THE OotS Thread, Part IV.

[FaxModem1]

Are playing as vampires in D&D like playing vampires in Masquerade, where one can lose control while drinking blood? If so, Roy's solution may come with a high cost.

[Sharp-kun]

The party's being far too casual about Durkon and I think at some point they're going to get a wake up call.

[Ahriman238]

I think so too.

But I think again that Roy trusts Durkon and was only offering himself up if he was wrong. Gag aside, I'd be surprised if he let Durkon drink from anyone else.

[Raesene]

Redcloak now has one additional method to take control of a party member - I expect he'll use his command undead ability (which we've seen used on the wights - granted, those were much lower in Level than Durkula) to create a distraction.

That could also be the end of Belkar - with a 'See? I told you so...' death Scene included.

[Kuja]

Are playing as vampires in D&D like playing vampires in Masquerade, where one can lose control while drinking blood? If so, Roy's solution may come with a high cost.

Barring DM fiat, no.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Are playing as vampires in D&D like playing vampires in Masquerade, where one can lose control while drinking blood? If so, Roy's solution may come with a high cost.

Kuja beat me to it, but there's nowhere in the rules that says this. Then again, OotS is a heavily houseruled world so that could be the case.


Minor nitpick, but T:TM don't lose control unless they're nearly running on empty.

[Ralin]

Are playing as vampires in D&D like playing vampires in Masquerade, where one can lose control while drinking blood? If so, Roy's solution may come with a high cost.

Kuja beat me to it, but there's nowhere in the rules that says this. Then again, OotS is a heavily houseruled world so that could be the case.

Mechanically vampires didn't even need to drink blood in 3.5, so pretty much any details for how feeding works and how well a vampire can control themselves when they do it are going to be DM fiat.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I suspect that Roy is smart enough and enough of a planner to figure that when dealing with someone as lawful and as loyal to his allies as Durkon, that setting up such a formal arrangement that benefits Durkon will produce a strong sense of reciprocal obligation on Durkon's part, on top of his existing loyalty to the group.

Redcloak now has one additional method to take control of a party member - I expect he'll use his command undead ability (which we've seen used on the wights - granted, those were much lower in Level than Durkula) to create a distraction.

It's my understanding from discussions of the OOTS board that Durkon is much too powerful an undead for that to work.

[Napoleon the Clown]

A quick perusal of the SRD suggests that Durkula is susceptible to Redcloak's Rebuke, and likely Command. I couldn't find anything saying a vampire has any bonus resistance to Turn/Rebuke, and I doubt Dukula is higher level than Redcloak. Redcloak is at minimum level 17. We haven't seen 9th level spells out of Durkula, as far as I remember, so he's probably lower level than Redcloak.

[Grumman]

I couldn't find anything saying a vampire has any bonus resistance to Turn/Rebuke...

+4, according to the SRD.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Must have missed it.

Still, Redcloak does have some control options for Durkula, even if he probably can't outright take control of him. Getting him to cower alone would be immensely valuable.

[Highlord Laan]

Spoiler

I meant, eh, magic restoration or not, that was awfully fast to just agree "sure, this undead, negative energy filled monstrosity can drink my blood". Yes, they have all bad options, but not even a little hesitation?

Durkon is his friend. A far as Roy is concerned, that's it.

Must have missed it.

Still, Redcloak does have some control options for Durkula, even if he probably can't outright take control of him. Getting him to cower alone would be immensely valuable.

Clerics have a high base will save, and all of them also have very high wisdom scores as well. It's possible Durkon has the Iorn Will feat, then add in Turn/Rebuke Resistance.

Vampire Clerics are horrifyingly scary as a rule, with a large part of that being their ability to pretty much laugh at attempts to turn or control them.

[PainRack]

I think so too.

But I think again that Roy trusts Durkon and was only offering himself up if he was wrong. Gag aside, I'd be surprised if he let Durkon drink from anyone else.

I agreeing with Simon. Roy actions here is instinctive of his nature and a testament of his friendship with Durkon.

Beside, isn't it the cliché in vampire flicks now to trust a vampire?

[Ted C]

Can Durkon bolster himself?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Can Durkon bolster himself?

Yes. Malack bolstered himself against Durkon's Turn Undead back in 873.

[PKRudeBoy]

Are playing as vampires in D&D like playing vampires in Masquerade, where one can lose control while drinking blood? If so, Roy's solution may come with a high cost.

Kuja beat me to it, but there's nowhere in the rules that says this. Then again, OotS is a heavily houseruled world so that could be the case.

Mechanically vampires didn't even need to drink blood in 3.5, so pretty much any details for how feeding works and how well a vampire can control themselves when they do it are going to be DM fiat.

They cover the feeding rules in Libris Mortis, and though I don't have the book on me right now, once a day sounds about right.

[PainRack]

Hmm........ back to Tarquin being a control freak and not being held as all mighty team leader.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html

One strip after his intro had Malack saying that he's just as goofy as Elan.

[Crazedwraith]

940 is up

And its refreshingly to the point.

[Ahriman238]

Vive la revolution? But seriously guys, given the high-level characters that run this continent, you've got to get yourselves some spellcasters pronto.

[Napoleon the Clown]

If you've ever seen what a group of kobolds can do to a group of high level adventurers, assuming the DM is a sadistic bastard with good planning skills, you'd know why tactics can make life hell for anyone who doesn't have some degree of planning themselves. If you've got someone who knows how to build traps you can fuck up an entire group of people pretty bad. Same with knowing how to use ambush tactics and finding ways to go for touch AC.

[Serafina]

Tuckers Kobolds were on their home-turf, with not-limited preptime and a significant amount of resources, against a relatively clueless party. Oh, and they had higher numbers too, something which Team Anti-Tarquin doesn't have here.

[Irbis]

Then there's the fact they almost certainly have a traitor with them. Nope, all I can see them doing is to give T. yet another occasion to try and hijack the plot.

[AniThyng]

I found it amusing to read the theory that Xykon might be wrong about what happens to the souls of intelligent undead, and that the lich known as Xykon is in fact NOT the continuation of the old socceror known as Xykon.

I seriously which Burlew would hurry up and confirm that Durkula IS Durkon and not some sort of doppelganger to silence the ridiculous amount of "omg that is not durkon" threads.

[Irbis]

I found it amusing to read the theory that Xykon might be wrong about what happens to the souls of intelligent undead, and that the lich known as Xykon is in fact NOT the continuation of the old socceror known as Xykon.

I seriously which Burlew would hurry up and confirm that Durkula IS Durkon and not some sort of doppelganger to silence the ridiculous amount of "omg that is not durkon" threads.

The difference is that Lich is specifically said to capture its old soul and trap it in warded box. This is what gives him ability to regenerate, in fact. Vampire has no such provision, more, Malack suggested raising him will resurrect unrelated, mortal Malack, destroying the vampire. So, they're not the same being, unless it's yet another case "I said A in comic, but really meant B, why everyone is reading A???" by author.

[Simon_Jester]

Tuckers Kobolds were on their home-turf, with not-limited preptime and a significant amount of resources, against a relatively clueless party. Oh, and they had higher numbers too, something which Team Anti-Tarquin doesn't have here.

At this point, the biggest thing Amun-Zora's* resistance has going for it is that Tarquin doesn't appear to know it exists and has other things on his mind that may fuel megalomania and illogical action on his part. He'll leave himself more vulnerable than he would have done a month or two ago, before all this business with Elan, Nale, and the rest arose.

The second-biggest thing is that Malack is dead, and Laurin and Shewdanker probably both upset about the ugly fight in the desert that Tarquin's obsessions drew them into... so Tarquin is on the outs with the allies that could provide him with caster support. It may be hard for him to summon them in a hurry, and any aid they provide him may be pretty limited.

While we can be sure Tarquin has NPC casters on payroll, they are likely to be considerably less powerful and easier to counter.

*Had to check the name on the wiki, but there it is.

I found it amusing to read the theory that Xykon might be wrong about what happens to the souls of intelligent undead, and that the lich known as Xykon is in fact NOT the continuation of the old socceror known as Xykon.

I seriously which Burlew would hurry up and confirm that Durkula IS Durkon and not some sort of doppelganger to silence the ridiculous amount of "omg that is not durkon" threads.

The difference is that Lich is specifically said to capture its old soul and trap it in warded box. This is what gives him ability to regenerate, in fact. Vampire has no such provision, more, Malack suggested raising him will resurrect unrelated, mortal Malack, destroying the vampire. So, they're not the same being, unless it's yet another case "I said A in comic, but really meant B, why everyone is reading A???" by author.

There's a freshman philosophy concept that's really useful to have here: continuity of identity, and what it means.

Suppose you have a boy who gets in trouble at time A, and gets spanked for it. He grows up to be a young man at joins the army, and wins a medal for bravery at time B. He rises through the ranks and retires to Florida at time C.

Further suppose that when the man wins the medal at B, he is still conscious and aware of having gotten spanked at time A. But by time C, the man has forgotten the spanking- though he still remembers winning the medal.

The first question is: the memory of A is part of who the man is at B. And the memory of B is part of who the man is at C. But is the memory of A part of who the man is at time C? He's forgotten the incident, it's been a long time and he's had a lot of opportunity to turn into an entirely different person, whose attitudes and behavior don't reflect the spanking.

This is related to the philosophical idea of the Ship of Theseus: if you keep changing or replacing parts of an object, at what point does it cease to become the same object? Now apply that question to a person- at what point do they cease to be the same person?

Well, the living reptile Malack, who died 200 years ago, has obviously become a very different person now as a vampire than he was back in the day. It's alluded to that he did things that irreversibly changed his character and his social world. His tribe "no longer exists," and then there's this: "I had seven brothers, you know. In that dim other life so long past. I remember the taste of their blood far more than any fraternal bond, though."

We can't know exactly what happened, but it's at least implied that Malack the vampire may have had a hand in the events that explain why his tribe no longer exists.

So now we apply the A->B->C example and the argument of the Ship of Theseus to Malack: after two hundred years of committing destruction in the name of Nergal, and of being a vampire, Malack remembers the taste of his brothers' blood more than he remembers even having brothers. Is Malack in any way recognizable as the person he used to be? It doesn't matter if he was that person 200 years ago, the question is whether there's any real continuity of values, attitudes, or even memory now, in the present day.

Malack himself may believe the answer is "no" and consider resurrection to be a complicated form of killing vampire-Malack, just to replace him with this ancient living-Malack who is only vaguely related to the person he once was. He would rather be totally destroyed (hello, cleric of destruction who takes his job seriously) than recreated in the mind and form of a being that ceased to exist 200 years ago, and has very little in common with him today.*

And yet this does not mean that the principle applies to ALL intelligent undead. My reading of Xykon, for example, might well accept a Resurrection spell if one could be offered to him, and if it were convenient for him to do so. The main reason he might not is simply that he was an old man, would not have long to live as a man, and now appears to desire the eternal existence and special powers of a lich more than he desires to be a living being.

___________________________________

*You might feel the same way as Malack if, after a long and happy life, someone proposed to zap you with a magic wand and regress you to the state of a newborn baby. If someone guaranteed that the new baby Irbis would grow up to believe and do things totally alien to the current mature Irbis, you might well react to the offer by refusing.

While in theory this might extend "your" life, in practice you might see it as a complicated way of killing you- because all that makes you you, all the memory and personality, would be gone and erased. This might sound like being removed from existence, rather than a way of extending your own existence.