-
So who killed Penelope?
I've been going over Blood Runs in the Family again.
I noticed that Elan thought Tarquin killed Penelope (his ninth wife) and Tarquin thought Nale did it.
So who do we think might have killed her? If it's neither of those two?
Or was that also a result of the familicide spell? I mean she didn't have "black dragon" blood but she was the mother of one?
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
It was Familicide. It kills anyone who shares blood with the target, and then anyone who shares blood with any of the first-stage victims.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sir_Norbert
It was Familicide. It kills anyone who shares blood with the target, and then anyone who shares blood with any of the first-stage victims.
Doesn't it keep going, too? Down to the last cousin? And we're lucky she wasn't carrying a child of Tarquin's, because if she were, Familicide would have killed Tarquin, Nale, and more importantly Elan, too.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
There's an image of it happening when Vaarsuvius realizes the full implications of their action in this comic. Penelope's on the bottom-right of the "familicide storm" panel.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GrayGriffin
There's an image of it happening when Vaarsuvius realizes the full implications of their action in
this comic. Penelope's on the bottom-right of the "familicide storm" panel.
“I am the one who slew Tarquin’s wife!”
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Just Call Me J
Doesn't it keep going, too? Down to the last cousin? And we're lucky she wasn't carrying a child of Tarquin's, because if she were, Familicide would have killed Tarquin, Nale, and more importantly Elan, too.
now that I'm aware that vaarsuvius was that close to having been responsible for the death of elan, a party member and friend.. it makes me imagine all the possibilities of a horrible timeline in which that did happen. nobody under the impact of the spell was particularly close to v, I imagine the additional toll it would have on them upon finding out it wasn't some freak accident that killed him, but instead a direct result of their selfish mistake.. would be quite grievous.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tawnyterror
now that I'm aware that vaarsuvius was that close to having been responsible for the death of elan, a party member and friend..
...it wasn't close at all though?
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
...it wasn't close at all though?
How so? If she and Tarquin had had a child, that baby would have added Tarquin, Nale, and Elan to the list of targets.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
...it wasn't close at all though?
Did I read something wrong? I was pondering, based on other conversation in this thread, what would occur if Penelope had a child of Tarquins, (and therefore cementing the family ties) and the result it could have.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
woweedd
How so? If she and Tarquin had had a child, that baby would have added Tarquin, Nale, and Elan to the list of targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Giant
I really thought that last comic would end this debate, but it seems like there's still a lot of confusion. So here goes:
Step 1: Kill everyone with the original target's blood. This is a simple yes/no effect: Is a creature (the secondary target) related by blood to the original target at all, in any way? If yes, kill it. If no, move on. Number of generations or percentage of blood or direction doesn't matter.
Step 2: Kill everyone who shares blood with any of the people killed in Step 1. Think of it as killing everyone descended from (or siblings to) any and all still-living ancestors of each secondary target. So if Penelope had a grandfather on one side and a great-grandmother on the other side who were still alive, every person who could trace their blood back to either of those people would be dead, because Penelope's daughter carries both of their bloods. If a person can only trace their blood through (say) Penelope's already-dead great-great-great-grandfather, then they're safe. Thus cousins and second-cousins and the like are all dead, but more distant genetic relations are not. It is possible for some cousins to survive if all older generations were already dead, yes, but Vaarsuvius wasn't really likely to take the time to make that distinction while sobbing on a dungeon hallway floor.
Penelope is not in step 1. Penelope is in step 2. If she had a child with Tarquin, that child would be in step 2, but Tarquin would not; he would not share blood with anyone in step 1. Children Tarquin had beforehand would not be in step 2, as they would not share blood with anyone in step 1.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Nale, Tarquin, and Elan still would not share blood with anyone with the blood of a Black Dragon. They'd have enough degrees of separation to avoid being killed off by Familicide.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
I see now, thank you for clarifying. I still had fun with my musings though.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
No worries, Familicide is notorious for having a ridiculous number of threads popping up on how it works and the logistics, and it's not uncommon for people to still get it wrong.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Agree there safe but it might have been a different story if it had a third step in who it kills.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
No worries, Familicide is notorious for having a ridiculous number of threads popping up on how it works and the logistics, and it's not uncommon for people to still get it wrong.
Its not our fault that the spell utterly fails at the purpose V used it for (removing avenging claims from the table).
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cazero
Its not our fault that the spell utterly fails at the purpose V used it for (removing avenging claims from the table).
It be a total genocide spell if it were; it have to kill anyone who'd ever want revenge on the original target. Repeat for all secondary targets. Repeat till no more targets. Usually because literally everything is dead.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cazero
Its not our fault that the spell utterly fails at the purpose V used it for (removing avenging claims from the table).
I dunno, nobody's come for V's head over that yet.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MesiDoomstalker
It be a total genocide spell if it were; it have to kill anyone who'd ever want revenge on the original target. Repeat for all secondary targets. Repeat till no more targets. Usually because literally everything is dead.
Sounds like "Eye for an eye, until everybody is blind" to me...
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cazero
Its not our fault that the spell utterly fails at the purpose V used it for (removing avenging claims from the table).
It was always obvious that was the case, because it didn't take into account friends and spouses of the spell's target, who might well be annoyed enough at their death to do something about it.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Heck, we know explicitly from the start that it wouldn't have worked on V's own family.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
factotum
It was always obvious that was the case, because it didn't take into account friends and spouses of the spell's target, who might well be annoyed enough at their death to do something about it.
But might still be scared about the effect on their surviving relatives, enough to avoid to try to avenge who is dead. At the time I made a correlation with Mafia, which is famous to use a similar method to scare people ("We will not kill -only- you, but before that we will kill your family... and your little dog, too"). (Even if, basically, that was done by every single evil tyrant in the world, I'd guess).
So either the one who seeks vengeance must not care enough about his surviving relatives, or must be really sure to win that fight. Probably, since killing an epic necromancer requires a lot of resources, is a safer better to just resurrect all the people killed by that spell than endangering the surviving ones.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dr.Zero
But might still be scared about the effect on their surviving relatives, enough to avoid to try to avenge who is dead. At the time I made a correlation with Mafia, which is famous to use a similar method to scare people ("We will not kill -only- you, but before that we will kill your family... and your little dog, too"). (Even if, basically, that was done by every single evil tyrant in the world, I'd guess).
So either the one who seeks vengeance must not care enough about his surviving relatives, or must be really sure to win that fight. Probably, since killing an epic necromancer requires a lot of resources, is a safer better to just resurrect all the people killed by that spell than endangering the surviving ones.
In most cases, spending millions of gold on resurrection (Raise Dead can’t return a character who was killed by a death effect, which Familicide probably is) spells is probably about as difficult as killing an epic necromancer. Or at the very least, it’s just about the same level of difficulty, in that it’s essentially impossible.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Personally I always thought Haerta intended that spell simply as a way to deliver disproportionate retribution, and the bit about making sure no one went after their family again was just V rationalizing their genocidal urges (or buying Haerta's pitch because it allowed them to rationalize said urges).
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hroþila
Personally I always thought Haerta intended that spell simply as a way to deliver disproportionate retribution, and the bit about making sure no one went after their family again was just V rationalizing their genocidal urges (or buying Haerta's pitch because it allowed them to rationalize said urges).
Pretty much this. Friends, non-blood relatives, vassals, lieges... are not affected by the spell and are likely to seek revenge.
I mean, if I am a Baron and someone slaughters my peasants left and right, I'm supposed to do something about it. Not just because it's my duty to protect the peasants, but also for economic self-interest. One commoner slain, okay, I am probably not going to mind about it. But if then the murderer obliterates half the villiage with Familicide, then I can't weasel off that one.
If the purpose of the spell had really been to prevent vengeance, then the effects would be more like a massive mind-wipe to make everybody forget about the target having ever existed. Cheaper cost and better performance.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Wait. Are you telling me Familicide wasn't well thought through?
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xihirli
Wait. Are you telling me Familicide wasn't well thought through?
It could be a town-burner rather than a world-scourer. A small close-knit society has a lot of distant relations marrying, so hitting a first level commoner with it could probably cripple the village enough for you to finish it off with regular spellpower. It could also have been designed especially to target Kings and wipe out their family lines (which in a medieval setting where royal bloodlines were considered important, would be devastating to a whole country).
When designed, it probably wasn't intended to be used the way V did. Just because s/he didn't use it right doesn't mean it wasn't thought through enough. And from another perspective, it was thought through just fine; it did exactly what Rich wanted it to, nothing more or less.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Emanick
In most cases, spending millions of gold on resurrection (Raise Dead can’t return a character who was killed by a death effect, which Familicide probably is) spells is probably about as difficult as killing an epic necromancer. Or at the very least, it’s just about the same level of difficulty, in that it’s essentially impossible.
Not every characater, the ones who the close-to-epic or epic avenger is interested. That requires just a bunch of gold. And, AFAIR, resurrection works for death effects' victims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Pilgrim
Pretty much this. Friends, non-blood relatives, vassals, lieges... are not affected by the spell and are likely to seek revenge.
I mean, if I am a Baron and someone slaughters my peasants left and right, I'm supposed to do something about it. Not just because it's my duty to protect the peasants, but also for economic self-interest. One commoner slain, okay, I am probably not going to mind about it. But if then the murderer obliterates half the villiage with Familicide, then I can't weasel off that one.
If the purpose of the spell had really been to prevent vengeance, then the effects would be more like a massive mind-wipe to make everybody forget about the target having ever existed. Cheaper cost and better performance.
Meh. It in that way you endanger your own surviving family members, that is a bit too risky. But, as I said at the time, I can grant that Mafia (I mean the RL, not the game; and a lot of RL tyrant, too) worked for centuries on that principle, with highs and lows, of course. It has shown to be pragmatically effective.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
(deleted for double posting)
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Hereta's title was " Destroyer of Hope". I get the sense she made Familicide for no practical purpose other then sadistic torture. Think of it like Xykon, a man to whom I imagine Hereta was very similar: Did he NEED to do the bouncy ball? No. He's a Sorcerer. He could have blasted them all to death with Meteor Swarm without even entering the room. Did he want to? Oh, did he ever.
-
Re: So who killed Penelope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
woweedd
Hereta's title was " Destroyer of Hope". I get the sense she made Familicide for no practical purpose other then sadistic torture. Think of it like Xykon, a man to whom I imagine Hereta was very similar: Did he NEED to do the bouncy ball? No. He's a Sorcerer. He could have blasted them all to death with Meteor Swarm without even entering the room. Did he want to? Oh, did he ever.
To be fair, it's conceptually pretty funny.