OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread

[The MunchKING]

Is it just me or is there something up with Jenny's eyes? Anything in the bard spell list that can help with cheating at poker?

I didn't see much divination until they get scrying at 3rd level.

Unless she cheated in advance by setting certain cards up with a Magic Aura, and then is using Deetect Magic to see those Auras now to know what everyone's cards are.

[goodpeople25]

Is it just me or is there something up with Jenny's eyes? Anything in the bard spell list that can help with cheating at poker?

Detect Thoughts (or does that alert them or would surface thoughts not be enough?) and from outside core the aptly named (and inherently Evil I guess) Cheat spell seem the most obvious choices. There are ways to disguise casting right?

But I can think of more spells that could work, Illusions could be used in a variety of ways, (distractions, showing other cards, signalling, ect) moving and affecting objects in various ways could be helpful, I doubt summoned creatures are subtle enough at lower levels but maybe there's something and I see using detect magic for marking was already covered.

[SilverCacaobean]

On the one hand, awww. I like the DaggerPen. On the other hand, for the love of Freya, don't read the last two discussion threads.

How dare you, good sir, speak ill of 1105, the exquisite work of art we all worked hard to create? Shame on you, sir. Shame. On. You. For why go through the soul-wrenching process of creating [57 pages of] pure unadulterated art, if not to unleash its unrivaled beauty upon unsuspecting innocent third parties? If not to raise existential questions such as: Where do we come from? Why do we exist? Why the Hel does this exist? ...You're a philistine, my good man, of this there can be no doubt. Also what happened at 1106? I thought it was reasonably fine... Did I miss something?

EDIT:

Is it just me or is there something up with Jenny's eyes? Anything in the bard spell list that can help with cheating at poker?

I can see a really subtle blueish outline, but I'd bet it's makeup rather than a spell.

I checked the color codes (or whatever it's called) for her eyes and it looks like they are a bit transparent and her skin can be seen a bit through them. Looks like a minor oversight. There's no actual blue there, they kind of look blue because it's not vector art and gets a bit pixelated giving the impression of an outline.

[SaintRidley]

Is it just me or is there something up with Jenny's eyes? Anything in the bard spell list that can help with cheating at poker?

There's always good old fashioned Glibness for that +30 to bluff.

[atemu1234]

There's always good old fashioned Glibness for that +30 to bluff.

Unless you're lying with your eyeballs, I don't think that's where a weird blue aura would be.

Though, to be fair, it is poker.

[a1chemi]

Y'all are acting like Hilgya's insistence on bringing her baby to battle isn't just an obvious plot device so Durkula can meet his (captive spirit's) baby.

Also, I think the name "Kudzu" is more of a signal to the reader that this baby is unkillable than a name of any special meaning to the inhabitants of Oots world.

[Goblin_Priest]

Y'all are acting like Hilgya's insistence on bringing her baby to battle isn't just an obvious plot device so Durkula can meet his (captive spirit's) baby.

Also, I think the name "Kudzu" is more of a signal to the reader that this baby is unkillable than a name of any special meaning to the inhabitants of Oots world.

Agreed, more than any silly abjuration that might have been cast (seriously...?), this baby has plot armor. The intent was to reveal the baby to Durkon*, and there's not really any better way to do it than like this, even if it's kind of a ridiculous stretch. That's my opinion, at least, because mechanically speaking, he'd be as good as dead unless she was suddenly into epic-level powers (and even then). After all, a cleric can't make itself invulnerable, much less another, and much less one that has 1 hp, a dex penalty to AC, no armor, and no doubt a series of penalties to various saves due to being tied up/not properly aware of his surroundings/etc.

[hroþila]

It's not a narrative stretch, it's merely highly questionable on Hilgya's part.

Anyway, yes, it's a plot device, but that doesn't mean it stops being an element within the story and it doesn't absolve Hilgya (if we think she's in the wrong here) anymore than Xykon's evilness is absolved by the fact that someone has to be the main villain.

[The MunchKING]

Agreed, more than any silly abjuration that might have been cast (seriously...?), this baby has plot armor. The intent was to reveal the baby to Durkon*, and there's not really any better way to do it than like this, even if it's kind of a ridiculous stretch. That's my opinion, at least, because mechanically speaking, he'd be as good as dead unless she was suddenly into epic-level powers (and even then). After all, a cleric can't make itself invulnerable, much less another, and much less one that has 1 hp, a dex penalty to AC, no armor, and no doubt a series of penalties to various saves due to being tied up/not properly aware of his surroundings/etc.

I think, like a carried item, it would use her saves for anything except Will Saves.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I figured as much. Would it be fair to say then, that Hilgya's willingness to put her child in danger for the sake of revenge tells us something about her character? That her actions make logical sense (to her only) if her desire for vengeance leads her to viewing her child in danger as an acceptable trade off, that is. To be clear, it adds a little Capital E into her alignment?

Yes, that is indeed my point. Despite Cazero, Korvin et al.'s protestations to the contrary, there is nothing forcing Hilgya to go into battle with her baby. Whether it would be "more safe" than leaving the baby behind is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that she could choose NOT to go into battle at all, and the fact that she chooses to do so (even threatening to go into battle on her own rather than consider any alternatives) speaks volumes about her priorities. Despite how much she loves her baby, she is willing to put it in danger to further her own desires. No-one is forcing her to do this, she is choosing to do so of her own accord, when she could simply turn around and leave the way she came and thus NOT expose her baby to danger at all.

I will not speculate on whether that makes her Evil or Chaotic or anything else, because I've got a terrible record of trying to assign actions to alignments (although for the record, if I were to bet, I'd bet she is solidly CE). What it tells me, rather than what her alignment might be, is that she puts revenge ahead of the well being of her baby. This is indisputable. From this fact, I conclude that she is a very poor parent, and adds to the growing body of evidence that she hasn't changed a bit since her first appearance, and she is still extremely egotistical and self-centered.

Grey Wolf

[Cazero]

I think, like a carried item, it would use her saves for anything except Will Saves.

And targeting him would get a -4 on attack rolls and provoke AoO unless you paid the Carried Baby Slayer and Improved Carried Baby Slayer feat tax. It's third edition after all.

[drazen]

If that was the reason, you'd think Hilgya would have mentioned it instead of going on a tangent. Carrying the baby to battle because it'll have a "good" death doesn't make any more sense than all dwarves dueling each other to extinction: martial societies don't work that way.

Hilgya is a self-involved prat. She told the big bald human to shut up and not judge her decisions; maybe she simply felt she should not HAVE to explain her decisions to Roy, even if this is it. It would be in character.

If you could have an honorable death by dying in a battle you didn't choose to take part in then Hel's plan would make no sense since the entire dwarven race would have an honorable death when the world is unmade, therefore you can't. Sadly that means that every dead dwarf baby goes to Hel.

But there is nothing to battle if the world is destroyed. The gods simply pull apart the threads of reality, retreat, and construct a new world around the Snarl again. Maybe with better architecture so this doesn't all happen again. Whereas Kudzu would be battling vampires - uselessly, but competence is not a requirement for avoiding Hel's domain. Just an honorable death in battle (or specifically of liver disease).

[Fyraltari]

But there is nothing to battle if the world is destroyed. The gods simply pull apart the threads of reality, retreat, and construct a new world around the Snarl again. Maybe with better architecture so this doesn't all happen again. Whereas Kudzu would be battling vampires - uselessly, but competence is not a requirement for avoiding Hel's domain. Just an honorable death in battle (or specifically of liver disease).

If dying of cold in a storm counts as honorable AND wether or not you had a choice doesn't count then being sacrificed by the gods in their struggle to save reality would be honorable.

No one said anything about competence.

[Dr.Zero]

If dying of cold in a storm counts as honorable AND wether or not you had a choice doesn't count then being sacrificed by the gods in their struggle to save reality would be honorable.

No one said anything about competence.

Let's say that some highly unskilled (battle-wise) dwarf is attacked by monsters while he is happily minding his own business. And then dies being mauled by those monsters, because of his utter incompetence in fighting. Does it count as honorable?
If yes, then the kid is safe.
Neither of them has chosen to start the battle, both of them died because they weren't able to defend themselves.

Adding that AFAICT there is in this universe some sort of equivalence between dying fighting and dying honorably, without any regard for who starts the battle itself (and without any regard for the fact that a battle has really happened at all: just think about fighting trees!), I tend to think the kid is safe.

Maybe the simple fact that he tries to "Tunn unn deeh!" is enough to say that he fought at the best of his skills, even if the turning failed miserably.

[schmunzel]

Yes, that is indeed my point. Despite Cazero, Korvin et al.'s protestations to the contrary, there is nothing forcing Hilgya to go into battle with her baby. Whether it would be "more safe" than leaving the baby behind is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that she could choose NOT to go into battle at all, and the fact that she chooses to do so (even threatening to go into battle on her own rather than consider any alternatives) speaks volumes about her priorities. Despite how much she loves her baby, she is willing to put it in danger to further her own desires. No-one is forcing her to do this, she is choosing to do so of her own accord, when she could simply turn around and leave the way she came and thus NOT expose her baby to danger at all.

I will not speculate on whether that makes her Evil or Chaotic or anything else, because I've got a terrible record of trying to assign actions to alignments (although for the record, if I were to bet, I'd bet she is solidly CE). What it tells me, rather than what her alignment might be, is that she puts revenge ahead of the well being of her baby. This is indisputable. From this fact, I conclude that she is a very poor parent, and adds to the growing body of evidence that she hasn't changed a bit since her first appearance, and she is still extremely egotistical and self-centered.

Grey Wolf

THAT Sir, was nicely put; I will add, that when Kudzu as a name was actively chosen to despise dwarven society (Im not sure whether we are 100% on that, yet), it was done solely to still her own desire, and was not to further the outlook of her child to live in said society.
Sh might well have created an outcast just through the name.
That of course would mean, that the name has in comic the exact same meaning as in our world.

sch

[Fyraltari]

Let's say that some highly unskilled (battle-wise) dwarf is attacked by monsters while he is happily minding his own business. And then dies being mauled by those monsters, because of his utter incompetence in fighting. Does it count as honorable?

If he could have run but decided "at least I'm gonna give that ************************ a black eye before I die" or similar maybe. In any other case I'm afraid not.

If yes, then the kid is safe.
Neither of them has chosen to start the battle, both of them died because they weren't able to defend themselves.

Adding that AFAICT there is in this universe some sort of equivalence between dying fighting and dying honorably, without any regard for who starts the battle itself (and without any regard for the fact that a battle has really happened at all: just think about fighting trees!), I tend to think the kid is safe.

Maybe the simple fact that he tries to "Tunn unn deeh!" is enough to say that he fought at the best of his skills, even if the turning failed miserably.

Here is some quotes from the Giant about dying with honor:

I imagine honor duels are probably a very common way of settling the score between two feuding dwarves: If I win, then I win, but if I lose, I still get an honorable death. And again, if you're sick, why not provoke a duel you know you will lose?

Also, there are certainly ways to die with honor that don't involve combat. If there's a cave-in and you take the time to save another dwarf but can't get out yourself before it collapses, that's an honorable death even though you were killed by a falling rock.

And yes, I could see a dwarven politician who is assassinated for his or her strongly held political belief counting as "dying with honor." They fought in the arena for which they were most suited, and died while defending their position. Sounds like an honorable death to me.

Look at Sigdi in the first strip she appears in. She is not in combat; she is retired. But when an accident happens in front of her, she springs into action—even though she is less equipped to help than any other adult present. If that dwarven laborer had dragged her off the mountain, she would have died with honor, but she did not help that man because doing so would have allowed her to die with honor. She helped him because it was the right thing to do. That's the dwarven way: Do the right thing regardless of the danger, knowing that if the danger overwhelms you, you'll be rewarded in the next life.

emphasis mine.

Until the year of the Terrible Winter, when it seemed as if Hoder himself had stretched out his hand and engulfed the mountain pass with ice and snow. The dwarves rationed their food as best they could, but the clerics could only conjure so much. Starvation was imminent; a caravan would have to get through before the thaw. He looked to his son and daughter, who had inherited the work after he had retired. They had long since mastered the skills necessary to make the trip, but the danger that these snows brought was beyond anything they had ever encountered. With five children between the pair, he could not let them take this burden on themselves. He was still fit enough, and getting no fitter. He would go. His daughter pleaded with him, asking him to stay. His grandchildren needed him, needed his wisdom and learning. But what lesson could he teach that would matter more than this one? What lecture could he speak that would say more to the young ones about what being a dwarf meant than this one act? His daughter knew in her heart that he spoke the truth, and relented. He was proud of her for holding back her tears.

He gathered up those of his old crew that had not yet made the trip to Valhalla themselves. Not a hair among them was less white than the snow they'd soon traverse. His old caravan captain smiled when he asked. "Looks like I'll get to die defending you after all," she joked.

He returned her grin. "Not if I die saving you first," he countered.

And so the old dwarf and his friends set off into the snow and ice, laughing and thumbing their nose at Hel and Hoder both, pulling the cart by hand—for who among them could condemn a donkey to this fate? He never saw the settlement again, nor did his captain, nor did others. The winter wolves saw to the ones that the cold did not. Of the three that did make it back, one collapsed as soon as the entrance came within view, his ancient heart knowing that the mission had succeeded. In the grateful meal that was to come, the townsfolk sang songs of praise to those that fell, to speed their spirits on to Valhalla where they would drink with their ancestors forevermore.

What do all these deaths have in common? The dwarf chose to do something he knew could very well result in his death. Fighting just so happens to be one of the most dangerous activities there is. If the baby doesn't choose to go in battle (how could he?) then his death is not honorable. Maybe Hilgya's is, and maybe there's a cosmic exception for individual mentally unable to make this kind of decision but I know no evidence of that second one.

[Doug Lampert]

If he could have run but decided "at least I'm gonna give that ************************ a black eye before I die" or similar maybe. In any other case I'm afraid not.

Here is some quotes from the Giant about dying with honor:


emphasis mine.

What do all these deaths have in common? The dwarf chose to do something he knew could very well result in his death. Fighting just so happens to be one of the most dangerous activities there is. If the baby doesn't choose to go in battle (how could he?) then his death is not honorable. Maybe Hilgya's is, and maybe there's a cosmic exception for individual mentally unable to make this kind of decision but I know no evidence of that second one.

Even if somehow a choice were unnecessary: Cultures with a concept of dying with honor typically hold that something like being cut down in an ambush without fighting back is a dishonorable death, and thus hold the ambusher's as particularly blame-worthy because they denied their target the chance to behave honorably.

AFAICT fighting back is utterly necessary for a death in battle to be "honorable" for cultures with such a code. If you die begging for mercy, or cut down before you see the foe, or while running away, or pretty much while doing anything BUT fighting back, it's not honorable.

The infant can't fight back. To Quote Rich's stat line for it:
Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.

With those stats it can't be said to have died honorably in battle.

[luna the cat]

hilgya is now my favorite character in OoTS. Kudos, Rich!

[Keltest]

Even if somehow a choice were unnecessary: Cultures with a concept of dying with honor typically hold that something like being cut down in an ambush without fighting back is a dishonorable death, and thus hold the ambusher's as particularly blame-worthy because they denied their target the chance to behave honorably.

AFAICT fighting back is utterly necessary for a death in battle to be "honorable" for cultures with such a code. If you die begging for mercy, or cut down before you see the foe, or while running away, or pretty much while doing anything BUT fighting back, it's not honorable.

The infant can't fight back. To Quote Rich's stat line for it:
Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.

With those stats it can't be said to have died honorably in battle.

Counterpoint: Being poisoned by a political rival is considered honorable, because you died as the direct result of attempting to do your best at what you are doing. A merchant braving known bandit-infested roads would almost certainly be honorable even if he was ambushed, because he died as a consequence of doing his duty as a merchant.

[Jasdoif]

Whether it would be "more safe" than leaving the baby behind is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that she could choose NOT to go into battle at all, and the fact that she chooses to do so (even threatening to go into battle on her own rather than consider any alternatives) speaks volumes about her priorities. Despite how much she loves her baby, she is willing to put it in danger to further her own desires. No-one is forcing her to do this, she is choosing to do so of her own accord, when she could simply turn around and leave the way she came and thus NOT expose her baby to danger at all.

Hmm. I just realized...with as duplicitous as Hilgya believes Durkon to be, and since she already knew Durkon was a spellcaster back in the Dungeon of Dorukan; wouldn't taking Kudzu with her to murder Durkon be dangerous in her own estimation, even without knowing vampires would be involved?

[drazen]

Even if somehow a choice were unnecessary: Cultures with a concept of dying with honor typically hold that something like being cut down in an ambush without fighting back is a dishonorable death, and thus hold the ambusher's as particularly blame-worthy because they denied their target the chance to behave honorably.

AFAICT fighting back is utterly necessary for a death in battle to be "honorable" for cultures with such a code. If you die begging for mercy, or cut down before you see the foe, or while running away, or pretty much while doing anything BUT fighting back, it's not honorable.

The infant can't fight back. To Quote Rich's stat line for it:
Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.

With those stats it can't be said to have died honorably in battle.

An infant can fight back - just not at all effectively. Kudzu adorably tries to turn undead, even if he doesn't really understand what he's doing.

Did Durkon die dishonorably because the battle was effectively over (he was grappled, captured, and unable to escape) when Malack drained him? He was putting up a completely ineffective resistance when he died in the snake's grapple.

Can a baby/toddler really die dishonorably in any way, by the OOTS dwarven code? If so, then the only rational thing to do is either bubble-wrap their life, or haul 'em into battle.

[georgie_leech]

Yes, that is indeed my point. Despite Cazero, Korvin et al.'s protestations to the contrary, there is nothing forcing Hilgya to go into battle with her baby. Whether it would be "more safe" than leaving the baby behind is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that she could choose NOT to go into battle at all, and the fact that she chooses to do so (even threatening to go into battle on her own rather than consider any alternatives) speaks volumes about her priorities. Despite how much she loves her baby, she is willing to put it in danger to further her own desires. No-one is forcing her to do this, she is choosing to do so of her own accord, when she could simply turn around and leave the way she came and thus NOT expose her baby to danger at all.

I will not speculate on whether that makes her Evil or Chaotic or anything else, because I've got a terrible record of trying to assign actions to alignments (although for the record, if I were to bet, I'd bet she is solidly CE). What it tells me, rather than what her alignment might be, is that she puts revenge ahead of the well being of her baby. This is indisputable. From this fact, I conclude that she is a very poor parent, and adds to the growing body of evidence that she hasn't changed a bit since her first appearance, and she is still extremely egotistical and self-centered.

Grey Wolf

I don't think Korvin et al. actually disagree with any of that. I think they're just drawing a distinction between "irrational" and "terrible." Like, the difference between "her actions make no sense; she's a terrible person for that," and "her actions make perfect sense (to her) because she's a terrible person." (Yes that's over simplifying, I'm trying to avoid a giant wall o' text ) YMMV if that's a distinction worth making.

[Fyraltari]

An infant can fight back - just not at all effectively. Kudzu adorably tries to turn undead, even if he doesn't really understand what he's doing.

Did Durkon die dishonorably because the battle was effectively over (he was grappled, captured, and unable to escape) when Malack drained him? He was putting up a completely ineffective resistance when he died in the snake's grapple.

Can a baby/toddler really die dishonorably in any way, by the OOTS dwarven code? If so, then the only rational thing to do is either bubble-wrap their life, or haul 'em into battle.

Durkon went into a danger he fully comprehended to save a life, when offerd to compromise his principles to go the easy way he refused. He chose the hard path because it was the right one and died directly because of that. If that isn't anhonorable death then I don't know what is.

[Jasdoif]

Durkon went into a danger he fully comprehended to save a life, when offerd to compromise his principles to go the easy way he refused. He chose the hard path because it was the right one and died directly because of that. If that isn't anhonorable death then I don't know what is.

Just in case someone reading this has a genuine question about Durkon's soul...it was an honorable death.

Hel does not have rightful dominion over Durkon's soul as part of her normal assignment of dishonored souls, however, because Durkon did in fact die in battle. She got involved because she is also, separately, the Northern deity of undeath, and one of her "duties" is making the evil spirits for all Northern vampires. The vampirization process basically jammed up the normal disposition of Durkon's soul by trapping it inside the undead body. Where Durkon's actual soul ends up will not be determined until/unless it is freed. It's a like a naturally occurring Trap the Soul spell.

[Rodent]

Hilgya probably tried to abort baby multiple times. Name "Kudzu" strongly suggests that she viewed her pregnancy as huge hindrance and that she tried and failed to free herself from it. (If we stick to the belief that Kudzu was named after a plant)
It is also possible that she tried to get rid of the baby after it was born, but I believe that her maternal instincts kicked in and she accepted her new life as a mother.
Now, the thing she can't accept is that she is the one responsible for actions that "chained" her, and in her bigoted mind she crafted image of evil Durkon that used and abandoned her, hence transferring all the blame to him. That's simply her way of coping with new burden to her treasured freedom.

Also as she proved her bigotry few times it is not at all strange that she believes that she is the only one who can protect her child no matter how dangerous road in front of her is. She was probably already in the few battles with baby strapped to her chest(I love Dwarf Fortress!) and by her manners she obviously isn't thinking about next battle as something that will be hard.

[a1chemi]

Hmm. I just realized...with as duplicitous as Hilgya believes Durkon to be, and since she already knew Durkon was a spellcaster back in the Dungeon of Dorukan; wouldn't taking Kudzu with her to murder Durkon be dangerous in her own estimation, even without knowing vampires would be involved?

Well she said that she "heard someone there wanted to murder Durkon" and that she was looking for him, but we still don't exactly know what she was planning to do when she found him.

Killing him may not have been in her original plan. If we assume it was, then introducing him to his son may have been a part of it as well.

"Durkon, this is Kudzu. Kudzu day hi to your daddy.". BANG. "Say goodbye to your daddy, Kudzu"

In seriousness, I think it is fair for her to expect Durkon would not harm his own child regardless of her negative opinion of him.

[Kish]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that Rich does not intend to be writing, "She repeatedly tried and failed to abort her pregnancy, but after unwillingly giving birth she 'accepted her new life as a mother.'"

[Ironsmith]

Even if somehow a choice were unnecessary: Cultures with a concept of dying with honor typically hold that something like being cut down in an ambush without fighting back is a dishonorable death, and thus hold the ambusher's as particularly blame-worthy because they denied their target the chance to behave honorably.

AFAICT fighting back is utterly necessary for a death in battle to be "honorable" for cultures with such a code. If you die begging for mercy, or cut down before you see the foe, or while running away, or pretty much while doing anything BUT fighting back, it's not honorable.

With those stats it can't be said to have died honorably in battle.

See, this is where the fact that the Dwarves are a made-up culture comes in handy: they don't have to follow real-life "rules" in regards to what dying with honor means. If a Dwarf dies in an ambush, say, defending a caravan, then by the criteria of "doing the right thing, even if it gets you killed". this would result in being an honorable act, even if real-life honor cultures wouldn't say so. (If you want the rationale behind that, the Dwarf elected to come with a caravan, that clearly was going to be in danger (hence the need to guard it) and took up a position that put him at risk, while protecting the caravan. It's just his bad luck that he died before he got a chance to help ward off any attackers.)

That being said, as an infant, Kudzu probably doesn't have an idea of what "right" and "wrong" are, and therefore cannot choose. As such, he probably wouldn't have what you would call an honorable death, but as he's also incapable of choosing to do the wrong thing, it'd be out of line to call it dishonorable, as well. Additionally, we know infants can make it into alignment-based planes (for whatever reason, it's not really explained in-story) thanks to the Eric Greenhilt fiasco. If he's lacking in criteria for or against being honorable, I'd guess that if something happened to Kudzu, he'd probably find his way to the True Neutral afterlife, since both Loki and Thor could try to claim him through his parentage, and there's no particular reason to say he has any alignment of his own to go on.

[Fyraltari]

snip

Thing is, Hel has dominion over dwarven souls by default, the only exception being those who die with honor. Whether he died dishonorably or not is not relevant, what is is whether is died honorably or not, if you see what I mean.

Though I guess the exception for unaligned children may extends to that case. On one hand It would save that one baby should he die because his mother was foolish enough to bringhim on the battlefield, on the other hand it could doom to Hel every baby whose mother tried and failed to bring to safety during a fight.

[a1chemi]

Durkon went into a danger he fully comprehended to save a life, when offerd to compromise his principles to go the easy way he refused. He chose the hard path because it was the right one and died directly because of that. If that isn't anhonorable death then I don't know what is.

Not to say he died dishonorably, but I take issue with him dying because he took the right path. He died because he was too trusting of Malack regarding the protection spell.

Heroically sure, and in defense of his friends, but his blind trust of authority was not painted as an asset in my mind.