OOTS #1206 - The Discussion Thread

[Rockphed]

Why would Durkon (very Lawful Good) go to Asgard (Chaotic Good) when a person who was Neutral Good but didn’t worship Thor would presumably go to a Neutral Good afterlife?

Yet he does.

I don’t know how it works; I’m just trying to extrapolate based on what we’ve seen.

I imagine that if you want to get in to a god's afterlife you need to meet their standards, rather than the standards of the plane as a whole. So if valhalla was halfway up mount celestia, then getting in would be a matter of having Thor's celestials do your review, not the ones who reviewed Roy.

[nineGardens]

So... what do people put as the probability of Redcloak getting murdered by Xykon, and then subsequently resurrected by Durkon?

Would be a really interesting moment from Redcloaks perspective of him deciding to accept the resurrection.

[Dion]

. Chaotic afterlives like Ysgard/Valhalla are likely less structured.

Your’e suggesting that maybe chaotic afterlives are willing to take lawful dwarves?

Makes sense to me.

The free drink tickets probably help.

[Squire Doodad]

So... what do people put as the probability of Redcloak getting murdered by Xykon, and then subsequently resurrected by Durkon?

Would be a really interesting moment from Redcloaks perspective of him deciding to accept the resurrection.

There's a flaw there in that Xykon is more than likely to kill Redcloak and then destroy the body or reanimate it as undead. And if Durkon is close enough to pull off a Resurrection on RC (as opposed to "found the body, revived the corpse"), Durkon is close enough for Xykon to spot him and wipe him off the face of the earth.

[The MunchKING]

Also Xykon REALLY likes trap the soul.

[Grey Watcher]

There's a flaw there in that Xykon is more than likely to kill Redcloak and then destroy the body or reanimate it as undead. And if Durkon is close enough to pull off a Resurrection on RC (as opposed to "found the body, revived the corpse"), Durkon is close enough for Xykon to spot him and wipe him off the face of the earth.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Don't forget, Xykon gave some kind of hypnotic suggestion to the Monster in the Darkness to eat Redcloak and spit out his amulet if Redcloak ever betrays Xykon. So there's a solid chance Redcloak get killed by literally getting eaten alive. Short of the Monster throwing up, that's a "no corpse left behind" situation. So he'd need True Resurrection, which Durkon needs to gain a couple of levels to be able to do.

[RatElemental]

Also Xykon REALLY likes trap the soul.

*engages maximum pedantry mode*

Xykon really likes Soul Bind.

It's confusing, I know, but Trap the Soul is used to trap still living targets inside of a gem while Soul Bind is used to trap the soul of a dead target inside of a gem.

And then there's Binding, which can be used to trap a still living creature inside of a gem, or in a jar, or in a hedge maze, or in some chains, or...

So glad they trimmed the chaff in that area in later editions.

[The MunchKING]

Dang it, that’s what I get for posting without checking my sources.

[understatement]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Don't forget, Xykon gave some kind of hypnotic suggestion to the Monster in the Darkness to eat Redcloak and spit out his amulet if Redcloak ever betrays Xykon. So there's a solid chance Redcloak get killed by literally getting eaten alive. Short of the Monster throwing up, that's a "no corpse left behind" situation. So he'd need True Resurrection, which Durkon needs to gain a couple of levels to be able to do.

Spoiler: sod

Show

Surely the suggestion must have worn off when Roy killed Xykon the first time?

[factotum]

But if you're chaotic evil and kick puppies for fun every tuesday

Is it OK to do it every Thursday, then? Asking for a friend.

[LadyEowyn]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Don't forget, Xykon gave some kind of hypnotic suggestion to the Monster in the Darkness to eat Redcloak and spit out his amulet if Redcloak ever betrays Xykon. So there's a solid chance Redcloak get killed by literally getting eaten alive. Short of the Monster throwing up, that's a "no corpse left behind" situation. So he'd need True Resurrection, which Durkon needs to gain a couple of levels to be able to do.

Spoiler

Show

To me, that’s a pretty obvious Chekhov’s Gun for MITD to not follow the suggestion, as a result of his character development. It’s one of the reasons why I think Redcloak will flip to the Order’s side, because that’s a scenario where the MITD (who now opposes Xykon and Redcloak’s goals and supports the Order and O-Chul) would have a clear reason to refuse.

[strider72]

This is one of those cases that actually annoys me — where the character doesn’t say something they **obviously** should say (“I was dead at the time”). Sometimes going for the joke requires the smart characters to be stupid; but as a rule those are my least favorite jokes.

[Peelee]

This is one of those cases that actually annoys me — where the character doesn’t say something they **obviously** should say (“I was dead at the time”). Sometimes going for the joke requires the smart characters to be stupid; but as a rule those are my least favorite jokes.

It's something he could easily say in the beginning of the next step. Not saying something immediately is different than not saying something at all.

[bunsen_h]

I'm still not sure how wall of stone would work in that case since it must connect to other stone, but oh well.

It appears to be connecting to the stone right under a thin layer of snow/ice, which has been moved aside by the creation of the furniture set.

[Rockphed]

But if you're chaotic evil and kick puppies for fun every tuesday, I don't see Pelor wanting to claim you no matter how many times you prayed to him.

If you kick puppies every Tuesday you are probably lawful, not chaotic, evil.

Is it OK to do it every Thursday, then? Asking for a friend.

Nope, still lawful evil.

[Squire Doodad]

If you kick puppies every Tuesday you are probably lawful, not chaotic, evil.

Yeah, but you do it every Tuesday because you want to. So, Neutral Evil?

[ti'esar]

This is one of those cases that actually annoys me — where the character doesn’t say something they **obviously** should say (“I was dead at the time”). Sometimes going for the joke requires the smart characters to be stupid; but as a rule those are my least favorite jokes.

To be fair, I don't think Durkon himself is making the assumption that a cleric, especially a high priest, would normally only speak to their god after they died. He seems surprised that TDO has never directly spoken to Redcloak (and I'll admit I had the same reaction, so it doesn't seem that implausible).

[Grey Watcher]

Spoiler

Show

To me, that’s a pretty obvious Chekhov’s Gun for MITD to not follow the suggestion, as a result of his character development. It’s one of the reasons why I think Redcloak will flip to the Order’s side, because that’s a scenario where the MITD (who now opposes Xykon and Redcloak’s goals and supports the Order and O-Chul) would have a clear reason to refuse.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Sorry I was unclear. While there's a solid chance Redcloak is going to die that way, it's still only a chance. Definitely possible that MITD will have a moment of breaking mind control because it's too antithetical to his (newly developed) character. Or maybe the magic will work as intended, leaving MITD horrified when he regains his senses. Or some other outcome that hasn't occurred to me. No way of knowing really, until we get there.

Still, if MITD does resist the mind control, I think that's going to be a 'Redcloak narrowly survives" situation, so whether or not Durkon would attempt a Resurrection and Redcloak would accept becomes moot point. It seems like it'd be really weird to go to the narrative trouble of having MITD break his magical chains only to have Redcloak die anyway. (Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Xykon will try to kill Redcloak directly once he realizes MITD won't do it, but him succeeding would be really hard to make work story-wise.)

[Rogar Demonblud]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Don't forget, Xykon gave some kind of hypnotic suggestion to the Monster in the Darkness to eat Redcloak and spit out his amulet if Redcloak ever betrays Xykon. So there's a solid chance Redcloak get killed by literally getting eaten alive. Short of the Monster throwing up, that's a "no corpse left behind" situation. So he'd need True Resurrection, which Durkon needs to gain a couple of levels to be able to do.

Spoiler

Show

All they need for Resurrection is a drop of blood or a bone shard. Maybe a scrap of skin stuck to the chain on the amulet that just got spit out.

[Fyraltari]

Spoiler: sod

Show

Surely the suggestion must have worn off when Roy killed Xykon the first time?

Spoiler: SoD

Show

I would assume Xykon renews it every so often.

[Ron Miel]

Spoiler: sod

Show

Surely the suggestion must have worn off when Roy killed Xykon the first time?

Spoiler

Show

1) I'm don't know what the spell was, but it isn't suggestion, which has a time limit of 1 hour per caster level.
2) Why would it? Is there something in the rules that says it stops when the caster dies?
3) Roy didn't kill Xykon, just destroyed his body.

[understatement]

Spoiler

Show

1) I'm don't know what the spell was, but it isn't suggestion, which has a time limit of 1 hour per caster level.
2) Why would it? Is there something in the rules that says it stops when the caster dies?
3) Roy didn't kill Xykon, just destroyed his body.

Spoiler

Show

Oh. Huh. I assumed most enchantment spells in OOTS wear off when the caster dies, like the domination effect on Hilgya.

Does making a lich regenerate mean that any spell they cast wears off? The Cloister did end when Xykon got destroyed, but then again it's a comic-only spell.

I guess I wasn't sure how the mind effect on MITD would be introduced, since there's not a single hint in the strips of him being magically controlled by Xykon for years on end.

[bunsen_h]

Spoiler

Show

All they need for Resurrection is a drop of blood or a bone shard. Maybe a scrap of skin stuck to the chain on the amulet that just got spit out.

No spoiler protection needed, since this is back to regular comic territory... Could Durkon have been Resurrected using the trace of "whatever necrotic substance serves as the vampire's saliva" in Haley's bloodstream?

[Grey Watcher]

No spoiler protection needed, since this is back to regular comic territory... Could Durkon have been Resurrected using the trace of "whatever necrotic substance serves as the vampire's saliva" in Haley's bloodstream?

Unlikely. That "saliva" would have been produced after Durkon died and Resurrection needs something that was part of your body at the time of death. Sort of the inverse of "you can't chip off your earlobe and give it to someone to use for a Resurrection if you don't come back."

[Jacky720]

Unlikely. That "saliva" would have been produced after Durkon died and Resurrection needs something that was part of your body at the time of death. Sort of the inverse of "you can't chip off your earlobe and give it to someone to use for a Resurrection if you don't come back."

I mean, it may have been part of his body before, but then it got "processed" into "saliva".

Also, why would both the earlobe thing and its inverse not work? Since it's an inversion, one should work and the other shouldn't, right?

[Grey Watcher]

I mean, it may have been part of his body before, but then it got "processed" into "saliva".

Also, why would both the earlobe thing and its inverse not work? Since it's an inversion, one should work and the other shouldn't, right?

"Inversion" was probably the wrong word. But it's similar in that the earlobe doesn't work because it stopped being part of you before you died, while the saliva didn't start to be part of you (due to not having been produced) until after you died. Neither meets the "was part of your body at the time of death" criterion.

Now, how vampire saliva-equivalent is produced is whether it's made (wholly or in part) from stuff that was part of the body at death hasn't been properly answered, but I was assuming the answer was "no".

[Rockphed]

"Inversion" was probably the wrong word. But it's similar in that the earlobe doesn't work because it stopped being part of you before you died, while the saliva didn't start to be part of you (due to not having been produced) until after you died. Neither meets the "was part of your body at the time of death" criterion.

Now, how vampire saliva-equivalent is produced is whether it's made (wholly or in part) from stuff that was part of the body at death hasn't been properly answered, but I was assuming the answer was "no".

"Converse" is the word you want for "two almost opposites that don't quite cancel out", I think. I remember using it for that back in my boolean logic class.

[Jay R]

This is one of those cases that actually annoys me — where the character doesn’t say something they **obviously** should say (“I was dead at the time”). Sometimes going for the joke requires the smart characters to be stupid; but as a rule those are my least favorite jokes.

I think that's a perfectly in-character slip for Durkon. Once Redcloak said he'd never talked to his God, Durkon was thinking about Redcloak, not himself. I can believe that it didn't occur to him to tell more of his own story.

[RatElemental]

I mean, it may have been part of his body before, but then it got "processed" into "saliva".

That right there is a rabbit hole. Can you resurrect the chicken you had last night using your own body? What about the bugs that the chicken ate when it was alive? Or the lion that died and fertilized the soil, being incorporated into the plants the bugs ate?

The restrictions on how long ago something that died can be resurrected seems to be tied to the state of the corpse, as implied by gentle repose. I think the moment part of you gets "processed" into being part of something else it can't be used to bring you back anymore.

Although this does raise the question of why you can resurrect someone with week old ashes but not century old bones...

[Rockphed]

Although this does raise the question of why you can resurrect someone with week old ashes but not century old bones...

Because there are 2 things that go in to bringing someone back to life: you need to rebuild and repair their body and you need to call their soul to inhabit it. Resurrection can rebuild a body from nothing but ashes or a single eyelash or whatever, but it can only call a soul back that has been dead for 10 years per caster level. Which means that you can, at a minimum, bring back someone whose bones are no more than 130 years old. Not that people who have been dead that long are likely to come back from the dead without a good reason (having been an undead for 120 years and wanting to fix the problems you made might be one).