Chekhov's Diamonds

[JGoldenberg]

Reading a theory about Nale's resurrection through the diamond dust mentioned brought to mind one of Rich's articles about using fluff to properly seed the story for players. This reminded me that a resurrection spell could kill certain undead, like Vampires. Could these be the tools for Durkon's or Xykon's (If it works on liches) true death?

[Thousandface]

I dunno. Assuming 3.5 rules logic is being used, resurrection can only "kill" (in that it would restore the undead into mortal form) if they are willing. I doubt Xykon is willing to give up the power and immortality lichdom offers just because someone cast resurrection on him (even if it did let him taste coffee again). As for Durkon, I think it might be highly likely Though, as far as resurrection works, to my knowledge, it would just bring him back to regular Durkon, not kill him completely. But I dunno. It all depends on how Rich intends to use resurrection magic, but from what I've seen of his own take on the spell, my thoughts have a good bit of internal consistency. Personally, I think that "one more bit of diamond dust" is what will return Durkon to normal, but that's just my opinion. And if Xykon wanted to be raised...he'd have made Redcloak do it ages ago.

[Belril Duskwalk]

Running purely on 3.5 Rules, Resurrection cannot bring an undead back to life directly, the spell states that it does not work on undead. It will however work on a person who was made undead and then destroyed. So, in order for Durkon or Xykon to be resurrected, they must first be slain (in the case of Xykon, that includes smashing his phylactery). I suspect at some point down the line the Diamonds will be used to bring Durkon back to the land of the living, but it will be a while, Rich didn't turn Durkon into a Vampire just to get a few cheap laughs before resurrecting him.

[factotum]

This reminded me that a resurrection spell could kill certain undead, like Vampires. Could these be the tools for Durkon's or Xykon's (If it works on liches) true death?

I don't know why it reminds you of that, because it's not true. Raise Dead, Resurrection and True Resurrection all have the caveat that they will not work on an active undead creature--you have to kill the creature first, THEN use the raise spell on it.

[Belril Duskwalk]

I don't know why it reminds you of that, because it's not true. Raise Dead, Resurrection and True Resurrection all have the caveat that they will not work on an active undead creature--you have to kill the creature first, THEN use the raise spell on it.

Well sure, if you're only looking at D&D. Outside of D&D it holds up quite well. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReviveKillsZombie) Sure OOTS is based on D&D, but it certainly isn't the only flavor of Fantasy in the comic as a whole.

[pendell]

In earlier editions of D&D (AD&D, I think), raise dead would indeed destroy a lich. IN one of the TSR-licensed Endless Quest books (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2480300.Lair_of_the_Lich), using Raise Dead on the lich in the story would change him from an all-powerful into a very confused, powerless old man. "What am I supposed to do?" he asks. "Not my problem", is the hero's response.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[factotum]

Sure OOTS is based on D&D, but it certainly isn't the only flavor of Fantasy in the comic as a whole.

The one thing that *does* happen in the comic, though, is that it follows D&D rules pretty closely. In point of fact, we've already seen confirmation that it follows this one--they had to destroy the bone golem that Roy had been turned into before Durkon could start the resurrection. So, having something *different* happen for Xykon or Durkula would require explanation of why that rule applies to bone golems but not to vampires or liches!

[SoC175]

Outside of D&D it holds up quite well. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReviveKillsZombie)Actualy not. This trope page is exactly descriping examples of the D&D way that cure spells harm undead. However that doesn't extend to raise/ressurrection spells at all.

[Belril Duskwalk]

The one thing that *does* happen in the comic, though, is that it follows D&D rules pretty closely. In point of fact, we've already seen confirmation that it follows this one--they had to destroy the bone golem that Roy had been turned into before Durkon could start the resurrection. So, having something *different* happen for Xykon or Durkula would require explanation of why that rule applies to bone golems but not to vampires or liches!

I'm not saying it would, or should, be different for Vampires or Liches. Merely that, taking the nature of Fantasy as a whole, there is a significant amount of evidence to support thinking that Resurrection could kill an undead. Therefore the OPs idea isn't completely wrong, it is simply wrong in this specific flavor of fantasy.


Actualy not. This trope page is exactly descriping examples of the D&D way that cure spells harm undead. However that doesn't extend to raise/ressurrection spells at all.

And explains many NON-D&D examples where it works perfectly. In particular Final Fantasy games frequently feature undead being vulnerable to Raise Dead based inst-kills.

[Morthis]

Well sure, if you're only looking at D&D. Outside of D&D it holds up quite well. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReviveKillsZombie) Sure OOTS is based on D&D, but it certainly isn't the only flavor of Fantasy in the comic as a whole.

Your link almost exclusively refers to heal hurts undead, which holds true in D&D as well. Raise/Resurrect/etc hurts undead is something I've only seen in Final Fantasy, and even then not always.

Either way, this comic is still D&D based. While Rich may not strictly adhere to the rules of D&D because he cares more about the story, this is the equivalent of just making something up. He may as well just have Roy summon Knights of the Round and kill Xykon that way, it makes about as much sense.

[Belril Duskwalk]

Your link almost exclusively refers to heal hurts undead, which holds true in D&D as well. Raise/Resurrect/etc hurts undead is something I've only seen in Final Fantasy, and even then not always.

Either way, this comic is still D&D based. While Rich may not strictly adhere to the rules of D&D because he cares more about the story, this is the equivalent of just making something up. He may as well just have Roy summon Knights of the Round and kill Xykon that way, it makes about as much sense.

I'm not saying that Xykon will be killed by a Resurrection spell. That's not at all likely.

I'm just arguing that the OP is not completely crazy for believing that a Resurrection COULD kill him. It definitely works in some fantasy worlds, just not THIS fantasy world.

[Geordnet]

I'm not saying that Xykon will be killed by a Resurrection spell. That's not at all likely.

I'm just arguing that the OP is not completely crazy for believing that a Resurrection COULD kill him. It definitely works in some fantasy worlds, just not THIS fantasy world.
Then why are you arguing at all? :smallconfused:

Its perfectly clear that the OP just had a misunderstanding of how resurrection spells work in D&D (and ergo OotS). Anyone can see it's a perfectly reasonable one as well (or at least they should). In fact, nobody even claimed it was unreasonable: this whole argument started when you objected to someone who said almost exactly the same thing you said in the post before him.

Since the only claim he made was that it wasn't possible in this specific instance, your somewhat conflictory response was presumed to be an argument against that -that it would be possible for Xykon to be killed by Resurrection. Thus followed a series of confused arguments for mutually compatible positions (but which acted like they were incompatible and exclusive) ultimately culminating in this strange thesis/assessment I am writing right now. :smalltongue:

[Belril Duskwalk]

Then why are you arguing at all? :smallconfused:

Its perfectly clear that the OP just had a misunderstanding of how resurrection spells work in D&D (and ergo OotS). Anyone can see it's a perfectly reasonable one as well (or at least they should). In fact, nobody even claimed it was unreasonable: this whole argument started when you objected to someone who said almost exactly the same thing you said in the post before him.

Since the only claim he made was that it wasn't possible in this specific instance, your somewhat conflictory response was presumed to be an argument against that -that it would be possible for Xykon to be killed by Resurrection. Thus followed a series of confused arguments for mutually compatible positions (but which acted like they were incompatible and exclusive) ultimately culminating in this strange thesis/assessment I am writing right now. :smalltongue:

I kind of felt that factotum's reply seemed to imply that the OPs idea was unreasonable. It's quite possible I read too much into it. Ah well, thus is life. :smallredface: