Who will get Resurrected?

[Oscredwin]

In strip 845 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0845.html) Durkan says that he has enough diamond dust for one more resurrection (this implies that he has another one of the spells prepared). It seems likely that he's going to cast that spell before they leave the location (narrative logic), who's he going to cast it on? Also, can he resurrect one of the Draketooths now that he's likely LE?

[JSSheridan]

I'm going to say no one.

[Kish]

I believe this narrative logic is inadequately logical.

[Gift Jeraff]

Belkar, only for him to die again in the next panel.

[KillianHawkeye]

can he resurrect one of the Draketooths now that he's likely LE?

The Draketooths (Draketeeth?) are no more likely to allow themselves to be ressurected by a LE caster than they are by a LG one. In fact, they're likely to refuse it from anyone they don't actually know. Keep in mind that the "they don't know that ALL of them are dead" complication is still in play.

[Rakoa]

Belkar, only for him to die again in the next panel.

Preferably and hilariously enough for him to not even have time to draw a breath? I like it.

[Belkar<3]

Just because they can, doesn't mean they should. No one. Save it.

[Roland Itiative]

It seems clear to me that the Resurrection spell will be spontaneously converted into a Inflict Wounds spell :smalltongue:

[137beth]

I believe this narrative logic is inadequately logical.

Hmm, good point, maybe he will use it to resurrect The Narrator, from the intro to DCF. That would be "narrative non-logic".

[Byzantine2]

The Draketooths (Draketeeth?) are no more likely to allow themselves to be ressurected by a LE caster than they are by a LG one. In fact, they're likely to refuse it from anyone they don't actually know. Keep in mind that the "they don't know that ALL of them are dead" complication is still in play.

Presumably the Draketooths are well aware everyone in their family is dead, given that any of the same alignment would have showed up at their judging area at the same time, and a simple scry could then reveal the rest of them are dead. They could be watching the gate in the same manner Roy was watching Haley with the resistance.

[137beth]

Presumably the Draketooths are well aware everyone in their family is dead, given that any of the same alignment would have showed up at their judging area at the same time, and a simple scry could then reveal the rest of them are dead. They could be watching the gate in the same manner Roy was watching Haley with the resistance.

What gives you the idea that they have the same alignment?

[KillianHawkeye]

Presumably the Draketooths are well aware everyone in their family is dead, given that any of the same alignment would have showed up at their judging area at the same time, and a simple scry could then reveal the rest of them are dead. They could be watching the gate in the same manner Roy was watching Haley with the resistance.

Perhaps, but the OOTS has already theorized that the deaths happened so quickly that they may NOT know that everyone was killed.

It is part of Haley's theory in strip 844. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html)

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Might be wrong, but I swear you can't tell who is resurrecting you. I think alignment is all you get. Still, if they're too paranoid to be rezzed by a LG cleric, they're surely too paranoid to be rezzed by an LE one. It probably goes double for an LE member of the LG.

[Mantine]

Perhaps, but the OOTS has already theorized that the deaths happened so quickly that they may NOT know that everyone was killed.

It is part of Haley's theory in strip 844. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html)

A bit of a stretched theory, if I may add.

[Xenrei]

My guess is no one. Until Malack gives the OK. It is likely that Malack will use this to the LG's advantage, you know, backup until one of their party get's killed.

[137beth]

A bit of a stretched theory, if I may add.

Considering that they all died instantly at the same moment from familicide, it would be an entirely accurate theory. Nothing strechy about it.

[martianmister]

Yukyuk 1988-2013

[WindStruck]

Yukyuk 1988-2013

Heh, I'd like that idea. :smallamused:

[137beth]

Yukyuk 1988-2013

But Yukyuk died in 1184:smalltongue:

[WindStruck]

So, Tarquin, Xykon, Redcloak, and Belkar die. There is only enough diamond dust to cast resurrection one time. Who gets saved?

Answer:The world!!

[Mastikator]

Durkon is dead, gone, finito, Malack has his stuff and his powers now. The question is: "Who is Malack going to resurrect".
He might resurrect Tarquin in the unlikely event that he dies. He might also raise one of the OotS if he accidentally kills one of them to uphold his promise to Durkon, on second though he'd probably not do that.

[Phantom Thief]

A bit of a stretched theory, if I may add.

Perhaps but it was Haley who said it. And Haley is that one character who is always right except when its a part of a gag that she's the victim of or part of her character development, and neither seems likely here. She's kind of like a Sherlock Holmes, her insights are a bit of a reach, and usually it is easy to come up with another just as possible answer, but the more uncertain it is, the more likely she will be turn out right to make it more of a testament to her ability to figure stuff out.

[Porthos]

Might be wrong, but I swear you can't tell who is resurrecting you. I think alignment is all you get. Still, if they're too paranoid to be rezzed by a LG cleric, they're surely too paranoid to be rezzed by an LE one. It probably goes double for an LE member of the LG.

Straight from the SRD. :smallsmile::


Revivification against One’s Will (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#bringingBacktheDead)

A soul cannot be returned to life if it does not wish to be. A soul knows the name, alignment, and patron deity (if any) of the character attempting to revive it and may refuse to return on that basis.

I like to call it the Name, Rank and Serial Number clause of Raise Dead. :smalltongue:

In this case, it'd be: "Lemme see: 'Durkon.' 'Lawful Evil.' 'Tapping into the Unholy Powers of the Negative Material Plane???' Sha'right. *click*" :smallamused:

[137beth]

Straight from the SRD. :smallsmile::



I like to call it the Name, Rank and Serial Number clause of Raise Dead. :smalltongue:

In this case, it'd be: "Lemme see: 'Durkon.' 'Lawful Evil.' 'Tapping into the Unholy Powers of the Negative Material Plane???' Sha'right. *click*" :smallamused:

Plus, they might think "wait, that LG* guy who tried to raise us earlier is now evil? That just proves that LG* is a front for evil!

Edit for clarity: *Lawful Good

[EmperorSarda]

Plus, they might think "wait, that LG guy who tried to raise us earlier is now evil? That just proves that LG is a front for evil!

You assume they are even aware of the Linear Guild. Or watching what is going on.

[137beth]

You assume they are even aware of the Linear Guild. Or watching what is going on.

LG means Lawful Good, at least in the post you quoted. I assumed absolutely nothing about the Linear Guild.

[pwning doodes]

I like to call it the Name, Rank and Serial Number clause of Raise Dead. :smalltongue:

In this case, it'd be: "Lemme see: 'Durkon.' 'Lawful Evil.' 'Tapping into the Unholy Powers of the Negative Material Plane???' Sha'right. *click*" :smallamused:

The OOTSverse apparently doesn't work this way, because if the person could see the patron deity of the cleric raising him, the dead Draketooth would have known Durkon was not one of Soon's paladins when he tried raising him before he was a vampire. Presumably the Draketooths know that the Sapphire Guard worships the Twelve Gods. Unless you're implying that Girard's family didn't trust anyone who was Lawful Good, this rule is clearly not in place in the comic.

[Kish]

Unless you're implying that Girard's family didn't trust anyone who was Lawful Good,
That is what the Order concluded. Explicitly.

[Porthos]

The OOTSverse apparently doesn't work this way, because if the person could see the patron deity of the cleric raising him, the dead Draketooth would have known Durkon was not one of Soon's paladins when he tried raising him before he was a vampire.

What would lead you to believe that the Draketooths were only concerned/afraid of the Sapphire Guard? :smallconfused:


Unless you're implying that Girard's family didn't trust anyone who was Lawful Good, this rule is clearly not in place in the comic.


That is what the Order concluded. Explicitly.

There is also the possibility that the Draketooths would only accept a Resurrection/Raise Dead from a trusted friend, no matter who the diety was in question.

*thinks*

Nah. One would have to be utterly paranoid to do something like that.

...

...

...

:smalltongue: :smalltongue: :smalltongue: :smalltongue: :smalltongue:

[Reddish Mage]

What would lead you to believe that the Draketooths were only concerned/afraid of the Sapphire Guard? :smallconfused:





There is also the possibility that the Draketooths would only accept a Resurrection/Raise Dead from a trusted friend, no matter who the diety was in question.

*thinks*

Nah. One would have to be utterly paranoid to do something like that.

...

...

...

:smalltongue: :smalltongue: :smalltongue: :smalltongue: :smalltongue:

I thought the only info given by raise dead is the alignment of the cleric casting the raise.

[EmperorSarda]

I thought the only info given by raise dead is the alignment of the cleric casting the raise.

Well, that is all that the comic has said about what info is given to the dead soul. But the SRD version of resurrection gives more.

[Bulldog Psion]

I don't think anyone will be resurrected. Personally, I think Durkon is permanently dead, and if the 99% probability that Belkar dies comes about, then he will also remain dead.

[EmperorSarda]

I still vote for Vampire Durkon to be released from Thralldom and rejoin the Order.

[snikrept]

LE Durkula successfully resurrects a Draketooth: I buy it. Definitely has the proper amount of foreshadowing laid down to not be totally out of left field. Solves that particular problem neatly, actually.

May require Durkula to have free will first.

[ti'esar]

LE Durkula successfully resurrects a Draketooth: I buy it. Definitely has the proper amount of foreshadowing laid down to not be totally out of left field. Solves that particular problem neatly, actually.

May require Durkula to have free will first.

I'm not sure why the paranoid, CN-ish Draketooths would find a lawful evil cleric any more trustworthy than a lawful good one.

[Copperdragon]

I'm not sure why the paranoid, CN-ish Draketooths would find a lawful evil cleric any more trustworthy than a lawful good one.

As a matter of fact... they might. For them, LG is as bad as LE, in some ways worse as they expect Soon's Paladins.

But Durkon might still turn out to be LN. He has a good soul and is an evil vampire. That's a classic of "being torn between the Good Living Darf and the Evil Undead Vampire That Needs To Drink Blook" and might turn out "in the middle".

[EmperorSarda]

But Durkon might still turn out to be LN. He has a good soul and is an evil vampire. That's a classic of "being torn between the Good Living Darf and the Evil Undead Vampire That Needs To Drink Blook" and might turn out "in the middle".

Not sure. As a thrall, he's evil. Because he has lost his personality and has no free will. If he is ever free, then his soul and personality take over. He could be a lawful good vampire.

[Bulldog Psion]

I still vote for Vampire Durkon to be released from Thralldom and rejoin the Order.

Quite possible, but if he does, I think he'll do it while still undead.


Not sure. As a thrall, he's evil. Because he has lost his personality and has no free will. If he is ever free, then his soul and personality take over. He could be a lawful good vampire.

I agree, seems like another possibility. Or he could stay as a fell Dwarf of the Darkness. :smallwink: Interesting to see how it all shakes out.

[Tragak]

I thought the only info given by raise dead is the alignment of the cleric casting the raise. Yes, but the Draketooth clan wasn't worried about the Sapphire Paladins specifically, they just thought that the Paladins were a specific example how how any Lawful Good (like Durkon) allegedly tries to control people who think differently.

[EmperorSarda]

Quite possible, but if he does, I think he'll do it while still undead.

Which is what I meant. A lawful good vampire Durkon traveling with the Order. He'd need to learn the Protection from Daylight spell though.



I agree, seems like another possibility. Or he could stay as a fell Dwarf of the Darkness. :smallwink: Interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Hmmn... The only way I see that as working out is if Malack unexpectedly joins the Order to the last gate. Which given the plans to conquer the continent... seems highly unlikely.

[Bulldog Psion]

Hmmn... The only way I see that as working out is if Malack unexpectedly joins the Order to the last gate. Which given the plans to conquer the continent... seems highly unlikely.

Or, he could release Durkon from thrall, and the undead dwarf travels back to his homeland for revenge, which ends up having an important bearing on the struggle for the final gate.

[EmperorSarda]

Or, he could release Durkon from thrall, and the undead dwarf travels back to his homeland for revenge, which ends up having an important bearing on the struggle for the final gate.

Why would an unthralled Vampire Durkon be evil? Presumably his soul and personality takes charge when released from Thralldom, so he'd be of good alignment again.

Also, why would he seek revenge against his homeland?

[Prinygod]

It really depends on how vampires work in this setting/story. If you look at the rules in dnd 3.5 for vampires it says "always evil" under alignment. Since good people can become vampires, this can only mean that a good person once turned becomes evil. However while oots seems to be based on dnd, it has its own rules and isn't a campaign, so who knows if that rule applies.

I would point out however that Malack considers himself to be a different person from the "lizard man" that he came from. That if resurrected Durkon would be raising Malack the shaman, instead of Malack the cleric. If Malack's understanding is correct, then Durkon's soul is chilling in the afterlife with Thor or perhaps trapped some limbo, while vampire Durkon merely shares his memories. Memories of a home that the vampire desires to return to, that he has been allowed to return posthumously. At which point he is prophesied to bring with him doom and destruction, revenge is one such vehicle of deliverance.

[Bulldog Psion]

I would point out however that Malack considers himself to be a different person from the "lizard man" that he came from. That if resurrected Durkon would be raising Malack the shaman, instead of Malack the cleric. If Malack's understanding is correct, then Durkon's soul is chilling in the afterlife with Thor or perhaps trapped some limbo, while vampire Durkon merely shares his memories.

My personal opinion is that this argument is a complete misreading of Malack's statement. IMO, he's not saying it's a different soul in his body. He's saying that he has changed and evolved enormously in 200 years, and raising him would erase that.

It's like if someone said to you, "I'm going to turn you back into a two year old and erase every memory, skill, and experience you've had from your brain." That would "unmake" the person you have evolved into at this point, even though you would still have the same awareness, the same point of view.

[EmperorSarda]

It really depends on how vampires work in this setting/story. If you look at the rules in dnd 3.5 for vampires it says "always evil" under alignment. Since good people can become vampires, this can only mean that a good person once turned becomes evil. However while oots seems to be based on dnd, it has its own rules and isn't a campaign, so who knows if that rule applies.


Also, going off what Bulldog said, The Giant is very against keeping to strict alignments, such as goblins always being evil and perceptions thereof. Most likely since vampires are sentient, they have a choice.

[Prinygod]

My personal opinion is that this argument is a complete misreading of Malack's statement. IMO, he's not saying it's a different soul in his body. He's saying that he has changed and evolved enormously in 200 years, and raising him would erase that.

It's like if someone said to you, "I'm going to turn you back into a two year old and erase every memory, skill, and experience you've had from your brain." That would "unmake" the person you have evolved into at this point, even though you would still have the same awareness, the same point of view.

If Malack's soul is with him, why would he forget his experiences as a vampire when raised? Its a strange leap of logic. However if his soul is in some sort of after life, it would make perfect sense that it would lack Vampire Malack's memories.

however i do admit that in 3.5 with true resurrection it does say "You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.". So at least in d&d you have to destroy the resulting undead creature first. However this includes zombies so even if the soul is trapped in an undead's body it doesn't mean that said soul is in control (or else zombies wouldn't lack an int score)

[Prinygod]

Also, going off what Bulldog said, The Giant is very against keeping to strict alignments, such as goblins always being evil and perceptions thereof. Most likely since vampires are sentient, they have a choice.

But goblins are not "always evil" but "usually evil" good goblins can exist in d&d but good vampires are a house creation. But i wasn't evoking the rules of d&d, i was explaining it in both d&d terms and the pre-established cannon of oots. I already said that oots does not equal a dnd campaign, and good vampires is well within his right.

However my second paragraph points to in story reasons why Durkon might have left the building, so to speak. Even if a vampire is sentient, that doesn't necessarily mean that is the same person as the victim.

[137beth]

It really depends on how vampires work in this setting/story. If you look at the rules in dnd 3.5 for vampires it says "always evil" under alignment. Since good people can become vampires, this can only mean that a good person once turned becomes evil. However while oots seems to be based on dnd, it has its own rules and isn't a campaign, so who knows if that rule applies.
:smallsigh:

In the 3E monster books, "always ___" means "almost always ___". It says so in the monster manual I, and the SRD.


EDIT: And yes, there have been official D&D publications with good-aligned fiends.

[Prinygod]

:smallsigh:

In the 3E monster books, "always ___" means "almost always ___". It says so in the monster manual I, and the SRD.


EDIT: And yes, there have been official D&D publications with good-aligned fiends.

That line is there so that a gm aka the "house" i was referring to earlier, is perfectly justified in creating a good creature that is normally evil. So your not saying anything that i didn't already say.

If vampires kept their original alignment, normally, it would say "same as base" or something to that effect. When adding a template to a critter you normally don't get to pick and chose, you add them all. A gm can decide to create a good demon or vampire or drop traits he doesn't like, but these are meant to be the exceptions. A vampire who is good is one who made a conscious effort to change its ways (it is sentient after all), not one that happened to be good before it died.

[EmperorSarda]

I would point out however that Malack considers himself to be a different person from the "lizard man" that he came from. That if resurrected Durkon would be raising Malack the shaman, instead of Malack the cleric. If Malack's understanding is correct, then Durkon's soul is chilling in the afterlife with Thor or perhaps trapped some limbo, while vampire Durkon merely shares his memories. Memories of a home that the vampire desires to return to, that he has been allowed to return posthumously. At which point he is prophesied to bring with him doom and destruction, revenge is one such vehicle of deliverance.

I think it is because Malack is now defined by being a vampire.

Though, you could be correct. Maybe when Durkon is released from Thralldom he will only share the memories of his former self and not his personality.

But I think the personality being restored fits more, as Malack feels releasing Durkon from Thralldom would be too confusing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html).
Your view of it fits, sort of. If it were just memories with a new personality then there would always be confusion when being released from Thralldom. If it's an issue of personality, then it fits more to want to release Durkon from thralldom later at the palace.

[Prinygod]

I think it is because Malack is now defined by being a vampire.

Though, you could be correct. Maybe when Durkon is released from Thralldom he will only share the memories of his former self and not his personality.

But I think the personality being restored fits more, as Malack feels releasing Durkon from Thralldom would be too confusing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html).
Your view of it fits, sort of. If it were just memories with a new personality then there would always be confusion when being released from Thralldom. If it's an issue of personality, then it fits more to want to release Durkon from thralldom later at the palace.

I see where you coming from. But Thralldom is similar to being charmed but stronger, vampire durkon has a will but its suppressed by Malack's. Becoming an newly created vampire could be inherently confusing. Consider Durkon's almost childlike behavior, how he didn't expect the sun to burn for example. Letting him act under his own volition could be problematic. Malack has an obligation to the LG at the moment, and its possible he doesn't want durkon to do things that could harm himself. By maintaining a short leash, Malack hopes to protect him, see the concern about Durkons lack of a coffin.

[EmperorSarda]

But Thralldom is similar to being charmed but stronger, vampire durkon has a will but its suppressed by Malack's. Becoming an newly created vampire could be inherently confusing. Consider Durkon's almost childlike behavior, how he didn't expect the sun to burn for example. Letting him act under his own volition could be problematic. Malack has an obligation to the LG at the moment, and its possible he doesn't want durkon to do things that could harm himself. By maintaining a short leash, Malack hopes to protect him, see the concern about Durkons lack of a coffin.

I think you're thinking of Domination. Which we have seen an example of (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html). And there is a key difference between YukYuk being dominated and Durkon being a vampire Thrall; YukYuk resisted V's orders, he still had a subsumed personality (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html). There is no indication of anything of the sort of with Durkon, because unlike Domination, being a vampire thrall is not something that can be easily dispelled. Take the SRD;


If the vampire instead drains the victim’s Constitution to 0 or lower, the victim returns as a spawn if it had 4 or less HD and as a vampire if it had 5 or more HD. In either case, the new vampire or spawn is under the command of the vampire that created it and remains enslaved until its master’s destruction. At any given time a vampire may have enslaved spawn totaling no more than twice its own Hit Dice; any spawn it creates that would exceed this limit are created as free-willed vampires or vampire spawn. A vampire that is enslaved may create and enslave spawn of its own, so a master vampire can control a number of lesser vampires in this fashion. A vampire may voluntarily free an enslaved spawn in order to enslave a new spawn, but once freed, a vampire or vampire spawn cannot be enslaved again. (Emphasis mine)

It's not a matter of Malack suppressing Durkon's personality. It's a matter of allowing his thrall to have his personality, to make his own choices. It is a condition that is lifted upon whim or destruction. Durkon isn't fighting to get free. It's not just a matter of letting him act as a baby vampire, it is giving him his free will. Right now Durkon cannot make his own choices, does not have free will, and confusion would stem from fighting his own allies as himself as a vampire.

[Belwynn]

Malack will most likely keep Durkon enthralled for some time. Not just for minor mishaps, but because Durkon could in all likelihood try to eliminate himself if freed (stake, heal spell, etc.).

Way too many thoughts in my head:

Once unenthralled, would Nergal be the deity granting Durkon his powers?
Wonder if Thor cares that one of his faithful clerics was just poached against his will and holy symbol corrupted (stone went from blue to black, good look in 883 panel 5)?
Wonder if Durkon could resurrect himself from a vampiric state, either directly or by creation of a scroll?
Did Durkon ever use that resurrection scroll the IFCC mentioned in 634?

Too much coffee today.

[EmperorSarda]

Malack will most likely keep Durkon enthralled for some time. Not just for minor mishaps, but because Durkon could in all likelihood try to eliminate himself if freed (stake, heal spell, etc.).

Or aide his fellow party members.


Once unenthralled, would Nergal be the deity granting Durkon his powers?
Unenthralled? That depends on if unenthralled Durkon retains his former personality or has a new personality altogether.

Wonder if Thor cares that one of his faithful clerics was just poached against his will and holy symbol corrupted (stone went from blue to black, good look in 883 panel 5)?If Thor knows or cares, he probably cares more about a cleric of his being vampirized.

Wonder if Durkon could resurrect himself from a vampiric state, either directly or by creation of a scroll? The SRD is clear, he would have to be dead dead to be resurrected.

Did Durkon ever use that resurrection scroll the IFCC mentioned in 634? You're assuming the IFCC was telling the truth about that scroll.