Is Xykon wrong about undeath?

[Talakeal]

So, remember the badass speech Xykon gave Varrsuvius just before their epic mage duel? The one about doing whatever it takes to keep your soul out of Hell?

Well, think about that again in light of the revelation in the last strip about Durkon's soul. That really doesn't make undeath and hell seem so different to me. And Xykon specifically mentions vampires, so they don't appear to be the exception to the rule.

So is Durkon a special case, or is Xykon just once again demonstrating how sorcerers don't get knowledge as a class skill?



PS. By the way, sorry if this question has already been asked, but there are like a dozen threads about Durkon's soul active on this page and I haven't been able to get through all of them yet.

[DaggerPen]

Given that

Xykon didn't even know what a lich was until Redcloak told him,

It's entirely likely that he knows little to nothing about vampires - even if he did more research on the whole "sentient undead" thing post-lichification, I doubt he would have studied vampires extensively.

However, given how miserable the Evil afterlives are for many, the tedium of sitting around while a vampire pilots your body might be the better of two options, especially if a deal can be struck with them.

[B. Dandelion]

Courtesy link to comic 652 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html).

"Be a vampire, or a ghost, or an immortal with a paint-by-numbers portrait in the rec room. Hell, even a brain-in-a-jar, in a pinch. Anything to avoid the Big Fire Below."

I dunno, brain-in-a-jar doesn't sound like a serious step up in improvement either. He's definitely hitting the "anything to avoid the alternative" angle there, so much so that I can't determine whether or not he has any indication of what exactly goes on during a typical case of vampirization. I'd suspect no, but I'm not sure it'd make a difference.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think that Xykon might just be assuming that being a Vampire is like being a Lich, and his low intellect means that he doesn't really know what it's like.

[factotum]

I think that Xykon might just be assuming that being a Vampire is like being a Lich, and his low intellect means that he doesn't really know what it's like.

He doesn't have low intellect--even alive he seemed pretty sharp, and the +2 Int he got becoming a lich won't have hurt. He probably has low *knowledge* of these matters, because it's not something he would need to know or care about learning.

[RNGgod]

He doesn't have low intellect--even alive he seemed pretty sharp


Um.

Yeah, I'm not so sure.


I mean, I know it's a gag, but when Xykon is told that becoming a Lich will boost his intelligence, one of the roaches says "5th grade reading level, here you come!"

[B. Dandelion]

I definitely had the impression that pre-lich Xykon was dim. Not Thog-level stupid, but lower than average by a fair amount.

Xykon: I don't have any "special powers". Unless you count failing math three times as a special power.

Yydranna: Your solution to every problem is to hit it with lightning until it breaks.
Xykon: That's a lie! Sometimes, I use fire!

Redcloak: With his memory, we're lucky he remembers "Redcloak" and "Right-Eye", to be frank. Actually, we're lucky he remembers "Xykon".

Redcloak: Actually, [as a lich] you'd even get a little smarter than you are now.
Roach: Fifth grade reading level, here you come!

[Quild]

Giant warned about this a few times, but do not forget that whatever a character say, it might not be true.
Characters do not necessarily have a perfect knowledge about how their world goes, the same we do not have a perfect knowledge about ours.
They speak about their beliefs and could be right or not.

Regarding the specific question on this thread, it could be both :p.

[Chantelune]

Also, so far it doesn't look like they have the magical equivalent of wikipedia in OotSworld. Or I think we would have seen Xykon edit his own page already to make himself look even more badass. :smallamused:

[Vinyadan]

I haven't read all of the answers, but I think you people are looking at things from the wrong perspective.

Xykon doesn't talk about how it is to be those things. He talks about what kind of mentality pushes people towards becoming them.

[Tiiba]

I think that an interloper spirit inhabiting Xykon's body would know that it isn't Xykon.

[SavageWombat]

Include me in "Xykon doesn't know anything about vampires" category. I'm going to assume he's pretty up on liches at this point, though.

[Adanedhel]

Also, so far it doesn't look like they have the magical equivalent of wikipedia in OotSworld. Or I think we would have seen Xykon edit his own page already to make himself look even more badass. :smallamused:

Actually, there is.
We know that since in his interview for the afterlife, it's specifically altering his own page that's a minor point against Eugene Greenhilt ;)

EDIT: And I'm willing to bet that Redcloak frequently helps out there :p

[BobTheDog]

Well, assuming that all sentient undead work similarly (i.e. a dark presence takes over), Xykon might have struck a deal with whatever "invaded" him when he became a lich ("So, what do you say we both commit unspeakable acts of evil with this skeletal husk of ours?"). If that happened, he probably believes that any soul would be able to "merge" in a similar way.

[Malistrae]

We lump together sentient undead but their natures are vastly different. A vampire in the Oots-verse might be a dark spirit inhabiting the corspe of its host. This, however doesn't mean that liches are the same.
Unlike vampires, lichdom is a specially researched and developed way of necromancers to retain their souls and minds within their bodies/phylacteries after its death. It would be absurd to think that liches are possessed by 'dark spirits'. It is highly unlikely that necromancers throughout the history of the Oots-verse would be so ignorant and stupid that they didn't notice that their vaunted method of immortality (specifically developed to preserve their minds and souls) is not working.
I think Xykon's comment just shows his lack of knowledge about other types of sentient undead. It might be true that vampires, shadows, wights, etc. all have their souls replaced with dark spirits. However, liches are artificial (you can't be transformed into one without consent and lots of research) and the rules don't apply to them.

[Morquard]

Vampires and liches are different things.

Vampirism is a curse or an affliction in a way, not necessarily in the D&D rules sense of these terms, but they get inflicted upon you, usually against your will.

Lichdom is something you have to work towards. You have to commit unspeakable acts to even got a shot at it. It's not something someone can force on you.

In other words: A lich has been very evil already before becoming a lich. Vampires can have been any alignment while alive.

So why would a lawful good creature suddenly be evil? There's two possiblities: a) The original soul gets corrupted or b) the original soul gets supplanted.

Could it be the same deal for a lich? Yes. But there's no indication there is, nor is there a need. They were already evil, nothing special needs to be done. They're still evil.

Edit: Pretty much ninja'd by someone with a pretty avatar. :)

[Sylian]

Regarding his Intelligence: Remember that you get boosts to Int when you grow older. Being a lich also grants him +2 Int. In total, he should have +5 Int, +5 Wis, +5 Cha, and he probably spent point on Cha when levling.

Given this, unless he had 3 or 4 Int when young (highly unlikely), his Intelligence is likely to be above average right now. And yeah, based on some of the things he's said, I'm willing to side with him being decently Intelligent (perhaps 12-13 Int), but he doesn't really apply it much because he's lazy/bored/doesn't care.

This does raise a question: Did Xykon's aging penalties to Strength and Dexterity remain after he became a lich? If so, how come he seems to be so strong? Magic?

[factotum]

I mean, I know it's a gag, but when Xykon is told that becoming a Lich will boost his intelligence, one of the roaches says "5th grade reading level, here you come!"

Er, yeah, that's what's called an "insult". As Sylian just pointed out, age bonuses to Intelligence would mean Xykon would have had to be barely above animal level intelligence to not be at least average now, and there's no sign from SoD that he was that stupid as a youth.

[cheesecake]

I definitely had the impression that pre-lich Xykon was dim. Not Thog-level stupid, but lower than average by a fair amount.

Xykon: I don't have any "special powers". Unless you count failing math three times as a special power.

Yydranna: Your solution to every problem is to hit it with lightning until it breaks.
Xykon: That's a lie! Sometimes, I use fire!

Redcloak: With his memory, we're lucky he remembers "Redcloak" and "Right-Eye", to be frank. Actually, we're lucky he remembers "Xykon".

Redcloak: Actually, [as a lich] you'd even get a little smarter than you are now.
Roach: Fifth grade reading level, here you come!

Your little spoiler area means nothing other than people like to slam on him. There is a guy at work that is smarter than a group of us put together, but we routinely badger him about being stupid.

I also know a guy who is VERY smart. He acts stupid so people at work think he is stupid and therefore don't ask him for help.

I'd say he is smarter than he puts on. And the vampire quote, I still say Durkon's turning isn't common to how it usually works.

[King of Nowhere]

Sylian described xykon's mind perfectly.
I'll just add a detail: he likes to verbally abuse people he fights with, and he does that as a (calculated or not) way to make them careless. It's not a plot hole that everyone fighting xykon seem to become an idiot for the duration of the fight: Xykon is using that epic charisma of his to taunt his opponents, make them angry/nervous/depressed/whatever, making them more prones to mistakes.
So everything he says in fights is likely the first thing that comes to his mind that would insult the opponent. It's likely to be mostly true, because the best lies are, but I wouldn't take it as gospel without more proofs.

About vampires, there are many possibilities. Either durkon was an exceptional case, or Xykon didn't know so much about vampires, or he considers being trapped into his body better than going to the afterlife. Or all of the above.

[B. Dandelion]

Your little spoiler area means nothing other than people like to slam on him. There is a guy at work that is smarter than a group of us put together, but we routinely badger him about being stupid.

I also know a guy who is VERY smart. He acts stupid so people at work think he is stupid and therefore don't ask him for help.

I'd say he is smarter than he puts on. And the vampire quote, I still say Durkon's turning isn't common to how it usually works.

Sure, some of that was hearsay, although two of the four were from Xykon's own mouth. But it's not enough to throw doubt on the available evidence when it all points in one direction. Where is the indication that he's smart save for your bare assertion of personal confidence? Particularly his pre-lich self, since for Xykon to not be passably intelligent after all the stat boosts he's had now, he would have practically needed to be a vegetable before.

[Porthos]

re: Xykon's intellegence, or lack there of, pre-lichification:

Don't forget the incident with the basilisk. :smallamused:

As for Xykon's soul? I'd say it's one and the same, pre- and post-lichification. We already have one D&D sourcebook which draws a distinction between liches and vampires (Complete Divine), so it's not like this would be unheard of.

Plus IMO Xykon's actions in SoD pretty much paint him as Xykon without even the slightest hint of somone else piloting his body.

The infamous scene involving coffee being the best example of this.

[ti'esar]

As I've noted in the past, I think a lot of people misunderstand that speech. It's primarily a slur on V's spliced souls, not a call for all evil spellcasters to become undead. So I'm not sure the issue of how vampirization works even matters in this context.

[mucat]

One possibility (which I've been kind of assuming is true, until evidence says otherwise) is that for sapient undead, the spirit of the dead creature will merge with the occupying undead spirit to become a single being...unless the dead person actively fights back.

Durkon is willing and able to fight for his own identity, and remains a distinct entity trapped within Durkula's mind. (Though it's possible that strong will only lets you hold out for so long...and if he remained a vampire forever, Durkon's spirit would eventually succumb.) Xykon and (presumably) Malak embraced the idea of undeath, and their spirits quickly melded with the lich and vampire, respectively, that they had become.

In this case, Malak meant it literally when he said he's not the same person he was when alive...though what remains of the lizard-shaman's spirit was now a part of Malak. Xykon probably isn't interested in such metaphysical technicalities. As far as he's concerned, he's still the same person, except when he's not, and he killed the last three philosophers who tried to argue the point with him.

[Amphiox]

It is entirely possible that an evil soul might well accept the situation Durkon's soul is in right now, trapped within its old body while another entity takes control, perhaps even embrace it, if the alternative is going to the "great fire below".

After all, being a soul trapped within a vampire body is really no different from being a brain in a jar, except that the jar is moving. With the bonus that you could get entertainment by witnessing the actions of the being now in control of your body, if you're evil and approve of that type of action, whereas being a brain in a jar could mean centuries of stewing in utter boredom watching the dust gather as your jar rots on a shelf somewhere.

So Xykon's statement can easily still apply, whether he knows what he is talking about in full detail or not.

[SowZ]

Regarding his Intelligence: Remember that you get boosts to Int when you grow older. Being a lich also grants him +2 Int. In total, he should have +5 Int, +5 Wis, +5 Cha, and he probably spent point on Cha when levling.

Given this, unless he had 3 or 4 Int when young (highly unlikely), his Intelligence is likely to be above average right now. And yeah, based on some of the things he's said, I'm willing to side with him being decently Intelligent (perhaps 12-13 Int), but he doesn't really apply it much because he's lazy/bored/doesn't care.

This does raise a question: Did Xykon's aging penalties to Strength and Dexterity remain after he became a lich? If so, how come he seems to be so strong? Magic?

I'd say he was old, not venerable. I don't think he was getting -6 to all physical stats.

[konradknox]

I don't think Xykon is necessarily wrong about undeath as much as it's a case of "not knowing vs. not caring". He's clearly not the mushy type to worry about how his soul would feel. He knows he's going to hell.
I think what he means is staying in the Game as an active character with some decision making capacity. Being a mover and a shaker in the world.
Is it still you? Is your soul still yours? Doesn't matter so much.
Can you still kill people and cause evil? If yes, then you are still in the game.

[Talakeal]

Brain in a jar isn't just a helpless mind trapped in a jar in d&d, it is a rather potent form of undead. It has powerful mental abilities, able to posses living beings or telepathically sense its surroundings.

[Peelee]

So, remember the badass speech Xykon gave Varrsuvius just before their epic mage duel? The one about doing whatever it takes to keep your soul out of Hell?

Well, think about that again in light of the revelation in the last strip about Durkon's soul. That really doesn't make undeath and hell seem so different to me. And Xykon specifically mentions vampires, so they don't appear to be the exception to the rule.

So is Durkon a special case, or is Xykon just once again demonstrating how sorcerers don't get knowledge as a class skill?



PS. By the way, sorry if this question has already been asked, but there are like a dozen threads about Durkon's soul active on this page and I haven't been able to get through all of them yet.

Sorcerers do get knowledge as a class skill. Knowledge: Arcana instead of all, but still.


More to the point, does Xykon specifically have to be wrong here? I think it's more an issue of different people having different beliefs on the matter. Just like in the real world, different people can have different thoughts on a politician or political beliefs (and I'm very deliberately not using any examples or specifics here - I like unlocked threads), without there being a clear, objective, "right" answer, why too can undeath not?

[Psyren]

If you're the kind of evil bastard who would end up in the Big Fire Below anyway and are willingly seeking to avoid that through vampirism, then not being in control of the resultant entity probably won't be that big a deal to you. After all, it beats the hell out of... well, hell.

And the prospect of cooperation between your new and old selves is not out of the question. Durkon is trussed up the way he is simply because that's the only possible way he would contribute his memories to deceiving the Order - under duress. But an evil soul, wrapped up inside another evil soul? Who's to say their association wouldn't be more voluntary? Indeed, there might not even be a need to slip a brand new soul in at that point - whatever deity has jurisdiction over your vampiric form might simply take the existing soul, add some cosmetic touches and put it back into the body to be the vampire.

Note also that there is some level of antagonism between the evil gods and the actual fiends in OotS; they have non-compete clauses for instance. So if you staying out of Hell's clutches through a loophole - such as, say, being turned undead - can serve an evil deity's interests, they have a vested interest in helping you remain extant.

[Ramien]

I think even if Xykon knew about the soul-trapping aspects of vampirism, he'd be okay with it. First, it does keep the soul from the 'Big Fire Below.' If you're the sort of person who'd be okay with seeking out undeath in the first place, then... being trapped by a vampire? Who's trapped? That right there is a front-row seat for one of the best movies of the year, with an endless supply of metaphorical popcorn, and nobody complaining when you talk back to the screen or telling you you're in their view.

[Zmeoaice]

If people know that the evil afterlives are so sucky, why do they even do evil things that would get them there?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

They might not be as knowledgeable as to what fate awaits them as Xykon is. Or they could believe that such a fate is worth it if their evil deeds reward them in their life. Or they might try to escape death, similar to Xykon.

And, if I remember right, in D&D cosmology, worshippers of a god go to that god's realm, so if an evil person worships a god, they go to that afterlife. The god's realm may be better than the normal after life. However, I don't quite exactly remember how that works in D&D, so I could be wrong about this part.

[Taelas]

I am not buying that evil people would say, "Oh well" to having control over their own bodies wrested away from them, even if it does give front-row seats to great entertainment.

Seriously. Not a single villain I can think of would welcome that situation.

I'll definitely buy the merge theory, though. That sounds fantastic, even -- good souls get to keep their soul "pure" (as long as they can hold on, at least), and evil souls happily become even worse than they were.

[Prinygod]

Yeah generally speaking you go to your gods afterlife, so long as you are with in one step of their alignment, and are in good standing with their god. Other wise you go to what ever alignment appropriate hell awaits you. Yes this means a robin hood type (cg) could go to the same place as an assassin (ce) if they happen to worship the same (cn) god.

And if you do find your self in hell or what ever, its not like its necessarily the christian hell where its sole purpose is to punish. With luck after several thousand years of being a whipping boy, you might become a bad ass demon with slaves of you own. Its not an after life id chose if i could pick, but i am sure plenty of the typical evil types think they will be the king of the crapper in hell.

[B. Dandelion]

Brain in a jar isn't just a helpless mind trapped in a jar in d&d, it is a rather potent form of undead. It has powerful mental abilities, able to posses living beings or telepathically sense its surroundings.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that. That does blunt the implied "anything but that" interpretation quite a bit. It does make a lot more sense now considering Xykon's personality -- I had always been rather taken aback by that line and wondered if it indicated a fair amount of rationalization had been going on there regarding his own lichification, since he wasn't anywhere near that desperate to avoid the afterlife when he was still human.

Still, I don't read much of an implication into Durkon's circumstances there, as I do tend to think Xykon is less than likely to know all the pertinent details, even if they're reasonably accessible to people specifically looking.

[Friv]

Brain in a jar isn't just a helpless mind trapped in a jar in d&d, it is a rather potent form of undead. It has powerful mental abilities, able to posses living beings or telepathically sense its surroundings.

I have a sneaking suspicion that whatever undead you're referring to, Xykon was not.

(Curiosity question - what type of undead ARE you referring to?)

[thereaper]

Xykon doesn't possess any lack of intelligence. Recall his words about not knowing vs not caring. It's only his wisdom that is questionable.

[Lord Raziere]

If people know that the evil afterlives are so sucky, why do they even do evil things that would get them there?

if people know they'll go to jail, why do they even commit crimes that would get them there?

[factotum]

I'd say he was old, not venerable. I don't think he was getting -6 to all physical stats.

We know from SoD that Xykon was well into his 70s, possibly even 80s at the time Redcloak met him:


First scene is "103 years ago" and shows a young Xykon--probably aged somewhere between 5 and 10. He meets Redcloak "30 years ago", e.g. 73 years later.


By D&D rules a human becomes Venerable at age 70, so unless you can prove Xykon was not human, he was definitely Venerable when he got turned into a lich.

[DaggerPen]

I am not buying that evil people would say, "Oh well" to having control over their own bodies wrested away from them, even if it does give front-row seats to great entertainment.

Seriously. Not a single villain I can think of would welcome that situation.

I'll definitely buy the merge theory, though. That sounds fantastic, even -- good souls get to keep their soul "pure" (as long as they can hold on, at least), and evil souls happily become even worse than they were.


if people know they'll go to jail, why do they even commit crimes that would get them there?

I have trouble seeing a villain being "oh well" about it, but I can see them accepting it when the alternative is an eternity in one of the Evil afterlives, especially if they think they might be able to wrest back control. I do like the merging theory, though.

[Talakeal]

I have a sneaking suspicion that whatever undead you're referring to, Xykon was not.

(Curiosity question - what type of undead ARE you referring to?)

Living brain. Its from Ravenloft.


It is a rather obscure monster, which was why
I thought Xykoni picked it. A sort of "even this crazy thing no one ever uses is worth it" but now that i think about it I guess it is possible that Rich didnt know about it and literally meant a helpless consciousness devoid of sensory input.

[hamishspence]

The "Brain In A Jar" also appears in Libris Mortis.

And I think that by the time of that fight between Xykon and V, it had appeared in 4E in Open Grave.

So, it's not so obscure these days.

[Vladier]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that. That does blunt the implied "anything but that" interpretation quite a bit. It does make a lot more sense now considering Xykon's personality -- I had always been rather taken aback by that line and wondered if it indicated a fair amount of rationalization had been going on there regarding his own lichification, since he wasn't anywhere near that desperate to avoid the afterlife when he was still human.

Still, I don't read much of an implication into Durkon's circumstances there, as I do tend to think Xykon is less than likely to know all the pertinent details, even if they're reasonably accessible to people specifically looking.

Well, they do have 3d12 hit points, AC 13 and challenge rating of 4, so I wouldn't say that they're exactly a stellar possibility of escaping the Lower Planes.

[Madwand]

Well, I think it is pretty explicit that Durkon is special case. Divine intervention of Hel and all.

[zimmerwald1915]

Well, I think it is pretty explicit that Durkon is special case. Divine intervention of Hel and all.
I don't think it's clear at all that Hel intervened in the creation process. Note the passive voice she uses when talking about how the vampire "was birthed in [her] hall," and the way she addresses it as her "serendipitous servant."

[Chronos]

Xykon was venerable before lichification, and the process removed the penalties to his physical scores. One of the first things he did after becoming a lich was to do a cartwheel and exclaim "Suck it, arthritis". I'm pretty comfortable saying that "arthritis" is just the in-world word for "ability penalty to Dex due to age", and that Xykon didn't have it any more.

[Sylian]

I'd say he was old, not venerable. I don't think he was getting -6 to all physical stats.I've considered that option.

Minor spoilers for Start of Darkness regarding years:

He was a kid 103 years ago. 27 years ago, he became a lich. That's 76 years. A human becomes venerable after 70 years of living. So, by RAW, he's venerable. Granted, it's not impossible that Rich Burlew has a house rule that made Xykon old and not venerable, but he most likely was venerable.

This if further supported by On the Origins of PCs. Eugene was in his mid 70s when he visited Roy in college, and thus venerable as well. If you compare how Euguene looked with how Xykon looked, it's not implausible to think that they both are venerable. So yeah, unless there's some feat or magic item or house rule or something, Xykon was venerable when he died.

[Sylian]

Xykon was venerable before lichification, and the process removed the penalties to his physical scores. One of the first things he did after becoming a lich was to do a cartwheel and exclaim "Suck it, arthritis". I'm pretty comfortable saying that "arthritis" is just the in-world word for "ability penalty to Dex due to age", and that Xykon didn't have it any more.That sounds reasonable, though perhaps a little bit OP since you do get +3 to mental stats for free. Is there any support in the rules for undeath removing aging penalties?

[dps]

While I think it's highly likely that what happened to Durkon is a special case and not how vampirism typically works in the stickverse, it's also quite possible that Xykon doesn't know exactly how vampirism works--the two are hardly mutually exclusive.

[Vinyadan]

That sounds reasonable, though perhaps a little bit OP since you do get +3 to mental stats for free. Is there any support in the rules for undeath removing aging penalties?

I don't know, but it removes (or renders irrelevant) Arthritis.

[JennTora]

That sounds reasonable, though perhaps a little bit OP since you do get +3 to mental stats for free. Is there any support in the rules for undeath removing aging penalties?

The templates don't say how they interact with age categories. If I were dming I'd rule they remove the penalties and leave the bonuses, since i've always figured the bonuses represent the learning from being around all that time, and there's no reason a skeleton animated by supernatural forces would have a Dex penalty, but that's hardly the only possible interpretation.

[SiuiS]

So, remember the badass speech Xykon gave Varrsuvius just before their epic mage duel? The one about doing whatever it takes to keep your soul out of Hell?

Well, think about that again in light of the revelation in the last strip about Durkon's soul. That really doesn't make undeath and hell seem so different to me. And Xykon specifically mentions vampires, so they don't appear to be the exception to the rule.

So is Durkon a special case, or is Xykon just once again demonstrating how sorcerers don't get knowledge as a class skill?



PS. By the way, sorry if this question has already been asked, but there are like a dozen threads about Durkon's soul active on this page and I haven't been able to get through all of them yet.

That is a fantastic question! I cannot wait to find out.

[Talakeal]

The whole agin penalties and bonuses thing isnt very well thought out at all. In addition to the whole being old means your hearig gets sharper angle, it doesnt take into account how different creatures age in any but the loosest sense. Why would a 40 year old human have more life experiance than a hundred year old elf, or a ten thousand year old dryad?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

The whole agin penalties and bonuses thing isnt very well thought out at all. In addition to the whole being old means your hearig gets sharper angle, it doesnt take into account how different creatures age in any but the loosest sense. Why would a 40 year old human have more life experiance than a hundred year old elf, or a ten thousand year old dryad?

I think the idea is supposed to be that the longer a species's lifespan is, the slower they mature. For example, Vaarsuvius's children are 26, and are still in Kindergarten. So, the human matures much faster, both physically and mentally, than the elf or the dryad. I don't know if that makes much more sense, though.

[Kish]

Why would a 40 year old human have more life experiance than a hundred year old elf, or a ten thousand year old dryad?
This is an argument for a world full of epic-level elven adventurers.

[Nightsbridge]

It's just another point where the fairness in the game trumps occam's razor. Else, everything naturally ancient would have absolutely absurd int scores.

[SiuiS]

The whole agin penalties and bonuses thing isnt very well thought out at all. In addition to the whole being old means your hearig gets sharper angle, it doesnt take into account how different creatures age in any but the loosest sense. Why would a 40 year old human have more life experiance than a hundred year old elf, or a ten thousand year old dryad?

Because elves and dryads are fae and don't view the world the same way. They do not have the ability to form frames of reference to take into account the same benefits. They may not even really get why humans can. An elf should be able to look at a problem like "my entire farm was razed to the ground by marauders" and not see why it's an issue because it'll grow back in about five years – that's like complaining you are losing skin flakes! I mean, they grow back, and pretty soon you'll have forgotten they were gone.

They removed that in 4e, and also in races of the wild. At that point it's best to view the bonuses as actual physical brain function, as loss of plasticity and in getting better at using those selfsame tools in more situations. But that still doesn't really hold water...

[LordRahl6]

The whole agin penalties and bonuses thing isnt very well thought out at all. In addition to the whole being old means your hearig gets sharper angle, it doesnt take into account how different creatures age in any but the loosest sense. Why would a 40 year old human have more life experiance than a hundred year old elf, or a ten thousand year old dryad?

not to get to off topic(Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge people), but maybe those ambiguities are why Wizards got rid of that rule in 4th ed.:smallwink:

[veti]

The whole agin penalties and bonuses thing isnt very well thought out at all. In addition to the whole being old means your hearig gets sharper angle, it doesnt take into account how different creatures age in any but the loosest sense. Why would a 40 year old human have more life experiance than a hundred year old elf, or a ten thousand year old dryad?

It's a common idea to tie "wisdom" to "awareness of one's own mortality". Being diagnosed with a potentially fatal illness, for instance, often changes someone's whole personality, in much the same way as aging. So it's not just about the experience, but also how far through your life (you feel) you've got.

[Taelas]

That sounds reasonable, though perhaps a little bit OP since you do get +3 to mental stats for free. Is there any support in the rules for undeath removing aging penalties?

The Undead type states this:

"Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects."

It seems entirely reasonable to me to include aging effects in that. I would also allow them to retain whatever aging bonuses they have accrued, but I would deny them further bonuses on the argument that undead do not advance further in their understanding of the world by growing older.

[Ramien]

The Undead type states this:

"Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects."

It seems entirely reasonable to me to include aging effects in that. I would also allow them to retain whatever aging bonuses they have accrued, but I would deny them further bonuses on the argument that undead do not advance further in their understanding of the world by growing older.

Except the changes to ability scores aren't damage; they can't be repaired by magic and are the new scores of the character.

[DaggerPen]

While the D&D rules are only approximations of reality, I do not think that the usual causes of reduced strength/dexterity/etc. amongst venerable folk would still remotely apply in an unholy abomination powered only by dark magic. Manipulating an entire frame purely by dark magic seems like the type of thing that would make those pesky joints largely an afterthought.

[factotum]

Except the changes to ability scores aren't damage

Technically, they derive from damage caused by the aging process--magic can't fix them in the same way Resurrection can't bring back someone who died of old age.

[Ramien]

Technically, they derive from damage caused by the aging process--magic can't fix them in the same way Resurrection can't bring back someone who died of old age.

They derive from the degradation of the body, but in game terms, they're not classified as damage. Protection from ability score damage doesn't protect from ability score loss due to aging - protection from aging is required for that.

[Taelas]

Except the changes to ability scores aren't damage; they can't be repaired by magic and are the new scores of the character.

I said I considered it reasonable, not that it was RAW.

[ZerglingOne]

Well, it's entirely possible that Xykon's soul is experiencing something similar to Durkon's. The main difference would be that Xykon was straight up Chaotic Evil even before he died. I don't imagine he'd need to be trapped in the way Durkon would be since it's Chaotic Evil -> Chaotic Evil. It was a voluntary change for him.