Ah. Thank you. I appreciate the help.
Printable View
Don't you know, absolutely EVERYTHING justifies a new save.
Attack someone you've previously been willing to attack, new save, with a bonus.
Risk the child you were willingly risking, new save, with a bonus.
Go for icecream with sprinkles, new save, with a bonus.
Absolutely everything is a violation of Hilgya's basic nature. The law of gravity is a LAW (aka lawful), and it targets her if she follows your orders: New Save! It acts on her even if you don't give new orders: New Save!
Seriously, at this point I can't imagine what would NOT be argued by someone on this board to give a new save.
vi is wonderful, for most purposes it is vastly faster and more efficient than "modern" editors. But they keep trying to make it default to vim. Bah, if I wanted fancy color coding that tries to figure out what I'm doing I wouldn't be using vi. So I need to edit my .cshrc and .bashrc files to alias it back to /bin/vi.
Tracking arrows seems like the kind of thing that sounds like a good idea before you begin playing.
So, if we assume that Hilgya giving away Kudzu is against her nature and that action would give her a will save does that mean that if Greg ordered her to come next to him and then he just took Kudzu himself she didn't get a will save because it wasn't her own action or not?
They keep obeying the last order given to the best of their ability."Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth)"
GW
I stopped expecting players to be honest about what they have after a game where they miraculously pulled multiple fusion mini-bombs out of their back pockets. Now I track everything, and catch somebody cheating at least once a session.
You'd think they'd learn, but nope.
For a moment I forgot what Anti-Life Shell does and thought Durkon just one-shotted the baby. Then I saw Hilgya's lack of damage indicators and remembered it's a barrier and not an aura that damages living beings.
The rules do not specifically say what happens to the Supernatural version of Dominate, but the majority opinion here and elsewhere on the web says that the victim keeps on doing what the vampire last ordered. The best defense of this is the statement that dominator and victim must be on the same plane to enable the vampire to control the victim, but that being on another plane does not break the domination.
The thing is, a dead vampire does not return to the plane in which it was spawned: it is destroyed and ceases to exist. If the same corpse is used to create a vampire again it will be a new entity because the original vampire spirit has become random negative energy bits floating about.
This, to me, indicates that any active spell or ability with a requirement that it be monitored or maintained would similarly cease to exist. It seems to me that Dominate requires an active mind to maintain it, as it's description shows is required by a daily requirement to spend at least 1 round doing so. Death and desolving into non-existence makes the exercise of such control impossible.
My other objection is for game-rule reasons: a character dominated by a destroyed creature would spend the next twelve days standing around or trying to fulfill the last given order, which would make any adventure grind to a halt as the PCs stand around waiting fof the domination to end. If this involves a campaign, the next monster in the queue gets twelve additional days to prepare for the PCs, and would allow any NPC survivors of the fight a chance to find the tools they need to return and finish off the PCs.
My Ruling
A being which does not exist cannot maintain control of a being which does, and standing around a destroyed vampire's lair for twelve days would be a major disruption of a game. It cannot, in my opinion, be intentional on the part of the designer, to allow a non-existent creature to continue to maintain a Supernatural Ability which requires an active mind to maintain and control.
Therefore, the next save to which the PC is entitled, being unopposed by the user of the Supernatural ability, automatically succeeds and breaks the Domination.
While there is a very debatable spectrum for "when do you get a second save during dominate?"
I'd say a mother who has a child who starts crying falls into the "resave with a +20 bonus" range.
That is a lot of words for you to figure out that my opinion is just an opinion.
While that is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what the vampire is trying to communicate and it is plausible that it is true, there is no logical reason to believe that it is true. The testimony of the vampire is not convincing because if the vampire has it wrong, how would he know?Quote:
Lurkon is the same as Durkon was on his worst day, that means the same as Durkon with the emphasis shifted from the nobler parts of his personnality to the vilest.
Furthermore: The vampire provably does not understand some things about Durkon; so, no, Greg is not very much like Durkon with a different shading of alignment or such basic misunderstandings would not be possible.
Indeed and well done. I thought that's what I saw too but wasn't entirely sure.
----------
Good old Antilife Shell problems, where have we seen those before? But with Roy unwilling to risk the baby by throwing the sword at Lurkon, obviously (to keep the storytelling from getting repetitive) it's going to require a different method than Roy first tried back at the Godsmoot.
Maybe Roy charges one of the two remaining clerics? Or throws the sword at Hilgya to try and snap her out of the domination, since she would likely survive the hit?
But as to how to get through the Antilife Shell ... well, the usual way major fights go in this strip means that things have to keep getting even more absurdly dire in escalating fashion until almost the very end, or we must be led to believe that they are. Consider: Roy is heavily wounded, V and Blackwing are down, Elan is hopelessly dominated, Haley (if freed) is disarmed, and Minrah can't make much headway due to being lower level. The melee warriors are bogged down and Lurkon has already rid himself of any opponents capable of taking a potshot at him from range.
The only ambiguous factor at this moment is Belkar. Supposedly, the sunglasses didn't break the domination, but what if they did? Belkar could still be playing dominated by fighting the Order to catch Lurkon and his minions off-guard at a critical moment. But Belkar can't cross the Antilife Shell in his current state, and a thrown dagger runs into the same baby-threatening problem as a thrown greatsword would right now.
Here's where the deeply unpopular speculation comes in. Is this perhaps the run-up to Belkar's "take his last breath ever" moment? I could easily see Lurkon deciding to be an even more monumental jerkass and finish the job he saw Malack start by commanding Belkar to be drained to death and then fast-vampirized into a new thrall to further demoralize the Order in front of him, Durkon's spirit inside him, and the audience reading at their screens.
Belkar could look like a new thrall without being one, especially if Roy promptly slays whoever on Lurkon's side does the deed to break the chain of control (maybe even, ironically, the ex-Creed cleric woman who recently explained how vampire spirits and their hosts can happily coexist). What Lurkon fails to realize is that the Order has basically come to terms with Belkar's pending death already, and it wouldn't really faze them. Meanwhile, Belkar could stroll inside the Antilife Shell to the side of his "master" and strike without warning, maybe even in conjunction with Hilgya if Lurkon loses his grip on her.
Words. I like 'em.
That would be true if this was, say a testimony in a real life trial, this is a comic book, the author chooses what informtion he gives us. That means that the simple fact of being in the comic is itself positive proof (not evidence if I understand the distinguo correctly) of its veracity. In other words. Until something comes along to deny it, why not believe it?
This is true for every belief held by everyone ever.
Hum, yes it would be. Durkon* thinks people are self-serving before anything else because people tend to assume other people think and feel like they do and he is self-serving because at the time, Durkon was. See?
If hearing your baby cry is 10 times more than just being against your fundamental nature then no one would survive to adulthood as their parents would all die of despair and stress within days of the baby's birth.
In fact, hearing your baby cry is routine, and doesn't even get an instant response all of the time, and if you are doing something important the response is often telling your husband or someone else to deal with it.
But thanks for demonstrating the delusion that absolutely anything gives a new save. In fact, it is only orders against your nature that gives a new save, and what order that's against her nature is Greg giving when the baby cries?!
I think what you mean is we have "evidence". Yes, what Greg says is evidence.
My answer is: The same reason I do not believe, say, Tarquin when he claims his bloodbaths of conquest are saving lives in the big picture. While such a claim is within the realm of the plausible, the speaker here (1) could easily not know the truth of the claim, (2) probably does not care about the truth of the claim, in terms of being willing to spend effort to find out, (3) probably does not care about the truth of the claim, in terms of being willing to spend resources to make it true if it turns out to probably not be, and (4) seems to be the kind of person who would enjoy making the claim regardless of the statuses of #1 and #2 and #3.
Greg fits the bill, too. He could easily not know. He may well not care whether it is true. Even if he happened to know it was not true would he refrain from employing an effective psychological weapon against Durkon for the sake of not lying?
Greg is not a convincing witness here.
Durkon was self-serving when he was bodily chucked out of his home? He was angry, for very good reasons. What does angry have to do with self-serving?Quote:
Hum, yes it would be. Durkon* thinks people are self-serving before anything else because people tend to assume other people think and feel like they do and he is self-serving because at the time, Durkon was. See?
Never mind
I once ran an AD&D 2e game in which I told the players that if the party had somebody with the bowyer/fletcher NWP, they wouldn't have to track arrows. But otherwise, not only would they track them, but I would roll to see if they broke or got lost with each shot.
They took the hint.
The True Resurrection wasn't for Durkon's father.
It was for Durkon.
She was pregnant with him at the time. She miscarried due to the severe injuries she faced. The lock of hair that was buried in lieu of his body was one that Sigdi had planned on using to help resurrect -him-, but she chose Durkon over him. And that's not a choice any child should have to learn that their mother made.
For those asking about how Belkar got his dagger back, we saw Belkar beginning to draw his back-up dagger in #1125 (second-to-last panel)
Edit: Just realised that had already been noticed.
Hello, my name is Alexander. Long time lurker, first time poster. I created an account today just so I could say these words:
**** YOU, VAMPIRE DURKON!!! YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR THIS TIME!
Okay, I'm good.
Durkon may snap, but I don't think he can do anything particular about it. If emotional rage somehow gave him a power to overthrow the vampire, it would have already happened long before.
HILGYA however, is very likely to get a new save and break free of Domination and wallop Durkon with everything she's got... esp if, author forbid, Kudzu should come to harm.