Will somebody arrive mid-fight to seize The Gate?

[Kish]

No it wasn't! You literally said, "Does he?" You made it homework for me to figure out what you were on about.

And then linked the author saying the opposite of what you claimed. In the same post.

If you find "recognize and acknowledge that when Rich says he prefers to treat True Resurrection as unavailable, that means he prefers to treat True Resurrection as unavailable" to be burdensome homework, that is perhaps an issue to be dealt with privately, not a reason to complain about how unfair other people are being.

[Tubercular Ox]

I said "does he" followed with a quote where the author said "I prefer to simply treat [ True Resurrection] as "not available" to everyone, and I don't want to waste any panel time explaining why."

Which you could've said up front, instead of the "Does he?" There are so many polite things you could've said, none of which are, "Does he?"

The "Does he?" infuriates me. This is a bad thing you are doing. I wish you would stop with me, I wish you would stop with everyone on this board. Telling me, "Hey, I can see that you're angry, but I don't think you should be angry, so let's get back to the part where you tell me stories," does not make me feel better about it.

[Kish]

If you found Peelee's tone so unpleasant that you wanted to engage but not with him, the way to express that was to post...nothing, in reply to him. Not reassert your claim without support, then call him abusive, then try to drag in everyone else on the forum as support for you here. (I certainly do not consent for you to speak for me, Ox. Ever.)

If you actually believe/d that he's violating forum rules, y'might have more of a legitimate problem.

[Peelee]

If you actually believe/d that he's violating forum rules, y'might have more of a legitimate problem.

Fun fact, if anyone ever reports any of my posts, i abstain entirely from anything to do with it and let the rest of the Forum Staff (typically an admin) determine it. If you ever suspect a member of the Forum Staff is violating Forum Rules, you absolutely can and should report the post secure in the knowledge it will be handled appropriately.

[Tzardok]

To get this discussion back on track, True Resurrection was referenced in the comic as something theoretically possible, but practically not available (except maybe Redcloak).

[KorvinStarmast]

Does he?

I have used True Resurrection thrice.
Each time in 5e, each time at level 20 (using an artifact that could do it once per day, but I only had it for a short time) and each time to TR an NPC.
Worked closely with the DM to make sure it was acceptable to do that for each case.
(The first two candidates responded, from the afterlife, that they were not interested in coming back).

Spoiler: The two who came back

Show

In one case, it got us a soul (the sould of a dead elf lady) for a pile of rocks that I had true polymorphed into a young silver dragon. My nefarious purpose was to hope that she would be a good friend/mate to a young copper dragon whom we had met many adventures previously in a different part of the game world.

The other one was to, somewhat to the surprise of the DM, TR a 50-years-dead 9th level cleric from an adventuring party from a campaign a few years (RL) before ours. We had met the three surviving members of that party (now NPCs running a country) and I had an idea that he would help us establish a more secure base/home team as we began a small shipping company. (Of course, I needed him to do a few bits of 'special operations' now and again with some of our support NPCs, which he agreed to readily).

The third was my bard's original love/boyfriend form my back story, who had died defending me from pirates taking over our ship, and who had provided certain plot hooks. I owed him my life, so I gave him his back ...and set him free. He became first mate on a ship and sailed off to find new adventures ... and break more hearts....if you love someone set them free...

While it was worth the effort (my PC is now retired) in terms of world building, I completely agree with Rich on what it does to stories.

His damned soul has been freshly delivered to the Lower Planes, though. And Sabine might be angry/desperate/in love enough to do something stupid to "rescue" him.

While I wish to never see Nale on screen again, I can see how Sabine might do that. And I really don't want to see Thog again either.

[Grendelkin]

I'm not eager to see Thog again... but his fate was left uncertain. And if anyone were willing to let Nale co-opt their body, it would be him.

I would like for Elan to have a chance to tell Nale goodbye, and that their mom never stopped loving and missing him. But that's me.

[gbaji]

If you had to construct my side of the argument.... Again, dude, that's on you. In fact, I'll invite criticism here. If anyone at all was confused at what i meant here, please, feel free to add your voices.

It was clear to me (and probably to most people), what was meant. However, I've discovered that there are people who really do need others to explictly tell them what they are saying, rather than merely pointing to something which should provide the answer/response.

For those people, saying something like "does he?", followed by a quote that clearly shows that he does not, is seen as a passive agressive style response, since you are not, yourself, clearly stating something, but requiring them to extract your position/statement from the quote.

He needed you to literally write "It's abundantly clear from this quote that Rich does not include true resurrection in his world, therefore we can conclude that Redcloack does not have it". The former method requires that he read the quote and figure out what you are saying, while in the later you are clearly making a statement and taking a position yourself. Yes. This should not be necessary, but I've found that it's a common communication issue, particularly for on spectrum folks, since they tend to have a hard time picking up social and communication clues themselves.

And they tend to view this as people making fun of them, or picking on them in some way. Hence the response.

As a side note, just in the relatively brief time I've been posting here, I'm pretty sure I've identified at least three regular posters as having on spectrum communication styles (which doesn't in itself mean anything beyond that, since folks can pick up the communication habits without having any of the other traits). So something maybe to be aware of, especially considering your mod status.

Let me make clear that I'm not trying to out anyone, or make fun of anyone here (or even picking sides). Just observing that there are different styles of communication out there, and that some people do honestly have a difficult time with this style of response. Clues and cues that most people pick up immediately can actually be quite difficult for some to get. Then again, my overly verbose and often repetive style doesn't always seem to help either, so I'm hardly one to try to wear the communication police hat.

[Peelee]

So something maybe to be aware of, especially considering your mod status.

You know, I appreciate that. I'll try to keep it in mind.

[RatElemental]

There you go. Context. Which I deliberately included in the part i quoted.

The rest of that quote does imply that 17th level clerics can cast true resurrection:

From a storytelling point of view, the "Why didn't this person do X?" questions are sort of a waste of time. They didn't do that because something stopped them, obviously. Does it matter what that something was, really? Dragons don't have access to 17th level clerics because they just don't. That's not the way the world works. Assume, if you want, that she asked the Oracle, and the Oracle said there isn't anyone who would be willing to cast it for a black dragon.

And more to the point, True Resurrection is a terrible, narrative-wrecking spell that should not exist, as it has no real purpose for players who die in battle (as they can almost always be returned via simple Resurrection) and only ever comes in to play to undo plot points. I prefer to simply treat it as "not available" to everyone, and I don't want to waste any panel time explaining why.

(Also, with regards to the Gating a Solar thing: The "fair trade" price a Solar would ask for resurrecting an evil dragon would simply be the mother dragon's own life—because that would be a Good act of self-sacrifice, and the Solar would approve of that. There's no reason to think the mother dragon would be willing to pay that price...and even if she was, she would insist on punishing V first, since her son was relatively weak.)

And as a cleric throwing around 9th level spells (see: implosion) then it stands to reason that Redcloak has access to True Resurrection, a 9th level cleric spell. I don't think you can really argue that a 17th level cleric doesn't have access to themself.

[Peelee]

The rest of that quote does imply that 17th level clerics can cast true resurrection:

It implies that dragons don't have access to 9th level divine spells. And sure, 17th level clerics can cast 9th level spells and could cast True Resurrection, if itbwas available to them. The next part of the post, which i quoted, was explicitly more to the point and stated that the author refuses to give them access to it.

And as a cleric throwing around 9th level spells (see: implosion) then it stands to reason that Redcloak has access to True Resurrection, a 9th level cleric spell. I don't think you can really argue that a 17th level cleric doesn't have access to themself.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that a 17th level cleric doesn't have access to this one specific 9th level spell because the author said they don't. It's like how Redcloak knew about psionics before he even knew if they were using them in this world. That fits with a self-aware D&D comic - they may know about D&D facets that may not even be in their world. Given the Giant's hard line in the posted quote, it's certainly fair to say that even if Haley knows that True Resurrection is a spell, nobody in the comic, regardless of what cleric level they are, will ever be able to cast it. Because we're directly told that by the guy writing the story.

[RatElemental]

It implies that dragons don't have access to 9th level divine spells. And sure, 17th level clerics can cast 9th level spells and could cast True Resurrection, if itbwas available to them. The next part of the post, which i quoted, was explicitly more to the point and stated that the author refuses to give them access to it.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that a 17th level cleric doesn't have access to this one specific 9th level spell because the author said they don't. It's like how Redcloak knew about psionics before he even knew if they were using them in this world. That fits with a self-aware D&D comic - they may know about D&D facets that may not even be in their world. Given the Giant's hard line in the posted quote, it's certainly fair to say that even if Haley knows that True Resurrection is a spell, nobody in the comic, regardless of what cleric level they are, will ever be able to cast it. Because we're directly told that by the guy writing the story.

It literally says dragons don't have access to 17th level clerics. As well, Haley certainly seems to think a 17th level cleric could do it, she just isn't certain any exist.

I get the feeling Redcloak just doesn't want to raise anyone or hasn't even thought to try (EDIT: Or he doesn't have the diamond dust for it). Who would he even pick? Right-Eye? Would he answer the call? Oona? Bit of a waste to do mid fight with the order, the time she's probably most likely to die if at all.

Further, one of the two primary antagonists of your work having the sole ability in the entire series to raise the dead isn't so much a way to undo plot points as it is a way to introduce them; That they can do it is a challenge to be overcome by the protagonists, not a way for protagonists to cheat death and cheapen the stakes of the battle.

[Peelee]

It literally says dragons don't have access to 17th level clerics.

Whoops, misread that. But even then, again, that doesn't matter, because even if they did, he later says that he treats it as unavailable to everyone.

Are 17th level clerics a part of "everyone"? If yes, then True Resurrection is not available to them.

As well, Haley certainly seems to think a 17th level cleric could do it, she just isn't certain any exist.

Sure. And Haley can also be wrong. Again, Redcloak knew about psions without even knowing if they were using psionics rules in that world. Haley can think whatever she wants to think. That doesn't make it so.

Again, the author has directly said that True Resurrection is unavailable to everyone, and that he will not waste any space in the story to narrate that. I fail to understand any argument that purports that a character has access to a spell that the author has directly, in no uncertain terms, has said nobody has access to.

Further, one of the two primary antagonists of your work having the sole ability in the entire series to raise the dead isn't so much a way to undo plot points as it is a way to introduce them; That they can do it is a challenge to be overcome by the protagonists, not a way for protagonists to cheat death and cheapen the stakes of the battle.

. Argue that to the person who believes it's sole purpose is to undo plot points, who is also writing the story. Not to me. It doesn't matter if i agree with him on this. I don't agree with everything he believes. But i also don't think that if he says he will not do something and i think the reasoning is wrong, that he will do something. Like have True Res be available to anyone.

[RatElemental]

Whoops, misread that. But even then, again, that doesn't matter, because even if they did, he later says that he treats it as unavailable to everyone.

Are 17th level clerics a part of "everyone"? If yes, then True Resurrection is not available to them.

Sure. And Haley can also be wrong. Again, Redcloak knew about psions without even knowing if they were using psionics rules in that world. Haley can think whatever she wants to think. That doesn't make it so.

Again, the author has directly said that True Resurrection is unavailable to everyone, and that he will not waste any space in the story to narrate that. I fail to understand any argument that purports that a character has access to a spell that the author has directly, in no uncertain terms, has said nobody has access to.

. Argue that to the person who believes it's sole purpose is to undo plot points, who is also writing the story. Not to me. It doesn't matter if i agree with him on this. I don't agree with everything he believes. But i also don't think that if he says he will not do something and i think the reasoning is wrong, that he will do something. Like have True Res be available to anyone.

I think you're taking his words far too literally (the "everyone" reads as hyperbole or a sort of close enough proclamation to me), but there are other reasons the spell may not be something Redcloak can/will cast. I've already offered three; A lack of targets he thinks is worth it, simply not thinking to try it, and not having the necessary material components on hand. For a few more, he might be opposed to the idea in general or think it's a waste of resources; Xykon did have to order him to raise Jirix and all he needed was a raise dead.

He did say he won't waste screen time explaining why it won't be cast, so we'll never know what the reason Redcloak never casts the spell is. It may in fact be that it doesn't exist, but I still highly doubt it when there are other possible explanations. Whatever the case Rich seems to have filed it away and forgotten about it so there may ultimately be no actual underlying explanation at all.

[Peelee]

I think you're taking his words far too literally

Given how he said he thinks it's a terrible spell that wrecks narratives and how it's only use is to undo plot points, I think I'm taking it as literally as it was meant to be taken.

[RatElemental]

Given how he said he thinks it's a terrible spell and it's sole purpose is to wreck narratives and how it's only use is to undo plot points, I think I'm taking it as literally as it was meant to be taken.

I think the point of his words was to convey "it won't happen" more than "it doesn't exist."

[Peelee]

I think the point of his words was to convey "it won't happen" more than "it doesn't exist."

You also don't think it's a narrative wrecking spell with the sole purpose of undoing plot points.

I could be wrong. It's just that when i see someone condemn something that strongly and then state that he's going to treat it as not available, I'm going to go ahead and believe that person. I see no use in thinking, "well, that's probably hyperbolic and he probably doesn't really mean what he says so even though it won't happen, it totally could".

[Liquor Box]

I don't think that most people who are saying that True Ressurection might exist in-world are disbelieving the Giant's words. They just think they mean a different thing.

"Not available" might mean the spell doesn't exist, or it might mean it does exist but the Giant chooses to assume that circumstances mean the spell is not available to characters who might want to cast it in his story. Both interpretations mean taking the Giant at his word because the words are entirely consistent with both scenarios.

Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
From a storytelling point of view, the "Why didn't this person do X?" questions are sort of a waste of time. They didn't do that because something stopped them, obviously. Does it matter what that something was, really? Dragons don't have access to 17th level clerics because they just don't. That's not the way the world works. Assume, if you want, that she asked the Oracle, and the Oracle said there isn't anyone who would be willing to cast it for a black dragon.

And more to the point, True Resurrection is a terrible, narrative-wrecking spell that should not exist, as it has no real purpose for players who die in battle (as they can almost always be returned via simple Resurrection) and only ever comes in to play to undo plot points. I prefer to simply treat it as "not available" to everyone, and I don't want to waste any panel time explaining why.

(Also, with regards to the Gating a Solar thing: The "fair trade" price a Solar would ask for resurrecting an evil dragon would simply be the mother dragon's own life—because that would be a Good act of self-sacrifice, and the Solar would approve of that. There's no reason to think the mother dragon would be willing to pay that price...and even if she was, she would insist on punishing V first, since her son was relatively weak.)

How I'd interpret that is the Giant isn't saying True Resurection doesn't exist in OotS world, or even that no character can have it as a spell. That's why, when describing why the dragon didn't cast it, he didn't say that the spell didn't exist in OotS, but gave other potential reasons why the dragon couldn't use it. It's also why Hayley knows about it to obliquely refer to it, and seems to think a high enough level cleric would have it.

But I think he's saying that he wouldn't write it into his story - hence making it unavailable to his characters for one reason or another.

If Redcloak had cause to cast it, he would be able to but "something stopped [him]". If asked what stopped Redcloak didn't cast the spell the Giant might reply as he did above, that it doesn't matter, but the reader can assume some explanation (perhaps that Reddy has insufficient diamonds). In effect meaning the spell is "not available" to him, as the Giant expresses in his second paragraph.

[Kish]

I think everything in the comic, plus even the rest of that post of Rich's, treats True Resurrection as "does exist in the OotS universe."

I also think the ox's proposed scenario (which, incidentally, was heavily implied, not spelled out; what happened to "don't give other people homework, even as minimal as realizing that the rhetorical question goes with the rest of the post?") goes directly against what Rich said there. He is very unlikely to be doing, "This spell has no narrative justification for existing and also the story I have mapped out hinges on it at one point."

[KorvinStarmast]

If Redcloak had cause to cast it, he would be able to but "something stopped [him]". If asked what stopped Redcloak didn't cast the spell the Giant might reply as he did above, that it doesn't matter, but the reader can assume some explanation (perhaps that Reddy has insufficient diamonds). In effect meaning the spell is "not available" to him, as the Giant expresses in his second paragraph.

In the case of TDO supplying that spell, TDO might be a bit upset with Redcloak for {some narrative reason} and thus not grant that spell, but still grant another 9th level spell that fits with TDO's purpose. (I am not sure if that's how Rich mechanizes the clerics getting spells, but I've seen a few DMs do that now and again when the relationship between a cleric and their deity frays ...but that's been a few years)

[Tubercular Ox]

I think you're taking his words far too literally

I agree. You can't trust people presenting Rich quotes. I once suggested that Rich follows the rules at least as much as we observe him following the rules, and one person posted a quote from Rich where he says he never follows the rules, then another person posted a quote from Rich where he says everything follows the rules except when he tells us otherwise. Both of them thought they were disproving me.

I looked into it and it turns out, if you tell Rich he's doing the rules wrong and should shape up, he tells you he doesn't care about the rules and will continue writing the story however he wants. But if you tell Rich you love how he handles the rules and he shouldn't change a thing, he will promise to continue implementing the rules however he wants.

So turning to the latest Rich quote, I see right away that the opening question is, "Why didn't the Black Dragon resurrect her son?" which is closer to telling Rich he's done it wrong. My theory is that Rich does not like these questions and answers them with strong wording to forestall any follow up or copycat questions, then people who like shutting down arguments with Rich quotes are drawn to this strong wording because it's harder to end a conversation when Rich admits reasonable exceptions.

Sure enough, the first thing Rich tells us in this context is that "Why didn't X do Y?" questions are bad and we should stop asking them, and the second thing Rich tells us is that he hates it when people try to undo his plots and True Resurrection is a magnet for that.

But when I suggest that Redcloak could resurrect Nale as the culmination of Sabine's love story, none of that context is there. I'm not telling Rich anything he's done is wrong, and I'm not asking him to undo a plot point. It's the opposite: I'm suggesting he could turn True Resurrection into an awesome story of Sabine getting crap done despite the impossibility of her task, if he wanted to.

When the context is, "How could Rich turn bringing Nale back into an actual story?" obviously Redcloak, and probably only Redcloak, has True Resurrection on his spell list, because Rich is not going to dilute the plot with previously unmentioned 17th level casters for exactly the reasons mentioned in his quote.

It's valid to ask if Rich has any real interest in bringing Nale back, but, again, look at the thread we're in.

[gbaji]

But when I suggest that Redcloak could resurrect Nale as the culmination of Sabine's love story, none of that context is there. I'm not telling Rich anything he's done is wrong, and I'm not asking him to undo a plot point. It's the opposite: I'm suggesting he could turn True Resurrection into an awesome story of Sabine getting crap done despite the impossibility of her task, if he wanted to.

Except that, structually, there is no difference between someone asking "Why doesn't the Black Dragon mother find a cleric to cast True Resurrection to get her son back?" and you asking "Why doesn't Sabine find a cleric to cast True Resurrection to get Nale back?"

To the extent that the former is someone telling Rich that what he did was wrong and asking him to undo a plot point, so is the latter. You are telling Rich that his storytelling twist of "Nale is killed and his body disintigreated so he cant be resurrected" is actually bad for his story, and must be undone via the use of a true resurrection spell. When, just as with the dragons, if Rich had wanted Nale to be recovered for some later use in his story, he would not have had his body disintegreated in the first place.

What will presumably happen instead, is that Nale's death will affect Sabine's actions later in the story in some way. What that way may be is not yet known. But giving her an "out" via true resurrection being a spell that clerics can cast will make that future storytelling not work, which is precisely why Rich doesn't like the spell. It would result in Sabine's actions being "find a high level cleric to cast a spell" rather than <whatever he actually wants her to do>. In precisely the same way, if the spell was available for any cleric of high enough level to cast, that would have been what the ABD would have done rather than go after V.


Now. Here's where the basic idea could have merit thoug: I could see this being changed up a bit though, given who Sabine works for and what kind of powers/actions they are engaged in. We don't yet know what/who the artifact and vessel are. If, as some of us have speculated, they somehow interact with the creative power of the prime material plane in some way (sure, just one speculation of many), and the Fiends are seeking to redirect that energy for their own use somehow, I could see Sabine maybe trying her own double cross (or minor "adjustment" to their plans) to use this to recover Nale maybe. Doubly so since it's already been established that the energy that makes up the PMP is also somehow tied in with the concept of souls, worship, free will, etc that mortal beings have but that outsiders and gods do not. I could see Rich allowing the manipulation of that kind of energy/power to allow for true resurrection in a story where he would not allow the standard spell to work/exist.


So... I could see it being something that could happen (or that Sabine might try to make happen). It just wont be as simple as "Redcloak/Cleric casts the spell". I'm also not sure how Sabine gets Redcloak (or a random cleric) to do so in the first place, while I can totally see her trying to figure out how to hijack some function of the artifact/vessel to do so. She's got more or less direct access to those things, right? So.... possible, just not in the direct and standard D&D spell kind of way. It also has the viture of potentially adding to the story, rather than detracting from it. "Sabine finds a cleric and gets Nale resurrected and they move away and live happily ever after" is great for Sabine, but not for the story. "Sabine's drive to recover Nale leads her to modify the Fiend's plans in a minor but significant way" puts a twist directly into the "main plot" of the story and puts all of the 'tagonists right in the middle of it and whatever ramifications it may have. That's "good storytelling".

[RatElemental]

You also don't think it's a narrative wrecking spell with the sole purpose of undoing plot points.

Yes, but the fact that I disagree with the giant's overall stance on the spell does not undermine my entire point. That was a tangentially related aside, I have never once argued that the Giant will use the spell or that he should use the spell, just that the reason isn't that it is impossible in his setting.

I could be wrong. It's just that when i see someone condemn something that strongly and then state that he's going to treat it as not available, I'm going to go ahead and believe that person. I see no use in thinking, "well, that's probably hyperbolic and he probably doesn't really mean what he says so even though it won't happen, it totally could".

I will once again reiterate that I think the strong wording means the spell won't ever see the light of day, I just think you're interpreting "not available" incorrectly.

Peelee, it truly is frustrating to argue with you when you read so far into my and other people's words.

[Tubercular Ox]

Except that, structually, there is no difference between someone asking "Why doesn't the Black Dragon mother find a cleric to cast True Resurrection to get her son back?" and you asking "Why doesn't Sabine find a cleric to cast True Resurrection to get Nale back?"

I stopped reading here, because this is where you stopped talking to me. I didn't ask that question. My entire point was that I wasn't asking that question.

This is why I stopped talking to you last time, too.

[brian 333]

Either way, we are left with players saying, "It would be cool if True Resurrection..." and The Giant saying, "I hate True Resurrection because it breaks plots."

Those two points are irreconcilable. It matters not if Redcloak could cast the spell because The Giant has informed us that he will not.

So, while I am a fan of speculation, this is yet another area of speculation which leads in endless circles.

Good luck.

[gbaji]

I stopped reading here, because this is where you stopped talking to me. I didn't ask that question. My entire point was that I wasn't asking that question.

My counter point is that it's not about whether the statement is phrased as a question, but what the statement is asking or speculating about in the first place. And in both cases (the Dragon and Sabine), it's about Rich having an NPC resolve the issue of a dead loved one via the use of a cleric casting true resurrection. And if Rich's response to that method of recovery was that he isn't going to include true resurrection in his game for one case (the dragon), then it's reasonable to assume that the same response will be true for the other case (Sabine).

I kinda wish you had continued reading my post, because if you had, you'd find that I proposed an alternative means by which Sabine might try to get Nale a form of true resurrection, but that didn't involve the "find a high level cleric to cast it" method that Rich has rejected in his story in the past (and is rare and unique enough not to violate the "plot breaking" standard he dislikes about the spell).

[Kish]

So turning to the latest Rich quote, I see right away that the opening question is, "Why didn't the Black Dragon resurrect her son?" which is closer to telling Rich he's done it wrong. My theory is that Rich does not like these questions and answers them with strong wording to forestall any follow up or copycat questions, then people who like shutting down arguments with Rich quotes are drawn to this strong wording because it's harder to end a conversation when Rich admits reasonable exceptions.

Sure enough, the first thing Rich tells us in this context is that "Why didn't X do Y?" questions are bad and we should stop asking them, and the second thing Rich tells us is that he hates it when people try to undo his plots and True Resurrection is a magnet for that.

Unsurprisingly, I think your interpretation of Rich's motives--essentially that he says not what he means, but what he is currently feeling poked by, and we should ignore what he actually says in favor of attempting to derive his (assumed negative if he's talking at all, I notice!) emotional state--is 1) incorrect, and 2) deeply insulting.

[Tubercular Ox]

Unsurprisingly, I think your interpretation of Rich's motives--essentially that he says not what he means, but what he is currently feeling poked by, and we should ignore what he actually says in favor of attempting to derive his (assumed negative if he's talking at all, I notice!) emotional state--is 1) incorrect, and 2) deeply insulting.

More or less insulting than finding out all your biggest fans think it's easiest to believe that your comic is written without planning or research?

Also, I am arguing that Rich has feelings only to the extent we observe, not to the exclusion of all else. If you think Rich is a slave to his id, show me where that happens.

It also has the viture of potentially adding to the story, rather than detracting from it.

The rules change when something adds to the story instead of detracting from it? You don't say!

We can argue about what adds more to the story instead of whether Rich's rule base will allow him to write something? You don't... wait, no, you did say that earlier. Okay, you win.

But can we have a palate cleanser while I think about your comment? In the spirit of alternative hypothesis formation, do you think there is anything Sabine could be doing, other than bringing back Nale or getting revenge on Tarquin? Others tell me Nale is never coming back, and more others tell me Tarquin is never coming back.

Also, do you think there is any evidence yet to prefer either Sabine coming into the Final Dungeon or her staying in hell? Of course others tell me Sabine is never coming back, but she can still participate in the story from hell if her part of the story is interacting with V when V's on a timeout, and depending on how the vessel and artifact work she may be critical in the Final Dungeon.

[KorvinStarmast]

Of course others tell me Sabine is never coming back, but she can still participate in the story from hell if her part of the story is interacting with V when V's on a timeout, and depending on how the vessel and artifact work she may be critical in the Final Dungeon.

What?
She should return with an appropriate vessel in short order.
She'll be back.

[Tubercular Ox]

What?
She should return with an appropriate vessel in short order.
She'll be back.

I think it came up when we were discussing whether Julia was Julia, Eugene, or Sabine. If it was just one guy expressing a minority opinion, hey, great, but I am really sick of, "We're done with that character," arguments so it sticks with me.

Maybe it's only whether she's coming to the Final Dungeon? I definitely remember the good old, "What would the point be?" argument, and someone suggesting, "She could round out her interactions with Haley."

I dunno, bit of a digression.