** spoiler omitted **
I really like the character of V and I am enjoying the direction Rich is going with this, can't wait to see what happens.
It's always great to be reminded just how expressive a simply face can be.
** spoiler omitted **
However if someone in that Family line was undead I don't think they'd have been destroyed.
I believe this fits ... d***%%%###. And yes epic spells are broke as f*#%. I think V has a waiting line of afterlives to spend some time in. That's the kind of net effect that would upset lots of divine plans.
** spoiler omitted **
I suspect that the 'every creature that shares your bloodline' was absolute (why this killed only a quarter of the black dragons instead of all of them is a question for creation myths). Thus, all the Draketooths (Draketeeth?) were direct descendants of black dragons. They die.
The 'every creature related to them' (i.e. relations by marriage, but with children) thing probably stops at dead people (can't just be range of relation or it wouldn't be 'down to the last cousin'), otherwise it would have killed way more people, up to an including everyone, once again depending on creation myths.On the other hand, V (since depowered and not the direct caster in the first place) might not completely understand the rules of the spell: It's hard to reconcile 'down to the last cousin' with not realizing that killing a theoretical child of Tarquin's would mean killing Tarquin, Nale, and Elan too.
It might stop at a certain level of 'related' (this fits best with the quarter of the black dragon race comment from back when).
It might stop at dead people, but Girard was still alive somewhere (Dorukan lived that long, even if Soon didn't). This also works with the quarter of the black dragon race comment, since you only have to go back to the intermingled relations of the eldest living dragon in the bloodline, but that's still several millenia.
Or maybe the whole thing is overstated: We have only circumstantial evidence that Tarquin's wife was killed by the spell (wives of dictators tend to disappear under 'mysterious circumstances' without outside help.) And we have no evidence of those families being smitten 'to the last cousin'. V might be making connections where none exist, or extrapolating a rule that would only kill first degree relatives (i.e. mothers of children in the draconic bloodline) into the first rule of 'everyone related'.
On the gripping hand, maybe it's best not to think about it too hard because it really should have wiped out all life on the planet.
I think tat people are reading this wrong.
Bloodline does not include indirect relations, such as marriage. So it would only kill those with an actualy blood connection.
For example: If the human father had (in the distant past) that black dragon as an ancestor, he would die. His children would die. But his wife (related by law, but not by blood) would survive.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think tat people are reading this wrong.
Bloodline does not include indirect relations, such as marriage. So it would only kill those with an actualy blood connection.
For example: If the human father had (in the distant past) that black dragon as an ancestor, he would die. His children would die. But his wife (related by law, but not by blood) would survive.
That's the way I understood it.
I think tat people are reading this wrong.
Bloodline does not include indirect relations, such as marriage. So it would only kill those with an actualy blood connection.
For example: If the human father had (in the distant past) that black dragon as an ancestor, he would die. His children would die. But his wife (related by law, but not by blood) would survive.
I don't think V would agree with this interpretation. S/he cites exactly the same example as you in #843, but reaches the opposite conclusion.
(Unless the wife in your example was not actually the biological mother of those children.)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I think tat people are reading this wrong.
Bloodline does not include indirect relations, such as marriage. So it would only kill those with an actualy blood connection.
For example: If the human father had (in the distant past) that black dragon as an ancestor, he would die. His children would die. But his wife (related by law, but not by blood) would survive.
Read the strip. It's getting both parents via direct relation to the child. That's the recursive part.
I suspect that the 'every creature that shares your bloodline' was absolute (why this killed only a quarter of the black dragons instead of all of them is a question for creation myths). Thus, all the Draketooths (Draketeeth?) were direct descendants of black dragons. They die.
The 'every creature related to them' (i.e. relations by marriage, but with children) thing probably stops at dead people (can't just be range of relation or it wouldn't be 'down to the last cousin'), otherwise it would have killed way more people, up to an including everyone, once again depending on creation myths.
<snip>
I took #640 to mean that there were two classes of creatures affected by the spell.
Class 1: "Every living creature that directly shares your bloodline."
Mostly dragons and draketooths, so far as we know.
Class 2: "Any living creature that is directly related to any of those creatures [meaning those creatures in Class 1]."
According to #843, "directly related" means parents, children, siblings, and cousins of Class 1 members.
I'm not seeing this spell as a threat to humanoid life, unless every person/elf/dwarf/etc. somehow directly shared the bloodline of the targeted dragon. But perhaps I'm being dense.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
According to #843, "directly related" means parents, children, siblings, and cousins of Class 1 members.I'm not seeing this spell as a threat to humanoid life, unless every person/elf/dwarf/etc. somehow directly shared the bloodline of the targeted dragon. But perhaps I'm being dense.
Well, it may not be dense, but the definition of cousin is more expansive than you think. Basically, anyone who has a common ancestor is your cousin. We use the more direct terms for very close relatives.
So "down to the last cousin" goes a long way. I'm certain Rich didn't mean "first cousins" when he used cousins.
Also, for what it's worth, directly related would normally mean lineal ancestor or descendant, and possibly sibling (technically, siblings are not direct relations, but rather immediate ones). The problem is that the spell recurses, as demonstrated in the strip. So if it gets someone, it gets all their descendants, and all their ancestors. And it does the same recursion on those targets. That's why it has global extinction potential. There's an out if it can't recurse through dead branches.
<snip> The problem is that the spell recurses, as demonstrated in the strip. So if it gets someone, it gets all their descendants, and all their ancestors. And it does the same recursion on those targets. That's why it has global extinction potential. There's an out if it can't recurse through dead branches.
The recursion part is the bit I don't understand/disagree with. I don't see any recursive elements to V's explanation of the spell in either #650 or #843. I don't see anywhere where s/he says that the direct relations of the members of Class 2 get killed. Where does that come from?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tip to spellcasters, sure your genealogical chart is fully updated before casting epic level spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even better: it's a FANTASY ARCANO-GENEALOGICAL THEORY NERD FIGHT!
GENEALOGICAL NERD FIGHT!
Don't think it's a fight, yet.
Can't argue with the nerd part though.
<snip> The problem is that the spell recurses, as demonstrated in the strip. So if it gets someone, it gets all their descendants, and all their ancestors. And it does the same recursion on those targets. That's why it has global extinction potential. There's an out if it can't recurse through dead branches.The recursion part is the bit I don't understand/disagree with. I don't see any recursive elements to V's explanation of the spell in either #650 or #843. I don't see anywhere where s/he says that the direct relations of the members of Class 2 get killed. Where does that come from?
From the current strip, starting at the bottom of the first page:
The Familicide spell I cast killed everyone of the black dragon's blood--and then killed everyone who shared blood with any of the dragon's blood.The Draketooth Clan spent 60 years propagating itself by mating with random outsiders and then disappearing with the child.
Each of those grieving parents, first wronged by a Draketooth, is now murdered by my hand!
For their lost offspring carried the blood of the dragon--and they carried the blood of their offspring!
I have scourged the Western Continent of humans whose only sin was falling in love with a mysterious scarlet-tressed stranger.
And I have extinguished their own family lines as well! Countless parents, siblings, and children, dead--down to the last cousin.
I am the one who slew Tarquin's wife! And had she borne him a child, I would have slain it as well!
As an example, Penelope was only killed because she was the mother of a Draketooth. And if she bore Tarquin, not a Draketooth, a child, that child would have died because it is a relative of its mother, who is the mother of a Draketooth. You can see how this would spiral out of control very quickly.
|
may the resonable thing to speculate here is if the spell is stopped by a number of generations equal the caster level (thus preventing whiping all life) while still holding a clause that would, and remember that V's caster level was so high (in the hundreds) that it could easily kill all those shown in the strip yes?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
** spoiler omitted **
Ah, there's my confusion. I thought she was a Draketooth. So my reading V's spell would have killed her, and if Targuin had a child with her killed the child, *and* killed Tarquin (since he's related to the child). Nale and Elan (and Anel and Lean ;-)) would have survived because they're related to Tarquin, not to the Draketooths.
** spoiler omitted **Ah, there's my confusion. I thought she was a Draketooth. So my reading V's spell would have killed her, and if Targuin had a child with her killed the child, *and* killed Tarquin (since he's related to the child). Nale and Elan (and Anel and Lean ;-)) would have survived because they're related to Tarquin, not to the Draketooths.
I think under that interpretation of Familicide, Elan, Nale, and any other anagramatically aligned siblings would have also died, because they're still related to Penelope's hypothetical child (as half-siblings).
Now, personally, I don't think that's how the Familicide would have gone; if Penelope had a child by Tarquin, I think the slaughter would have ended with Penelope (as the mother of a Draketooth) and the baby (as the half-sibling of a Draketooth.) Tarquin would have lived, due to no blood connection to a Draketooth at all.
This is just going off the original stated effect of the spell back when V. was soul-spliced; I realize that s/he is now interpreting it to be a lot bigger in effect than the original 'bloodline of the dragon, plus anyone directly related to the bloodline of the dragon', but... V. isn't always right, y'know? V. tends to be prone to being overly dramatic when agitated at the best of times. So I'm not convinced (until Burlew shows otherwise) that the 'down to the last cousin' is more than the overwrought guilt of an androgynous elf. (Just because if it had gone as far as V. is thinking, the Western Continent and, well, probably the entire world, would be a lot more hollowed out than it is now.)
I do have to admit to be concerned at the effectiveness of Familicide. Yes, it's an epic level spell, but wouldn't all those victims still get saving throws vs. the save-or-die effect? Presumably with ludicrously high DCs, but still, 1 out of 20 victims should theoretically be walking around saying 'what the hell happened?'
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Now, personally, I don't think that's how the Familicide would have gone; if Penelope had a child by Tarquin, I think the slaughter would have ended with Penelope (as the mother of a Draketooth) and the baby (as the half-sibling of a Draketooth.) Tarquin would have lived, due to no blood connection to a Draketooth at all.
That was my thinking as well. I was surprised at the most recent strip where V mentioned killing everyone down to the last cousin. I suppose it's possible that he's wrong, but even if he's not, I still tend to have faith that the Giant will eventually provide an explanation that is consistent with the wording and the events witnessed. He really goes to great lengths to explain away plot holes or have the characters consider/discuss certain obvious courses of action (e.g., the many theories discussed and rejected among the other members of the group as to what happened to the Draketeeth).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Dankesean
Again, I was working under the presumption that Penelope was a Draketooth herself.
I do believe it depends on how far back it goes on associated lines.
I'm thinking that...
If Penelope was the mother of a Draketooth (and not one herself) it would have made sense to have the spell 'spent' when it hit her, as she's related to a Draketooth, but isn't one herself. So it wouldn't have hit a child of Penelope and Tarquin (said child has no relation to the Draketooth bloodline, just a relation to a 'collateral damage' target). (And V was over-angsting)
Else, yeah you get a Daisy chain of death. (the death toll is still massive, but not as grave as V thinks.) "One death is tragic, a million deaths is a statistic."
Re: Saving Throws. If it like a massive slay living (3/x verison) targets would take damage even if they made a save. Pity the poor Draketooth commoner 2 who rolled that natural 20, then took the 5d6 damage. :-)
Penelope's hypothetical kid isn't RELATED to a draketooth: he IS a draketooth: He's a direct descendant of the black dragon.
That makes Penelope's degree of separation 0
Which makes Penelope seperated by 1 degree
Which makes penelope and tarquin's hypothetical child 2 degrees
Which makes Tarquin 3 degrees, and thus safe.
It would have to go to 4 degrees of seperation from the line to hit Elan and Nale.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@BNW,
I think we are in agreement on how it works. It depends on how many degrees it extends. I guess we'll have to wait to see if it's just 1 degree (which would kill Penelope through her child, but not her and Tarquin's (hypothetical) child or Tarquin, or if it goes deeper.
Aside, based on the picture just killing the people in the picture and one spouse a piece we're up to 80 people just killing Draketooths (Draketeeth?) and their spouces-through-children in 3 generations.
That's also not counting any pure dragons the original birthed.
It's pretty clear the Xykon and Redcloak are the obvious winners in this event. Are there any other potential winners here?
It's pretty clear the Xykon and Redcloak are the obvious winners in this event. Are there any other potential winners here?
The fiends are going to make a try for the gates, probably by hijacking V's body while he's near the gates.
The fiends also get V's soul (cherry on top)
Tarquin/the linear guild has a shot at the prize.
It's pretty clear the Xykon and Redcloak are the obvious winners in this event. Are there any other potential winners here?
Actually, the Order of the Stick. Draketooth's gate was going to be the most difficult to find. The death of that entire clan, caused many of the illusions to fail, enabling the OOTS to find it relatively easily.
(Of course finding V again may be more complicated.)
I'm thinking the three fiends are working with Tarquin to keep the snarl out of Xykon's hands. Tarquin could have made a similar pact with the feinds to gain his position of warlord. Then the fiends manipulate things behind the scenes so Tarquin would be able to grab the snarl before OOTS or Xykon keeping it's power for himself. Once Tarquin or even V gain control of the snarl the fiends can control them as per their bargain and have them use the snarl to destroy all the good gods.
remember that V's caster level was so high (in the hundreds)
V's caster level wasn't in the hundreds. V basically had all of his/her own casting ability, plus three additional casters' abilities, all of which were epic level- but in D&D you don't add caster levels from different classes together, you just have a much larger reservoir of abilities to cast. (There may have been some overlapping power, but think about it- if V's caster level was in the hundreds, there's no possible way s/he would have lost against Xykon, even after losing the most powerful soul.)
New Comic! So at the risk of sounding inept I (unlike Elan) do not get it. Am I missing something or is Rich just leading into the next strip?
Great scene!
Lol!
|
Concerning OOTS 843, this is what happens when you forget the 1st rule of dungeon-delving : Never go down a corridor which has not been explored before.
Penelope's hypothetical kid isn't RELATED to a draketooth: he IS a draketooth: He's a direct descendant of the black dragon.
That makes Penelope's degree of separation 0
Which makes Penelope seperated by 1 degree
Which makes penelope and tarquin's hypothetical child 2 degrees
Which makes Tarquin 3 degrees, and thus safe.
It would have to go to 4 degrees of seperation from the line to hit Elan and Nale.
Actually, I believe that Penelope and Tarquin's hypothetical child is 1 degree (same as his mother).
I propose that V's explanation of the Familicide effect in strip 843 clarifies/supercedes that in strip 640.
Thus : "every living creature that directly shares your bloodline" becomes "everyone of the black dragon's blood" and "every living creature that is directly related to one of those creatures" becomes "everyone who shared blood with one of the dragon's blood".
The Draketooth, including Penelope's child, directly shared the dragon's blood, so they fall under the 1st effect (separation 0).
Penelope shared blood with her Draketooth child, thus she falls under the 2nd effect (separation 1). And such would also be the case with her hypothetical child with Tarquin, as he would indeed share blood with his Draketooth half-brother. It is just that, in this case, the shared blood is that of Penelope, who would have been mother to both.
Hence the 2nd effect affects not only the non-Black Dragon related parent, but also any descendant and ascendant they would have.
However, Tarquin, who did not share any blood (not parent, sibling nor child) with a Draketooth (or other descendant of the Black Dragon) would not have died, even if he had a child with Penelope. Of course Elan and Nale are even safer from the Familicide.
|
|
New Comic! So at the risk of sounding inept I (unlike Elan) do not get it. Am I missing something or is Rich just leading into the next strip?
I believe that you are missing something. There's a hint in the title as usual, though ;-)
|
|
New Comic! So at the risk of sounding inept I (unlike Elan) do not get it. Am I missing something or is Rich just leading into the next strip?
|
|
New Comic! So at the risk of sounding inept I (unlike Elan) do not get it. Am I missing something or is Rich just leading into the next strip?
Considering this post, as well as the time it did take me to "get it" (ie, longer than it usually does), I now believe that this strip is a perfect Lawful-detector, as in the more Lawful you (the reader) are, the longer it takes you to "get it".
New Comic! So at the risk of sounding inept I (unlike Elan) do not get it. Am I missing something or is Rich just leading into the next strip?Considering this post, as well as the time it did take me to "get it" (ie, longer than it usually does), I now believe that this strip is a perfect Lawful-detector, as in the more Lawful you (the reader) are, the longer it takes you to "get it".
Must mean I'm very chaotic then, I guessed the joke before even reading the last panel. The title kinda of gives it away.
A bit half-arsed, that joke, if you ask me.
Also, seems like Rich has gone to the dark side and opened a twitter-account.
Ohh I see what you did there... Very clever :)
** spoiler omitted ** Also yay someone new to follow on that twitsit thingy!
Ohh I see what you did there... Very clever :)
Or maybe ... Butte
I'm wondering if maybe the corpse is being literal and the statue of Draketooth that OoTS passed on the way in has an illusion on its behind that covers up some door or path that leads to the Gate.
I'm wondering if maybe the corpse is being literal and the statue of Draketooth that OoTS passed on the way in has an illusion on its behind that covers up some door or path that leads to the Gate.
That theory has much to recommend it.
I'm wondering if maybe the corpse is being literal and the statue of Draketooth that OoTS passed on the way in has an illusion on its behind that covers up some door or path that leads to the Gate.
Roy seemed to suspect it too.
