PDA

View Full Version : Couldn't Malack just have resurrected his kids?



xroads
2011-12-20, 07:27 PM
Hi all,

It's been awhile since I've played 3.5ed D&D, but couldn't Malack just have rezzed his kids? It's a safe bet that he's at least as competent and powerful as Durkon, who has rezzed before. And he shares control of a multi-empire conglomerate, so he should have the resources.

Did Nale just completely destroy Malack's kid's corpses? Is Malack's god, whose domains includes death, not keen on the whole rezzing thing?

~XRoads

McDougal
2011-12-20, 07:30 PM
I *think* that servants of a god of death are prohibited from raising the dead. I think that I saw that somewhere on these forums.

Kish
2011-12-20, 07:45 PM
Eugene couldn't have Eric Greenhilt resurrected.

TriForce
2011-12-20, 07:59 PM
people dont always WANT to be resurrected, especially not if your in your equivelant of paradise

Nephrahim
2011-12-20, 08:02 PM
He worships a god of death. Even if he technically could bring them back, I don't think he'd even consider taking from his god a valid option.

Spookymurloc
2011-12-20, 08:03 PM
I don't know enough about DnD to comment on if being the servant of a death god means he's not allowed to bring people back from the dead.

It's possible the kids just liked the afterlife enough that they didn't want to leave. (Like Roy's little brother)

It's also possible that Nale did something which destroyed their bodies, and Malack simply can't ressurect them without their bodies.

Reaver225
2011-12-20, 08:05 PM
I don't know enough about DnD to comment on if being the servant of a death god means he's not allowed to bring people back from the dead.

It's possible the kids just liked the afterlife enough that they didn't want to leave. (Like Roy's little brother)

It's also possible that Nale did something which destroyed their bodies, and Malack simply can't ressurect them without their bodies.

Or, for example, sacrificed their souls to a demon in exchange for a certain succubus(?)' loyalty...

Dr.Epic
2011-12-20, 08:06 PM
Nale did something with the souls.

Nale completely destroyed the bodies and it's high enough level for a true resurrection.

Steward
2011-12-20, 08:08 PM
I don't think that's a rule from the books, but it might be a requirement for Nergal's faith. I don't know how high level Malack is. Without the remains, he would have to be 17th level to at least attempt that -- that's Redcloak territory. With the remains, he could try it at an earlier level (9th to 13th). What other posters said is the most likely though -- they didn't come back.

Spookymurloc
2011-12-20, 08:40 PM
Or, for example, sacrificed their souls to a demon in exchange for a certain succubus(?)' loyalty...

I think the original Linear Guild (including Sabine) worked alongside Tarquin and Malack for years until Nale tried to have himself crowned instead of the Empress.

Granted this is only the impression I got from Tarquin talking about Nale and from the panel showing team Tarquin and the Empire of Blood versus Nale and the Linear Guild.
Since only Nale was explicitly stated to have worked with Tarquin for years, Sabine's presence prior to Nale killing Malack's children is wholly debateable.

Souhiro
2011-12-20, 08:43 PM
Even if Malack isn't level 17, he could easily use an scroll, couldn't he?

Or if Molock don't approve the Resurrections, he could use a cleric of another faith. He could easily have asked Durkon for help, and we know he would be more than happy to help a friend.

So it can be more one of those things of Gameplay and Story segregation, or Nale having read the Book of Vile Darkness.


It will be a pity to see Malack vs Durkon. Everytime Durkon make a friend, he'll end fighting'em!

hoff
2011-12-20, 08:51 PM
Well, when you are the high priest of your nation (and probably the highest level one on the continent) where do you buy high level scrolls from?

I always find amusing how most d&d players think they can just buy whatever they want wherever they want as long as they have the gold listed on the books.

Bulldog Psion
2011-12-20, 08:53 PM
Hi all,

It's been awhile since I've played 3.5ed D&D, but couldn't Malack just have rezzed his kids? It's a safe bet that he's at least as competent and powerful as Durkon, who has rezzed before. And he shares control of a multi-empire conglomerate, so he should have the resources.

Did Nale just completely destroy Malack's kid's corpses? Is Malack's god, whose domains includes death, not keen on the whole rezzing thing?

~XRoads

Although speculation is fun, at this point the only indisputable fact that we have is that we don't know what happened. :smallsmile:

Querzis
2011-12-20, 08:59 PM
Or if Molock don't approve the Resurrections, he could use a cleric of another faith. He could easily have asked Durkon for help, and we know he would be more than happy to help a friend.

...How does asking someone else to do something which he is against help? If its against its religion then its against its religion, asking Durkon to do it wont make it any less of a blasphemy in his eyes.

But really though, people very rarely accept resurection. Pretty much the only way anyone accept a resurection is if they have important unfinished business back in the mortal world. And guess who very often have very important business in the material world that affect lots of people they care about? Adventurers! Guess who never have any reason at all to come back to the mortal world? Kids! Granted we dont know how old Malack kids were but still, no reason they would accept resurection at all were given even if its not against Malack religion and Nale hasnt done anything to their soul.

xroads
2011-12-20, 09:14 PM
Sounds like I haven't missed anything and that it's pure speculation at this point.

Cool. Thanks all! :smallsmile:

Dr.Epic
2011-12-20, 09:30 PM
Or if Molock don't approve the Resurrections, he could use a cleric of another faith. He could easily have asked Durkon for help, and we know he would be more than happy to help a friend.

That's still resurrection even if it's not by Malack's hands so I'm sure he'd still be against it. If you're against something, why would you just have someone else do it?

Cirrylius
2011-12-20, 10:27 PM
That's logical. While it would (I think) be okay for him technically to accept his kids' Resurrection if someone else did the deed, It would be a violation of the spirit of his faith to go out of his way to find someone to do it for him. IOW, he couldn't just stick another high level cleric in a room with the kids' corpses, a pile of diamonds and a meaningful look, but if he came home one day and found his live kids waiting for him with a priest of Enki beaming back at him, that would be acceptable. Unless Nergal has some really, REALLY strict rules concerning the restoration of the dead, of course.

Stille_Nacht
2011-12-20, 11:42 PM
i think it is also a distinct possibility that it is simply a plot element that is slightly incompatible with DnD.
After all if Giant felt like malack should have a good reason, it had to be just that, really good. Obviously, the only really deep grudge you can hold against someone is the death of your loved ones, so the whole resurrection possibility may have been breezed over.

Bulldog Psion
2011-12-21, 05:43 AM
i think it is also a distinct possibility that it is simply a plot element that is slightly incompatible with DnD.
After all if Giant felt like malack should have a good reason, it had to be just that, really good. Obviously, the only really deep grudge you can hold against someone is the death of your loved ones, so the whole resurrection possibility may have been breezed over.

Ah, the inevitable "it's inexplicable because The Plot Needs It" argument. Unanswerable, admittedly, but a bit drab ....

TSED
2011-12-21, 06:36 AM
"It happened years ago."

Why is everyone assuming that Malack was high enough of a level to cast resurrection when the deed occurred?

Querzis
2011-12-21, 06:39 AM
We have given no less then three very good reason why Malack coudnt have resurected his kids. Why, in absolutely every thread like these, must there always be someone who says: «It happened because the Plots needs it» even when there are lots perfectly reasonable explication for what happened?

Savil
2011-12-21, 07:26 AM
It's also possible that Nale did something which destroyed their bodies
Well, since Malack is some sort of reptilianfolk, his kids could possibly be eggs, and Nale could have made an omelette of them (probably even by Tarquin's recipe :smalleek:)
Can someone who is not yet technically born be resurrected? :smallconfused:

Wild speculation, of course :smallsmile:

Prowl
2011-12-21, 08:05 AM
knowing Nale he made an omelet then fed it to Malack, Southpark style

Gullintanni
2011-12-21, 08:46 AM
It could well be that Malack is simply letting his children rest in peace. Getting murdered is traumatic. Coming back from the dead is also described as being traumatic. Being brought back to life and being forced to confront the notion that you were murdered?

At that point, letting your children rest in the afterlife is probably a mercy. Malack doesn't strike me as the kind of character who's selfish enough to traumatize his children to soothe his own grief.

That coupled with the fact that gods of Death probably don't like resurrection as a rule means that Malack is probably fundamentally at odds with the notion of resurrecting his children, for their sake and for the sake of his deity.

My 2 cp.

Dr.Epic
2011-12-21, 09:03 AM
Maybe...

Malack just doesn't want to perform a human transmutation. Yeah, you get cool robot limbs or a new walking-suit-of-armor body, but that's just not for some guys. Also, he could lose all his reproductive parts in the process as well.

:smallwink:
:smalltongue:

mrmcfatty
2011-12-21, 10:08 AM
"It happened years ago."

Why is everyone assuming that Malack was high enough of a level to cast resurrection when the deed occurred?

From the SRD for resurrection


The creature can have been dead no longer than 10 years per caster level.

and since you have to be level 13 before you can get resurrection he can raise his kids as long as they died within the last 130 years or so, and since nale isnt that old i would say that part is possible even if he wasnt 13th then he is well over that now.

Geordnet
2011-12-21, 09:23 PM
Maybe...

Malack just doesn't want to perform a human transmutation. Yeah, you get cool robot limbs or a new walking-suit-of-armor body, but that's just not for some guys. Also, he could lose all his reproductive parts in the process as well.

:smallwink:
:smalltongue:

Umm.....

What in the world are you talking about?!?


EDIT:
On second thought, I don't want an answer to that.

zmasterofjersey
2011-12-21, 09:27 PM
Umm.....

What in the world are you talking about?!?


EDIT:
On second thought, I don't want an answer to that.

Its an anime reference, I won't say which one b/c that would answer your question.

Forikroder
2011-12-21, 09:38 PM
perhaps he has moral problems agaisnt ressurecting his kids

perhaps he believes that the cycle of life and death shouldnt be messed with so casually

perhaps they were so young they dont realise the wieght of there decision by refusing to be resurected

perhaps his faith prevents him

perhaps for some inexplicable reason nale sealed there souls without malack knowing

Belril Duskwalk
2011-12-21, 11:02 PM
...perhaps Nale was EXTREMELY thorough when he disposed of the remains

perhaps the afterlife they are in is a much nicer place than their mortal lives, and thus they wish to stay (As was the case with both Roy's little brother and Shojo)

Point being, many perfectly good possible reasons exist as to why Malack might not have resurrected his kids (or might not have succeeded if he tried). No way of knowing which (if any) are true at the moment. Personally, my money is on 'Nergal doesn't like Resurrection.'

xroads
2011-12-21, 11:05 PM
It could well be that Malack is simply letting his children rest in peace. Getting murdered is traumatic. Coming back from the dead is also described as being traumatic. Being brought back to life and being forced to confront the notion that you were murdered?

At that point, letting your children rest in the afterlife is probably a mercy...

My 2 cp.

And a good 2 cp that was. :smallsmile:

I like this explanation because it keeps Nale from having gone so far over the edge as to have demolished/sacrificed/consumed Malack's kids and keeps resurrection as a tool in Malack's toolbelt. A tool that may come in handy later on should he need it (for example if Tarquin is ever smited in some acceptably epic way :smallbiggrin:).

~XRoads

Quackenbush
2011-12-22, 06:43 AM
I think that he had an issue with ressurection because he's a cleric of a god of death (wether it was actual or philosophical), and also it was a similar situation to Eric Greenhilt-it just didn't occeur to them to come when called

The Dark Fiddler
2011-12-22, 04:16 PM
and since you have to be level 13 before you can get resurrection he can raise his kids as long as they died within the last 130 years or so, and since nale isnt that old i would say that part is possible even if he wasnt 13th then he is well over that now.

If he wasn't high enough level to cast it when they were first killed, and it happened years ago, the bodies would probably be long gone. Spending multiple level 2 spell slots on keeping your children preserved until you're strong enough to resurrect them just isn't logical.

Peelee
2011-12-22, 04:29 PM
If he wasn't high enough level to cast it when they were first killed, and it happened years ago, the bodies would probably be long gone. Spending multiple level 2 spell slots on keeping your children preserved until you're strong enough to resurrect them just isn't logical.

From the SRD:


The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death. (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.)

That's also why V used Gust of Wind (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html), in case you were wondering. Even a bit of ash would be enough. Malack could have simply kept a small bone (though if rezzing was his intent, he likely owuld have tried to preserve the remains for sentimental reasons). Regardless, he either chose not to rez them (which I believe, given his domain), or his children were not willing to return to life.

Gift Jeraff
2011-12-22, 04:40 PM
From this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4465010&postcount=551) (fairly major SoD spoilers, so I'll just quote the relevant part):
Evil characters are neither prohibited nor even discouraged from raising the dead in the OOTS universe—nor in any other D&D world of which I'm aware, unless they specifically serve a god of Death.(emphasis mine)

Peelee
2011-12-22, 04:59 PM
HA! I knew I'd read that somewhere, just couldn't remember where. It seems spending so much time going through the forum history and looking up discussion threads on my favorite strips and books wasn't a total waste of time!'

....or it wouldn't have been, if I'd been the one to remember where that line was. I'm given to think he specified "unless they serve a god of death" specifically because of Malack, his deity, and his kids.

Dr.Epic
2011-12-22, 05:04 PM
Umm.....

What in the world are you talking about?!?


EDIT:
On second thought, I don't want an answer to that.

I'm talking about transmutation circles, chimera, homunculi, the gate, a spinoff movie, and a reboot that's more accurate to the original manga.:smallwink:

Rajhiim
2011-12-23, 09:13 AM
The problem in any DnD story is death and injury... How do you make them "matter" when a simple cure spell or rez fixes all?

Plot death.

For the sake of story... his kids are not and cannot be rez'd. We're left with enough vaguity to fill in the blanks as to why (god of death, destroyed corpses, why would a child leave so many loving ancestors and cookies behind?)

I've said too much!

/plotkilled

Gullintanni
2011-12-23, 10:02 AM
Plot death.

For the sake of story...

Ahh the cop out answer. Didn't take that long to show up now, did it? We've got three credible theories that I'm aware of so far.

1) Malack serves a death god, so resurrection is bad.
2) Malack wants to let his kids rest in peace. Murder, death and resurrection are all traumatic experiences that Malack would prefer not to force his kids to relive.
3) Malack's kids don't want to come back. They're happy in the afterlife, so they refused resurrection.

I guess a 4th potential theory is that Malack doesn't have access to the bodies and can't perform the raising, but True Resurrection obviates the need for access to the bodies. Maybe he's not a high enough level to cast True Resurrection, but it's not a stretch to believe that he could gain access to the spell if he really needed to. Regardless, there are three very credible explanations above.

All three obviate the need for the "plot-demanded-it" excuse. Let's try and stick with the literary evidence, rather than the TvTropes explanation, yeah?

Dr.Epic
2011-12-23, 12:21 PM
The problem in any DnD story is death and injury... How do you make them "matter" when a simple cure spell or rez fixes all?

Except a resurrection spell is far harder to perform than curing a few hit points: several thousand diamonds worth of GP and a cleric who's managed to reach the right level.


Plot death.

Wait! I got it! His children where impaled by a seven foot katana!:smallwink: (get it?)

Boogastreehouse
2011-12-25, 12:49 AM
"Couldn't Malack just have resurrected his kids?"

Who says he didn't?

I think it would be very funny if Malack's kids were brought back to life years ago, and are perfectly fine now, and Malack still wants vengeance.

Joerg
2011-12-25, 05:15 AM
"Couldn't Malack just have resurrected his kids?"

Who says he didn't?

I think it would be very funny if Malack's kids were brought back to life years ago, and are perfectly fine now, and Malack still wants vengeance.

Funny idea, but Tarquin says "your kids are gone; have been for years". Not "your kids are perfectly fine" or something like that.

Steward
2011-12-25, 02:28 PM
All three obviate the need for the "plot-demanded-it" excuse. Let's try and stick with the literary evidence, rather than the TvTropes explanation, yeah?

I agree. I think that the characters should have motivations that are separate from and distinct from the author's reasons or plot necessity (even though we as readers know that the latter dictates the former). This comic strip is generally really good about making sure that everyone -- even bit characters -- has coherent motives that flow from who they are rather than just from what the plot needs so it seems kind of weird that so many people are keen to reduce everything to an 'Idiot Plot' (as far as TV tropes go).

theinsulabot
2011-12-25, 07:47 PM
From this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4465010&postcount=551) (fairly major SoD spoilers, so I'll just quote the relevant part):(emphasis mine)


I think you have made a fairly conclusive point.

Spookymurloc
2011-12-26, 07:22 PM
Ahh the cop out answer. Didn't take that long to show up now, did it? We've got three credible theories that I'm aware of so far.

1) Malack serves a death god, so resurrection is bad.
2) Malack wants to let his kids rest in peace. Murder, death and resurrection are all traumatic experiences that Malack would prefer not to force his kids to relive.
3) Malack's kids don't want to come back. They're happy in the afterlife, so they refused resurrection.

I guess a 4th potential theory is that Malack doesn't have access to the bodies and can't perform the raising, but True Resurrection obviates the need for access to the bodies. Maybe he's not a high enough level to cast True Resurrection, but it's not a stretch to believe that he could gain access to the spell if he really needed to. Regardless, there are three very credible explanations above.

All three obviate the need for the "plot-demanded-it" excuse. Let's try and stick with the literary evidence, rather than the TvTropes explanation, yeah?

Actually the first theory is apparently canon according to a quote from the Giant in response to a question regarding some goings-on in SoD.

Clerics who serve a god of death are forbidden from ressurecting the dead.

It's not a big leap to assume that since it would be sacrilege for him to do it, it would be sacrilege for him to allow someone else to do it as well. (At least for his benefit)

Kish
2011-12-26, 08:00 PM
Actually the first theory is apparently canon according to a quote from the Giant in response to a question regarding some goings-on in SoD.
Not quite. It is canon that chickens have feathers. It is not canon that this particular feathery thing is a chicken.

Er, I mean. It is canon that a nonzero number of death gods forbid resurrection to their clerics. It is canon that the number of non-death gods who forbid resurrection to their clerics is zero. It is not canon that all death gods forbid resurrection to their clerics, and is it not canon that Nergal specifically forbids resurrection to his clerics.

(I don't know why I'm even bothering. I think most likely Nergal does forbid resurrection to his clerics. I'm just...pedantic that way.)