|
It's entirely possible that Malack's kids' bodies were destroyed, thus requiring a True Resurrection spell rather than Raise Dead. He may not have been high enough level back then and we don't know if he's that powerful even now. Redcloak is, however. As for Penelope, Familicide was an epic level spell so it might need epic magic to overcome. Burlew did a pretty awesome job explaining how it worked but not necessarily what it overrides. Although would she want to come back if she were suddenly (forcibly) reunited with Orrin and her kid in Heaven's Waiting Room? She can't have been *that* big into Tarquin if she spent so much time with diviners.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 11:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
Cabbit posted:If they're as paranoid as we think, they know Tarquin and anyone he has hanging around him are not the kind of people they want anywhere near the gate. Well, they don't know who is trying to raise them - they only know the alignment of the person trying to raise them. Not that I think it'll work - hell, it wouldn't surprise me if part of the Draketooth Indoctrination included directives like "never let yourself be Resurrected; it never works out and besides, you'll be hanging out in a Chaotic Good afterlife drinking single-malt and smoking cigars made from poorly-worded legal documents, so why would you want to leave?" Granted, that's just a guess re: their alignment, but still.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 12:26
|
|
|
TunaSpleen posted:It's entirely possible that Malack's kids' bodies were destroyed, thus requiring a True Resurrection spell rather than Raise Dead. He may not have been high enough level back then and we don't know if he's that powerful even now. Redcloak is, however. As for Penelope, Familicide was an epic level spell so it might need epic magic to overcome. Burlew did a pretty awesome job explaining how it worked but not necessarily what it overrides. Although would she want to come back if she were suddenly (forcibly) reunited with Orrin and her kid in Heaven's Waiting Room? She can't have been *that* big into Tarquin if she spent so much time with diviners. It is also very likely that Malack is a vampire and that his kids were his undead spawn, which can't be resurrected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
We've seen him out in daylight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 13:36
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Not that I think it'll work - hell, it wouldn't surprise me if part of the Draketooth Indoctrination included directives like "never let yourself be Resurrected; it never works out and besides, you'll be hanging out in a Chaotic Good afterlife drinking single-malt and smoking cigars made from poorly-worded legal documents, so why would you want to leave?" Granted, that's just a guess re: their alignment, but still. To be fair to the indoctrinator-in-chief, this happens to be true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:We've seen him out in daylight. But the god of death would not be cool with undead cheating to stay from dying, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
TunaSpleen posted:As for Penelope, Familicide was an epic level spell so it might need epic magic to overcome. Burlew did a pretty awesome job explaining how it worked but not necessarily what it overrides. You're kinda over-thinking epic magic here. The condition "dead" is not an epic effect in and of itself. There's absolutely no indication that familicide has a built in feature that requires epic resurrection to revive a slain target. While it could, it's extremely unlikely. That kind of effect calls for it's own spell, I'd say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Mylan posted:You're kinda over-thinking epic magic here. The condition "dead" is not an epic effect in and of itself. There's absolutely no indication that familicide has a built in feature that requires epic resurrection to revive a slain target. While it could, it's extremely unlikely. That kind of effect calls for it's own spell, I'd say. greatn posted:But the god of death would not be cool with undead cheating to stay from dying, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:I've seen it go either way in-game, but it was shown when they tried and failed to raise Lord Shojo that in the OotS universe, you do lose the diamonds. Could just be one of those "you're allowed to do it, but only in that very rare circumstance when you have a drat good reason to get this person back, otherwise you'd best content yourself with Speak With Dead".
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:FYI, Rich finally gave an official explanation to how Familicide works: Oh, well. Comic strip.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Aaand that's back to killing literally everyone, since the Draketooth family provides a connection between a sizable number of human beings and the original target. Maybe you ought to keep reading, slugger. The Giant posted:Wouldn't that spell kill everyone of the original target's species? There's a line between "sticking to one's guns" and "being deliberately obtuse," and you crossed it a while back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Aaand that's back to killing literally everyone, since the Draketooth family provides a connection between a sizable number of human beings and the original target. Human beings beyond the Draketooth clan aren't related to the black dragon by blood. The effect doesn't jump across in-laws, man. It kills them, but doesn't kill their relatives. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Mar 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:"Soon an' 'is paladins..." Don't get it. Is this a soylent green joke?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:Don't get it. Is this a soylent green joke? "an'is" = anus? Because paladins are anal? I don't really see what else it could be. Pretty dumb though, if that's what he meant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
What the hell are you people talking about 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
I already answered this once (on the last page, even), good job on reading the thread!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 08:01
|
|
|
Can you answer it again, then? Because "an' for and" and "'is for his" don't seem unusual for his accent, so I don't get it either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
delfin posted:Can you answer it again, then? Because "an' for and" and "'is for his" don't seem unusual for his accent, so I don't get it either. I think you guys are trying to read way too much into that post. I took it as a simple "ha ha, Durkon accent funny" post that just chose that particular line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:"Soon an' 'is paladins..." I don't think you understand how "Well played" is used, then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:I already answered this once (on the last page, even), good job on reading the thread! That was your answer? You realize people actually talk like that, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
You guys are really making a far bigger deal out of this then is necessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
If only I had  on myself, I would immediately spend it to buy a red custom title for that insolent pseudorandom name. That would teach him! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
God drat can we go back to arguing about alignment or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Considering the amount of discord it's sowing, I'm positive Durkon's accent's alignment is definitely Chaotic. I'm not so sure about where it falls on the other axis, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
So what's the betting pool on who's going to backstab and destroy the other first: Redcloak or Xykon?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
oobey posted:Considering the amount of discord it's sowing, I'm positive Durkon's accent's alignment is definitely Chaotic. I'm not so sure about where it falls on the other axis, though. Chaotic Neutral
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Speedball posted:So what's the betting pool on who's going to backstab and destroy the other first: Redcloak or Xykon? Monster in the Dark is going to eat them both and accidentally eat the last gate in the process.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Speedball posted:So what's the betting pool on who's going to backstab and destroy the other first: Redcloak or Xykon? Redcloak has no real reason to backstab. As long as Xykon A) Want's to control the gate and B) Doesn't realize that Redcloak has been stringing him along with the whole "control the snarl" thing. Then he'll basically, in the end, do everything Redcloak wants. Xykon, on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Redcloak has no real reason to backstab. As long as Xykon A) Want's to control the gate and B) Doesn't realize that Redcloak has been stringing him along with the whole "control the snarl" thing. Then he'll basically, in the end, do everything Redcloak wants. Xykon is already in charge. Why does he need to backstab Redcloak? He can frontstab him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Zetetica posted:Xykon is already in charge. Why does he need to backstab Redcloak? He can frontstab him. Right now? Power comes as a +8 bonus to standing right in front of you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Monster in the Dark is going to eat them both and accidentally eat the last gate in the process. What gate? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
Rarity posted:What gate? That's the accidental part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Redcloak has no real reason to backstab. At some point, Redcloak is going to turn on Xykon. He's the one with a story arc; Xykon is just a big evil tool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:You haven't read Start of Darkness, have you? 1) Redcloak tries to betray Xykon and fails but possibly weakens him (e.g. by destroying his phylacteny), leaving his defeat to the OotS. 2) Redcloak succeeds and becomes the new boss the OotS has to defeat. I don't see Xykon doing any betrayals or complex plots. He seems a very straightforward character to me. When he sets out on a course of action he pretty much applies overwhelming force in a direct way to achieve it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
Factor_VIII posted:I don't see Xykon doing any betrayals or complex plots. He seems a very straightforward character to me. When he sets out on a course of action he pretty much applies overwhelming force in a direct way to achieve it. quote:Force, in as great a concentration as you can muster, and style. And, in a pinch, style can slide. There is a level of force against which no tactics can succeed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
Factor_VIII posted:I don't see Xykon doing any betrayals or complex plots. He seems a very straightforward character to me. When he sets out on a course of action he pretty much applies overwhelming force in a direct way to achieve it. His overall philosophy and his methods are as plain and straightforward as Route 56 across Kansas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
I don't know if Redcloak is ever going to realize that he's already won everything he wants for the Goblin races (a level playing field), or if it's just going to be part of the tragedy of him that he's going to fight to the death trying to win a prize he's already got.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Factor_VIII posted:I guess there are two ways the story can go: Pretty sure this is it. (Start of Darkness) The Monster in the Dark has been programmed by Xykon to eat Redcloak and spit up his holy symbol if Redcloak ever turns against Xykon. Now we've got the 'wrong' holy symbol he'll spit up, so...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:I don't know if Redcloak is ever going to realize that he's already won everything he wants for the Goblin races (a level playing field), or if it's just going to be part of the tragedy of him that he's going to fight to the death trying to win a prize he's already got. It's impossible to see where Redcloak's story arch is going; he's noble and loyal when it comes to his own side, but he's still evil. The same for the Goblin race; Rich is clear that the universe has been set up to be unfair to them, but he's also clear that within the rules of the universe they are an 'evil' race. I want them to get a happy ending, but I don't see yet how it happens. And then there's the whole deal with the planet inside the snarl-rift that we have no info on whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
CapnAndy posted:I don't know if Redcloak is ever going to realize that he's already won everything he wants for the Goblin races (a level playing field), or if it's just going to be part of the tragedy of him that he's going to fight to the death trying to win a prize he's already got. He doesn't though. The goblin race inherently trends towards evil and from the outset has been seen by drat near every other species as non-sapient barbarians fit for nothing but extermination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 00:56
|
|
