Couldn't Durkon remove the Mark of Justice?[possible Spoiler]

[Tokiko Mima]

We know Durkon has access to 5th level clerical magic (the Raise Dead spell, for one.) Break Enchantment is also a 5th level cleric spell. In the Mark of Justice spell description, it even lists Break Enchantment as specifically ending a Mark of Justice spell, regardless of the spell level of Mark of Justice. So what does Belkar need a bunch of Azure City wizards for when Durkon could even more easily strip the Mark off?

I don't know how Giant has this scenario with Belkar's mark planned out, so I Spoiler tagged it.

[Renegade Paladin]

Why would he do so?

[Eldpollard]

I agree why would he remove it? after all he agreed to go to asure with miko for a fair trial. I imagine he would want belkar to stand trial for murder.

[MReav]

Break Enchantment requires a Dispel Check. If Azure City are practitioners of Circle Magic (hence the Hinjo's statement "My Wizards will remove the the mark") then Durkon may not be able to have his Dispel Check (which caps out at +15) be high enough.

Plus, given that Belkar tried to kill him while singing the complete score of "Meet Me in St. Louis", he may not want to.

[Tokiko Mima]

Break Enchantment requires a Dispel Check. If Azure City are practitioners of Circle Magic (hence the Hinjo's statement "My Wizards will remove the the mark") then Durkon may not be able to have his Dispel Check (which caps out at +15) be high enough.

Plus, given that Belkar tried to kill him while singing the complete score of "Meet Me in St. Louis", he may not want to.

No it doesn't. Mark of Justice (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/markOfJustice.htm) can't be dispelled at all. The only benefit to increasing it's caster level via Circle magic would be making it harder to remove with Remove Curse, avoiding spell resistance, and possibly increasing the power of the triggered curse (I assume?)

And as far as Durkon not wanting to, I don't see that as much of an obstacle. Belkar has described Durkon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0286.html) as 'a sucker. I mean, he just healed me up for free.' I think all Belkar would have to do is ask, and Durkon would comply.

[MReav]

Read the description of Break Enchantment. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/breakEnchantment.htm Break Enchantment makes a Dispel Check that caps at +15 (though if the Azure City Wizards wanted to be massive jerks, they'd use a Heighten Spell, making it a min 6th level spell, thereby rendering Break Enchantment moot, since it's a higher than 5th level spell, and Break Enchantment can't do that).

Break Enchantment has the potential to remove the MoJ, but not the guarantee.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Durkon wouldn't break the curse just because Belkar asked. What part of lawful good would do such a thing as circumventing the law by doing that?

[Porthos]

Well, let's see:

Belkar couldn't find someone willing or able to remove it while wandering around Azure City (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0304.html)

and

Durkon didn't seem that thrilled when he saw that Belkar was out of jail (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html).

So it would appear that the people who could dispell it don't want to, and that they people who might want to aren't powerful enough. And it doesn't appear that Durkon is in any hurry to remove it ATM, given his attitude toward seeing Belkar running around "on bail" as it were. :smalltongue:

[brian c]

I agree why would he remove it? after all he agreed to go to asure with miko for a fair trial. I imagine he would want belkar to stand trial for murder.

The Mark of Justice was only there to keep him out of trouble while he was "on bail" adventuring. Removing the Mark of Justice wouldn't keep him from standing trial. That having been said, I don't see why Durkon wouldn't remove the Mark, or for that matter why Hinjo wouldn't have it removed as soon as possible. Belkar can't do much to help defend the city if he can't deal lethal damage.

[doublewju]

Well, it aint gonna happen.
He has to find another way of removing it, but i dont doubt he will

[Tokiko Mima]

Read the description of Break Enchantment. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/breakEnchantment.htm Break Enchantment makes a Dispel Check that caps at +15 (though if the Azure City Wizards wanted to be massive jerks, they'd use a Heighten Spell, making it a min 6th level spell, thereby rendering Break Enchantment moot, since it's a higher than 5th level spell, and Break Enchantment can't do that).

Break Enchantment has the potential to remove the MoJ, but not the guarantee.


Break Enchantment
Abjuration
Level: Brd 4, Clr 5, Luck 5, Pal 4, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: Up to one creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No

This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.

If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects.


Mark of Justice is not an "instantaneous effect." It's a Permanent enchantment, and there is no caster level check for those.


Durkon wouldn't break the curse just because Belkar asked. What part of lawful good would do such a thing as circumventing the law by doing that?

But as Hinjo pointed out, Mark of Justice is not part of the Azure City legal system, so removing it is not against the law either. It's not even against the spirit of the agreement made by Shojo and Roy: they agreed the Mark would come off after Belkar was sentenced and he was. One could argue that leaving it on is actually the crime, since there's no reason for Belkar to have it anymore: the other prisoners don't have Marks of Justice.

[MReav]

I'm fairly certain the "each such effect" relates to the "enchantments, transmutations, and curses" statement, not just the "instantaneous effect".

[happyturtle]

My favorite part of that sequence was Belkar grumbling 'They couldn't have put it on my arm or something, no. That would be too easy.' Making me wonder which body parts fall under the 'or something' category. :belkar:

[tanonev]

I'm fairly certain the "each such effect" relates to the "enchantments, transmutations, and curses" statement, not just the "instantaneous effect".

Seconded. Considering the strength and/or requirements of the other spells that can break the MoJ, this interpretation is more likely.

[Demented]

The Mark of Justice spell explicitly states that it can be removed with Break Enchantment.

[tanonev]

It does not, however, explicitly state that Break Enchantment automatically removes the Mark of Justice. It is still subject to whatever rules are set forth in the Break Enchantment spell itself.

[Bluelantern]

The Mark of Justice was only there to keep him out of trouble while he was "on bail" adventuring. Removing the Mark of Justice wouldn't keep him from standing trial. That having been said, I don't see why Durkon wouldn't remove the Mark, or for that matter why Hinjo wouldn't have it removed as soon as possible. Belkar can't do much to help defend the city if he can't deal lethal damage.
he can't deal lethal damage in living creatures, he just needs stay way from the hobgoblin and focus in the undead.

[jttm80]

Seconded. Considering the strength and/or requirements of the other spells that can break the MoJ, this interpretation is more likely.
I disagree.
If you read the entire passage as a whole, its quite clear that "effect" refers only to the instanteneous effects.

[Demented]

It does not, however, explicitly state that Break Enchantment automatically removes the Mark of Justice. It is still subject to whatever rules are set forth in the Break Enchantment spell itself.

True.
Ultimately, Durkon (if he's a level 12 Cleric, as speculated) would be able to make a check of 32, with a roll of 20. Assuming a 20th level caster, the DC on the MoJ would be 31.

Which brings up the semi-amusing idea of Durkon spending several days casting Break Enchantment on Belkar until he gets lucky. Assuming sufficient spell slots and time, could Durkon take 20?

Question is, how did they originally intend to get rid of the MoJ? Just have the caster dismiss it?

[Kreistor]

Mark of Justice
Necromancy
Level: Clr 5, Pal 4
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Permanent; see text
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
You draw an indelible mark on the subject and state some behavior on the part of the subject that will activate the mark. When activated, the mark curses the subject. Typically, you designate some sort of criminal behavior that activates the mark, but you can pick any act you please. The effect of the mark is identical with the effect of bestow curse.
Since this spell takes 10 minutes to cast and involves writing on the target, you can cast it only on a creature that is willing or restrained.
Like the effect of bestow curse, a mark of justice cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell. Remove curse works only if its caster level is equal to or higher than your mark of justice caster level. These restrictions apply regardless of whether the mark has activated.

Yes, Break Enchantment could remove it.

[Mr Teufel]

I would also contend that as long as Belkar is on the walls he is not "within the bounds (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html)" of the city, so he is not affected by the MoJ if he deals lethal damage to living creatures.

[tanonev]

Question is, how did they originally intend to get rid of the MoJ? Just have the caster dismiss it?

There's some speculation on whether the MoJ was cast by multiple casters via Circle Magic (or whatever it's called), which would give the spell a higher caster level than any lone wizard or cleric could mess with.


I disagree.
If you read the entire passage as a whole, its quite clear that "effect" refers only to the instanteneous effects.

If it's that clear, then why would it be interpreted the other way in other games?
http://dndvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Columns.Detail&category_select_id=16&id=202

In any case, Heighten Spell would make this argument moot, since boosting MoJ to a 6th level spell makes it unbreakable by Break Enchantment, as per its description.

[CGM3]

Won't we all feel silly about this if The Giant just opens Friday's strip by showing an Azure City mage making a mystic pass over Belkar and informing him, "The Mark of Justice has been removed", thereby allowing our favorite homicidal halfling to bring down the thunder indiscriminately upon Xykon's horde? :smalltongue:

[tanonev]

No.

I already feel silly xD

[Silverlocke980]

The question, I think, isn't so much would Durkon remove it, because I'm sure someone in the Order could convince him it would be beneficial to have a psychotic midget dealing lethal damage if the hobgoblins get in the city, but if he knows he can.

Durkon doesn't have a good head for numbers, remember? I can't recall the comic, but Roy told him he'd be a good fighter if he remembered the numbers (he beat a goblin, but didn't know he had because he forgot all his bonuses and checks.) Durkon might not realize his Break Enchantment spell would work on the Mark of Justice, and that might render the spell, no matter how strong, useless.

It's a great line of thought, though!

[TARINunit9]

Ah, good point Tokiko!

[Querzis]

Seriously, why would he want to??? That Mark make Belkar less likely to go on a killing spree or to kill his teamates and Durkon got more wisdom then anybody else in the party so he know its a really bad idea to remove that spell. I also think its a really bad idea from Hinjo to release that Mark but, like Belkar himself said: «So he is doing it because he doesnt know me at all?»

Beside Break Enchantment could release the Mark, it doesnt mean its going to release the mark automatically without using the rules.

[Professor Tanhauser]

Durkon might remove it if he felt, as some do, that belkar's treatment in AC was unjust, thereby making it a mark on injustice that he could remove justly.

[Ariko]

Er? Durkon has not been happy to see Belkar free in the first place. I really doubt he'd suddenly conclude that Belkar is in the right.

[Purple_cloack]

I think he can but he did not want to remove it.
..and he tells that to Belkar, who is very angry. :belkar:

[Jayabalard]

I disagree.
If you read the entire passage as a whole, its quite clear that "effect" refers only to the instanteneous effects.I disagree; I've read the entire passage as a whole and it's quite clear to me that "effect" applies to all of them, not just the instantaneous effects.

[tanonev]

I disagree.
If you read the entire passage as a whole, its quite clear that "effect" refers only to the instanteneous effects.

If you take this interpretation, any noninstantaneous enchantment, transmutation, or curse that can be dispelled (which needs a caster level check) is automatically broken by Break Enchantment. If, say, a level 100 wizard were to cast Dominate Monster, Greater Dispel Magic cast by that same wizard would be unable to remove it because it could never make the caster level check, yet Break Enchantment would automatically succeed. Now, I don't have much experience with the balancing of spells, but I don't think 5th level spells are supposed to be able to easily reverse the effect of 9th level spells, nor do I think that 9th level clerics/wizards should be able to undo the work of 100th level wizards.

[MReav]

uh, tanononev, Break Enchantment is useless on spells higher than 5th.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Even then, break enchantment would remain srictly better than greater dispel magic on a very large subset of spells 5th-level or below.

[tanonev]

uh, tanononev, Break Enchantment is useless on spells higher than 5th.


If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

Otherwise, you're free to use Break Enchantment. I was under the impression that Break Enchantment was somewhere between Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic in power, and that their mechanics were similar, with the difference being that Break Enchantment takes longer to cast but can also reverse instantaneous effects.

Since Dominate Monster is an enchantment that can be dispelled (with a caster level check), it can be broken by Break Enchantment. I claim that you also have to make a caster level check (which would more than likely fail if the 9th level cleric meets the 17th level wizard), even though Dominate Monster is not instantaneous.

[MReav]

Oh good point.

[Professor Tanhauser]

Again, not knowing much about D&D and the magic it uses, but couldn't belkar just break the conditions, get sick and them use healing potions or something to combat it? Remember he's not stupid by any standards.

[tanonev]

Again, not knowing much about D&D and the magic it uses, but couldn't belkar just break the conditions, get sick and them use healing potions or something to combat it? Remember he's not stupid by any standards.

Sure, if he's willing to drink a potion every 3 minutes or so (assuming that the MoJ deals -6 to one stat; it might have a different curse, but it would be comparable in damage). Not to mention the fact that his cut of the treasure from Xykon's dungeon wouldn't buy him more than 10 potions with that kind of power.

EDIT: Unless he makes a detour to Eve and Larry's :P

[The Familiar]

Somehow, I don't think the Order is going to sit around and wait for Xykon--who is unliving and can be lethally damaged anywhere, irregardless of the Mark--to waltz past the breached walls before they go after him (if the lich enters the city that way, it's way past too late to save it).

That likely means going beyond the walls, where--again--the Mark of Justice is moot.

Besides, if it's not going to interfere with their current mission, why would the Order remove the one, meager means of controlling Belkar that they currently have access to? It's not like either Lord Hojo or Roy are unwilling to have it removed: just not now. The deal is help defend the city, and it will be legitimately removed afterwards.
In the meantime, Belkar still has license to destroy undead anywhere and slaughter hobgoblins beyond the walls, which should keep him entertained for a while...:smallsmile:

[Renegade Paladin]

Is everyone missing the fact that Belkar is in jail? His performance at the battle of Azure City is irrelevant because he won't get to participate barring sudden changes in his situation.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Uh, no, Belkar has been released to participate in the battle (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html). In return, his six-year sentence is getting reduced one year and Hinjo might remove the mark of justice. Belkar is out and about for at least the duration fo the battle (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0424.html).

[Renegade Paladin]

Oh, right. For some reason I forgot that Hinjo became incredibly stupid for a strip there.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I suppose if you really get into a comic, you might find the memories of some panels worth suppressing... :smallwink:

[Grod_The_Giant]

The Mark of Justice was only there to keep him out of trouble while he was "on bail" adventuring. Removing the Mark of Justice wouldn't keep him from standing trial. That having been said, I don't see why Durkon wouldn't remove the Mark, or for that matter why Hinjo wouldn't have it removed as soon as possible. Belkar can't do much to help defend the city if he can't deal lethal damage.

plenty of zombies out there.

[MReav]

Also, guerilla warfare outside Azure City

[Professor Tanhauser]

An interesting idea just came to me (Insert evil laugh here):

If Belkar is outside a city and near roy, he can do lethal damage safely but has to stay within a mile of roy.

So outside a city he kills roy, cremates him, keeps the ashes in a vial in his pack and is mostly free, except for the lethal damage in cities bit.

It would at least free him up to leave AC and find a wizard to take the curse off. Maybe he could trade one roy's sword for it.

[MReav]

Belkar attacks Roy. Roy survives the first attacks given that as a 12th level character, he's got a decent amount of HP. Roy invokes the command word. Belkar goes down.

Roy considers feeding him to the ghouls.

[Pyrian]

The text of the rule seems to me to be that you have to roll a success to dispel anything; there's no text supporting an automatic dispel, ever. You'd have to twist the first sentence from being a general description to being the whole of the rule, with exceptions - which is not how it's worded. This leads me to believe that "such effects" refers to the general case rather than the specific, instantaneous case.

[Hiest, monkey]

I believe that most of the people that have posted on this particular forum are missing the entire point of the Mark of Justice. The problem with Durkon, or anyone else, removing it before the battle, is impossible not because of the technicalities of the mark's specific stats. Notice that the Giant carefuly skirted all mention of the mark, unless it was aplicable to the situation or joke at hand. The mark was put there for humourous purposes, not to limit the strip. Notice how Hinjo offered to take the Mark off, he did it blatenly, without forthought, and the Giant filled it in with an unentertaing joke. The Mark was not removed until it seemed certain that the original caster was available, to prevent metagame (so to speak) thinking, the kind that originally spawned this thread.

[Kreistor]

Hiest, you're right: the Giant will remove the Mark when he wants to remove it for plot or character developments. He plays fast and loose with the rules. That's not atypical of those that work on DnD. Monte Cook is the DM of his group, but he is not the rules lawyer, since he remembers versions of the rules during 3.0 development that never saw print. The Giant is the same way. Some people may think that he looks everything up in the texts while he writes the story, but that's just not feasible to someone on a deadline.

The discussion is whether Durkon could have removed it, and the answer is clearly yes, since the Mark of Justice states specifically that though it cannot be dispelled, Break Enchantment does remove it, which overrides the text of Break Enchantment which might suggest otherwise. Teh Giant may not be aware of this, or he may feel that Durkon would not remove something a Lawful Good group quasi-legally placed on Belkar. I don't think that's appropriate for Durkon, who should be NG or CG to align with Thor, but such alignment details are up to the Giant, not me.

[MReav]

Either that, or he interpreted the Break Enchantment text the way I did, requiring a Dispel Check that Durkon may not feel comfortable making. Either that, or he wants a buffer between him and the psychotic halfling.

[Baalzebub]

So much mechanics for something Durkon will not do.

[tanonev]

The discussion is whether Durkon could have removed it, and the answer is clearly yes, since the Mark of Justice states specifically that though it cannot be dispelled, Break Enchantment does remove it, which overrides the text of Break Enchantment which might suggest otherwise. Teh Giant may not be aware of this, or he may feel that Durkon would not remove something a Lawful Good group quasi-legally placed on Belkar. I don't think that's appropriate for Durkon, who should be NG or CG to align with Thor, but such alignment details are up to the Giant, not me.

All the MoJ text gives is that Break Enchantment can remove it. It's still subject to caster level checks, etc. This means it's possible that Shojo didn't take sufficient precautions to keep Durkon from breaking it, but it's equally possible that he foresaw this problem and boosted the spell as much as was necessary to prevent such removal.

[MReav]

I sent the guys a question on the nature of Break Enchantment.

While I admit, I'm a little dubious about asking Wizards for help, this seems to be a semi-confirmation on my position that Break Enchantment needs to make Dispel Checks on all the spells, not just instant ones.


Customer (MReav)03/13/2007 11:43 AM When casting Break Enchantment, the text states "This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25."

I'm having a dispute as to whether the Dispel Check is for the Instantaneous effects, or all the effects (i.e.: I'm not sure if I would need a Dispel Check for a Bestow Curse, like I know I would for a Flesh to Stone).

Do I need a Dispel Check for all the effects, or just the instantaneous ones?

Subject Break Enchantment
Discussion Thread Response (Chris L.)03/13/2007 01:04 PM Thank you for contacting us.
I see how this could be confused. However, you would make a check for all such effects to be broken.

Good Gaming!

[Professor Tanhauser]

If belkar were forced to kill an enemy in AC (Who could have forseen that happening in the middle of an INVASION?!?!?!) and began surrfering the effects of it, Durkon or even Vaarsavius might break it to save him and keep him fighting.

[Kreistor]

All the MoJ text gives is that Break Enchantment can remove it. It's still subject to caster level checks, etc. This means it's possible that Shojo didn't take sufficient precautions to keep Durkon from breaking it, but it's equally possible that he foresaw this problem and boosted the spell as much as was necessary to prevent such removal.

What mechanic are you referring to?

[MReav]

What mechanic are you referring to?

Either using Heighten Spell, or via Circle Magic (see Faerun for more details)

[Kreistor]

This isn't Faerun, so the rules are irrelevant.

Heighten spell doesn't affect the DC. It's a caster level check against DC 11+CL of the spell. The highest mentioned spell that Hinjo can muster is Clr 5, so we're not looking at a place with Epic levels. if Durkon's L12, then you'd need a level 22 caster to make the chance 0%. If there were a L22 caster in that city, Xykon's army would already be smashed.

[Tokiko Mima]

So much mechanics for something Durkon will not do.

Why do you think he wouldn't? Hinjo pointed out that MoJ is not part of Azure City law, and that's why he didn't remove it. He said it's not his problem, because Shojo shouldn't have used a MoJ at all. Technically, this might even make Durkon more likely to remove it, as it was an illegally placed curse spell.

Roy and Shojo had a deal where Belkar would have the Mark until he's been sentenced, and Balkar has been sentenced. So there's no reason Roy or the late Lord to object. Their agreement is over.

Hinjo said he would make a seperate deal with Belkar, but that doesn't mean Belkar agreed to leave the MoJ on if he could find a way to get it off. If he gets the Mark off, then all that means is he doesn't have to do what Hinjo asked him to do (help defend the city) in exchange for removing it. Not that that means anything, since he was going to defend the city anyway.

I know Durkon is an honorable sort, but there's literally no reason not to comply aside from the fact that they are fighting an army at the moment and are a little busy. So I don't see why Durkon wouldn't do this?

[MReav]

This isn't Faerun, so the rules are irrelevant.

Heighten spell doesn't affect the DC. It's a caster level check against DC 11+CL of the spell. The highest mentioned spell that Hinjo can muster is Clr 5, so we're not looking at a place with Epic levels. if Durkon's L12, then you'd need a level 22 caster to make the chance 0%. If there were a L22 caster in that city, Xykon's army would already be smashed.

Circle Magic establishes a precedent for increasing Caster Level and it's the Giant's game, so the rules are his to throw around. Furthermore, we see the clerics in 267 (note plural) summoning a being of pure Law and Good (the fact that it's a fake is irrelevant. Eugene is a decently powerful spellcaster and master of Illusion, so he could fake the necessary effects). There is no spell that requires multiple casters to summon a creature that I am aware of.

Furthermore, we have Hinjo's statement that Wizards (again, note plural) are required to remove the Mark.

Heighten Spell makes Break Enchantment useless since it would make the MoJ level 6+.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

So I don't see why Durkon wouldn't do this?
Maybe 'cause, you know, Durkon thinks one would have to be crazy (or "Daft" as he puts it) to let Belkar run free without any sort of control on his behavior. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html)

He's Lawful GOOD, with more than enough sense to know you don't let murderous psychopaths run about willy nilly. From the look on his face, I doubt he's even convinced the mark of justice is enough.

Even if he were some über-Lawful Neutral that thinks every city's laws apply to their fullest extent regardless of the situation at hand, how does Durkon know the mark was made outside of the legal system? He certainly wasn't around when Hinjo revealed that the mark was an extra-legal affair. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html) And Roy didn't quite flaunt that detail around when describing the mark.

Plus, even though Hinjo described the mark's application as Shojo going, "above the law," there's room to argue that the mark itself wasn't exactly "illegal" per se, but simply an extra-legal contract between Belkar and a man who happens to represent the city, but isn't restricted from the occasional personal dealing. Of course parts of that personal deal were illegal, namely the illegal release of an alleged murderer before his trial. But that doesn't obligate Azure City to remove the mark any more than they would have been obligated to return any money to a prisoner that bribed a judge.