 9 spells that might hinder story telling. If V had access to teleport, things would go quite differently in many regards. No long travels or asking for favors to get teleport, they wouldn't need Tarquin's buged flying carpet. Eck, even regrouping would have been way easier. Just pop back close enough to AC to scout and see why scrying don't work, makes contact with Haley and Berlkar then pop back to the safety of the fleet for some resurection. :smallwink:

Edit for just above : yeah, I misremembered the exact quote. Doesn't really change the fact that there won't be any true resurection available. ^^

[pearl jam]

Here was where it was said:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13861815&postcount=12

Note that the characters may not know this- I believe Haley mentioned that they'd need a 17th level cleric to cast it, if they lose Roy's body. Belkar mentions that Redcloak's probably 17th level- but that isn't helpful.

It took me a while to find the right comic in the archive: 579 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0579.html)

Taking the quote from the Giant together with what Haley says it seems like True Resurrection is a spell that exists within the OOTSverse, thus making it theoretically available for Haley to know about, however, in practicality no opportunity to access the spell will present itself within the story.

[zero]

Not in the regard of making death looks like some "minor" inconvenience. Resurrection already put a damper on a character's death as it's just a matter of time for him to come back again, as it was for Roy. But at least, the fact that you need the body for a resurrection to work allow for some way to makes things difficult.Well, there are a few in game mechanisms to avoid true resurrection, In fact, two of them have been used in the prequels. I'd say true ressurrection is bad, but there are other core spells that are much worse... Oh, but you point it yourself:
And it's not only lvl 9 spells that might hinder story telling. If V had access to teleport (...)Ahh, teleport... the DM bane... and of course, the old 3rd level "fly" was also one of the worst offenders. At least that one got fixed. Oh, and don't get me started on divination :smallfurious:

[mattie_p]

It took me a while to find the right comic in the archive: 579 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0579.html)

Taking the quote from the Giant together with what Haley says it seems like True Resurrection is a spell that exists within the OOTSverse, thus making it theoretically available for Haley to know about, however, in practicality no opportunity to access the spell will present itself within the story.

Umm, I said that above already?

[EnragedFilia]

Is there any other kind of 9th-level spell? :smallwink:

Well let's see here... meteor swarm is only narrative-wrecking if you happen to have plot-crucial objects and/or creatures in the vicinity. Implosion is only narrative wrecking if somebody important manages to unexpectedly fail a fort save...

[WoLong]

I disapprove of this thread because of the use of 'Darth Durkon'.

[Porthos]

OK, so I believe I'm right in saying that the following are the case:
- Durkon is dead, so his actual soul is not on the material plane, though Darth Durkon still has some of his memories etc

While we have to wait for the story to say one way or the other Xykon certainly thinks that people who become vampires keep their souls. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html)

Still, as others have noted, Xykon might not correct. He might just presume that if he got to keep his soul, so would vampires.

But it could be a sign if one wants to look for it.

[zero]

While we have to wait for the story to say one way or the other Xykon certainly thinks that people who become vampires keep their souls. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html)

Still, as others have noted, Xykon might not correct. He might just presume that if he got to keep his soul, so would vampires.
Well, If I wanted to be pedant, I'd point out that all Xykon said is that people who become vampires don't move on to the afterlife, but on that matter the rules are reasonably clear. Taking Xykon's statement to the letter, an unlife could be no different than a soul trapped in a gem from a soulbind spell (check his comment on "brain-in-a-jar"). I do agree though that from his behaviour, an unlife as a Lich is quite more passable than that.

[KillianHawkeye]

Well, If I wanted to be pedant, I'd point out that all Xykon said is that people who become vampires don't move on to the afterlife, but on that matter the rules are reasonably clear. Taking Xykon's statement to the letter, an unlife could be no different than a soul trapped in a gem from a soulbind spell (check his comment on "brain-in-a-jar"). I do agree though that from his behaviour, an unlife as a Lich is quite more passable than that.

A Brain In A Jar is an actual creature, a psionic undead brain (in a jar). It has nothing to do with soul binding.

[Red Lantern]

While some people say it's 'cheating' for rich to use homebrewed stuff and not use soem official stuff in OotS, I happen to like it as that's how a good rpg should be ran. GMs need to modify the setting toi suit their campaign.

Some people act like the ghost of gary gygax will rise moaning from the grave and torment them if they change anything in the 'official' setting. Guys, it doesn't happen, trust me. Rich is right to change some things that don't work for his setting, so's everyone else.

I would rather play in a game rich was running than in one ran by someone who considers 'the rules' to be holy writ not to be changed in any way.

[Psyren]

Is there any other kind of 9th-level spell? :smallwink:

Soul Bind actually creates plot points instead of undoing them. (As we may see in OotS.)



The exact nature of the undead in D&D has always been murky, but it definitely traps the soul of the deceased person.

Not all undead do this. If there's a lone zombie of you runnning around gods know where, you can still be true-rezzed without finding that one zombie and killing it; your soul isn't inside such a minor undead. But the intelligent ones generally trap you, yes.

[Sylthia]

True Rez could exist, but level 17 Clerics could be exceedingly rare, so finding someone capable of casting it could be a challenge.

[Envyus]

Soul Bind actually creates plot points instead of undoing them. (As we may see in OotS.)



Not all undead do this. If there's a lone zombie of you runnning around gods know where, you can still be true-rezzed without finding that one zombie and killing it; your soul isn't inside such a minor undead. But the intelligent ones generally trap you, yes.

No you still have to smash that zombie. Even if non intelligent undead don't bind your soul you still need to kill them even for true rez

[zero]

Not all undead do this. If there's a lone zombie of you runnning around gods know where, you can still be true-rezzed without finding that one zombie and killing it; your soul isn't inside such a minor undead. But the intelligent ones generally trap you, yes. Oh? Is it so? I wasn't aware of that, are you sure? The description of both Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm) and True Ressurection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm) on the srd site seems to forbid the ressurection of any undead creature.

[rodneyAnonymous]

OK, so I believe I'm right in saying that the following are the case:
- Durkon is dead, so his actual soul is not on the material plane, though Darth Durkon still has some of his memories etc

No, we don't know that.

[zero]

A Brain In A Jar is an actual creature, a psionic undead brain (in a jar). It has nothing to do with soul binding. Ohh, I'm aware of that! I was just saying that an afterlife trapped in a gem isn't that far from an unlife as a brain-in-a-jar. I wonder if Xykon would rather be soul binded than face "the Big Fire Below"...

[KillianHawkeye]

Ohh, I'm aware of that! I was just saying that an afterlife trapped in a gem isn't that far from an unlife as a brain-in-a-jar. I wonder if Xykon would rather be soul binded than face "the Big Fire Below"...

I see your point, but at least the brain can still effect the outside world (unlike a soul trapped in a gemstone). I kinda doubt Xykon would see that as anything but a lesser Hell. He seems to even consider the option of being a mere brain as something of a last resort.

[Taelas]

No you still have to smash that zombie. Even if non intelligent undead don't bind your soul you still need to kill them even for true rez

While technically true, a zombie is so far removed from the base creature that I seriously doubt that many would enforce it.

[EnragedFilia]

It can't be much more removed than a bone golem, and they still had to destroy that first. Even if it did only take half a panel and a callback gag.

[factotum]

It can't be much more removed than a bone golem, and they still had to destroy that first. Even if it did only take half a panel and a callback gag.

And in that case we know for a fact that Roy's soul was not contained within the golem because he was happily training on Celestia right up until the moment he was resurrected. So, it is not necessary for somebody's soul to be tied up in the undead creature their body has become for it to prevent resurrection working, at least in the OotS universe--and since that's what we're discussing, that's all that really matters!

[zero]

Uhn,no being turned into a golem only prevents ressurection if the body is required. That means it does not prevent true ressurection. Golems are not undead, as reminded in strip 575. In fact, it was precisely that point that motivated Haley's statement on the scarcity of true ressurection.

[pearl jam]

Umm, I said that above already?

It's true our posts each express much the same idea in slightly different ways. My post was an attempt to specifically address the speculation in the post I quoted that characters in the story may believe that True Resurrection is a possibility when, in fact, it might not exist.

[zero]

Oh wait, I just realised something.

(SoD spoilers)
In Start of Darkness, Xykon bound the soul of Lyrian and created a zombie from her corpse! Now, what are the implications of that? Lyrian's soul is clearly not bound to the zombie. The rules are ambiguous on that matter. Are zombies a different type of undead (in the OoTSverse at least)? Could he have created a sentient undead from a soul bound corpse?

[The Succubus]

Yes. I believe that sentient undead do possess the former inhabitant's soul, whereas creating a zombie is just having a lifeless corpse dancing on magical strings.

[zero]

Yes. I believe that sentient undead do possess the former inhabitant's soul, whereas creating a zombie is just having a lifeless corpse dancing on magical strings. So, to make it clear, would you agree that it shouldn't be pssible to use create undead on someone targeted by a sould bind spell? No more than it should be possible to resurrect him?

Rules are silent on this matter, but I must say I like this interpretation. The only thing that bugs me is that zombies and skeletons became a different kind of undead. Perhaps I should revisit Libris Mortis on that matter.

[hamishspence]

It mentions the possibility that atrocities rip holes in the fabric, causing hungry spirits to enter, and inhabit corpses, and that "these comprise many of the mindless undead"

So I could see zombies, skeletons, and the like, being different from vampires, liches and so forth.

The tricky part are those undead that fall in between the two- not mindless, but not retaining much if anything of the personality of the living individual.

[SoC175]

There are official D&D novels with people fighting their own former undead bodies after being resurrected in a matter that didn't require the body.

There's even one with a women having to fight one of her old bodies that has became an intelligent although soulless undead (and if now believing the resurrected living body stole her soul)

[Gift Jeraff]

I don't think mummies, wights, ghouls, ghasts, and similar "intelligent but not acting the way they did in life" undead have the victims' souls in the OOTSiverse. Redcloak treats Tsukiko creating undead (and we saw her create a ghoul/ghast and she typically makes wights) as just disrespecting the hobgoblins' deaths, not ripping their soul from their eternal resting place or whatever.

Likewise, Roy treats destroying the mummies as looking bad to the Draketooths. I doubt he'd have acted like that if he thought they were trapped in their corpses.

[hamishspence]

Then you've got the various ghostly creatures that aren't actually ghosts- spectres, shadows, wraiths, allips, etc.

Maybe some are souls, some aren't?

[Gift Jeraff]

Yeah, those are tricky. Shadows, wraiths, and spectres can be made from Create Greater Undead, which we know can wrest souls from the afterlife (Darth V and the floating black dragon head), so maybe those do.

[hamishspence]

I'm guessing the "Atrocity calls to unlife" lines may apply to the Create Undead spell as well, but maybe not Create Greater Undead:

Libris Mortis p7

A sufficiently heinous act may attract the attention of malicious spirits, bodiless and seeking to house themselves in flesh, especially recently vacated vessels. Such spirits are often little more than nodes of unquenchable hunger, wishing only to feed. These comprise many of the mindless undead. Sometimes these evil influences also manage to reinvigorate the decaying memories of the body's former host. Thus, some semblance of the original personality and memories remain, though the newly awakened being is invariably twisted by the inhabiting spirit, resulting in an evil, twisted and intelligent creature. However, this being is not truly inhabited by the spirit of the original creature, which has left to seek its ultimate destiny in the Outer Planes. This amalgamation is something entirely new.

Create Greater Undead may be closer to:

Other times, atrocious deeds call dark, reanimating spirits into the fleshy form of the newly deceased, leaving the original spirit intact. This can happen if the person was already evil, or was tempted to evil in life. Alternatively, some good spirits might be trapped within their bodies, slowly being perverted to evil as the dark spirits convert the body to undead status.

Complete Divine has similar lines about the soul of some undead being "trapped in a body controlled by a malign intelligence."

[Psyren]

No you still have to smash that zombie. Even if non intelligent undead don't bind your soul you still need to kill them even for true rez

Huh, could have sworn that TR, since it didn't need the body, would work. After all, Roy's soul was clearly not in the golem. Oh well.


It can't be much more removed than a bone golem, and they still had to destroy that first. Even if it did only take half a panel and a callback gag.

Except Haley seemed to think that TR would work even without Roy's smashed golem-body. Hence the "heaping cartload of diamonds" comment she made.


Oh wait, I just realised something.

(SoD spoilers)
In Start of Darkness, Xykon bound the soul of Lyrian and created a zombie from her corpse! Now, what are the implications of that? Lyrian's soul is clearly not bound to the zombie. The rules are ambiguous on that matter. Are zombies a different type of undead (in the OoTSverse at least)? Could he have created a sentient undead from a soul bound corpse?

As above, her zombie was just her body. At least, that seems to be how Rich is ruling it. Of course, the gem makes the question of needing a body to rez moot.


Then you've got the various ghostly creatures that aren't actually ghosts- spectres, shadows, wraiths, allips, etc.

Maybe some are souls, some aren't?

The nonintelligent ones (like Shadows) are not. Allips, wraiths etc., at least according to CDiv, are.

[hamishspence]

Shadows are intelligent- just not very- Int 6. Shadows, wights, and wraiths "cannot access the memories of the deceased" - Complete Divine.