Durkon question [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Menas

2009-10-28, 03:01 PM

I like Durkon as well.

Just because he hasn't had a lot of focus doesn't mean he's not a good character. For whatever reason, he's the only character so far that the Giant hasn't chosen to focus on with a (real) side-quest and/or major character development. I don't consider the time with Hilgya to have been either of these; that seemed to be more of a joke and an establishment of Durkon's and Hilgya's alignments (and dwarven beliefs) than anything else.

As for the other character's side-quests:
- Roy died and had time in the after-life to train and be with his family.
- Belkar had the whole 'mark of justice' storyline.
- Haley had her time re-living her past with the thieves guild and overcoming personal issues in order to be with Elan, both of which she overcame.
- V had the whole splice storyline and has been humbled enough to be open to learning and assisting rather than trying to control the universe.
- Elan apparently has his own side-quest in the new book and was able to grow into the 'swashbuckler' class (or whatever that was).

The fact that Durkon hasn't had this kind of focus could be a basis for arguing he's a solid character to begin with and doesn't really need that much development.

The battle with the druid, where Durkon channeled 'Weather Control' and admonished Roy's sister without missing a beat is actually one of my favorite memories within the on-line comic strip.

TriForce

2009-10-28, 03:14 PM

Durkon actually has a fairly complex characterization, it just takes some in depth examination to spot it.

hah... of all the people who could say it..... (i agree with you on this point btw)

durkon has no more or less complexity as say, belkar :smallwink:

Cracklord

2009-10-28, 03:28 PM

hah... of all the people who could say it..... (i agree with you on this point btw)

durkon has no more or less complexity as say, belkar :smallwink:

No, I like Durkon because he's the sort of character I usually play, and having played with Belkar(esque) characters in the past I hate them on general principle.

Besides, Belkar has one good joke, that's worn very thin. Durkon has at least three.

Durkon never had a personality. Roy's the perfect one, V's the brooding bad boy, Elan's the clown, and Haley, well, she's the girl. What is Durkon supposed to be?[/COLOR]

Thank you for not including Belkar in the party.

Zherog

2009-10-28, 03:45 PM

Durkon never had a personality. Roy's the perfect one, V's the brooding bad boy, Elan's the clown, and Haley, well, she's the girl. What is Durkon supposed to be?

The voice of reason. :)

veti

2009-10-28, 03:48 PM

Durkon is the moral compass of the party.

That's exactly the phrase I was going to use. But then I started to think...

There are many different takes on "good" in the party. Roy is arrogant and intellectual: he's good because (a) that's the way he was brought up, but more importantly (b) he is determined to be "better" than the stereotype unthinking fighter (read: the jocks who tormented him at Bash U.).

Elan is the opposite of Roy: he's good because he's innocent, childlike - he still takes the lessons his mother taught him at face value. At a deeper level, he knows he's not particularly bright, and might simply figure that he doesn't have what it takes to get away with anything else.

Haley is different again - she's intelligently, modestly idealistic. She's good because she feels an obligation to help people, to do what she can to make the world a slightly better place. Her self-doubt is a natural consequence of consciously rejecting other people's moral compasses.

Durkon is the anti-Haley. He has absolutely no ambitions to set his own compass: his faith and his training are his rock, he stands himself firmly on them and will not waver or doubt, even when they seem useless. That's why his "character development" needs to be extremely subtle - anything else would be derailment.

As for Vaarsuvius and Belkar - they provide other perspectives on "good" in their own ways, which I'm not going to try to tease out now...

Raging Gene Ray

2009-10-28, 04:04 PM

...the humour (as Rich had written in this Durkon-less universe) would have been written without the concept of a foul-mouthed dwarven cleric in mind.

Where do you get foul-mouthed? Are you misinterpreting Durkon's accent?

Also, I agree with the above poster. Durkon is a more strongly rooted Good, free of some of the arrogance, ignorance, and neuroses that keep Roy, Elan and Haley from living up to some of the ideals. He emphasizes the myriad ways Good can play out.

Lissou

2009-10-28, 04:22 PM

Durkon never had a personality. Roy's the perfect one, V's the brooding bad boy, Elan's the clown, and Haley, well, she's the girl. What is Durkon supposed to be?

Durkon is Durkon. Do you have to be a stereotype to be worth something?

TheBST

2009-10-28, 04:34 PM

Comic's not over yet. I'm sure the little guy will get his big-chance-to-shine story arc before we're done (the Hilgya interlude notwithstanding).

hamishspence

2009-10-28, 04:50 PM

Where do you get foul-mouthed? Are you misinterpreting Durkon's accent?

Durkon swears a few times within the strip- not all that often though.

Faleldir

2009-10-28, 05:14 PM

Durkon is Durkon. Do you have to be a stereotype to be worth something?

I added the white text under my post to tell you that it was a joke, and you must have seen it to delete it. There is no way you could have thought I was serious. You are deliberately insulting me.

Menas

2009-10-28, 05:54 PM

I added the white text under my post to tell you that it was a joke, and you must have seen it to delete it. There is no way you could have thought I was serious. You are deliberately insulting me.

Maybe he was responding on behalf of the people who don't check for white text...

Optimystik

2009-10-28, 06:13 PM

Where do you get foul-mouthed? Are you misinterpreting Durkon's accent?

Durkon has used arguably the foulest language in the party if not the strip as a whole. ("Bitch" and "wanker" stand out among his examples.) I don't think it means anything other than "he's a dwarf," but I don't expect him to stop anytime soon either.

On topic: It's clear the Giant is aware how generic he is, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html) so I expect him to be fleshed out more at some point.

factotum

2009-10-29, 02:28 AM

Asta Kask

2009-10-29, 05:09 AM

Durkon actually has a fairly complex characterization, it just takes some in depth examination to spot it.

It would seem that many people have bad Spot checks, then.

spargel

2009-10-29, 05:33 AM

Durkon actually has a fairly complex characterization, it just takes some in depth examination to spot it.

Is this complex character any different from every other stereotypical dwarf in fantasy?

Jan Mattys

2009-10-29, 06:04 AM

Durkon never had a personality. Roy's the perfect one, V's the brooding bad boy, Elan's the clown, and Haley, well, she's the girl. What is Durkon supposed to be?

Roy is special because he's a smart, charismatic fighter and not the usual dull meatshield.

Vaarsuvius is special because he's a parody of the standard wizard: grows from being "shoot first, ask later" type to be a part of the team through development and the realization that power comes from working together.

Elan is the relief moment, and the true good guy we don't want to see suffering. There's a reason why the oots story will have a happy ending "for him at least"... because he's too sweet for bad things to happen to him. We want to see him happy.

Haley is the girl, shrewd, intelligent and very determined.

Durkon? Durkon is the rock-solid, dependable good guy who doesn't want a spotlight, who's VERY faithful to the group, VERY focused on the mission. He's probably the second strongest character in the Order, and still never steals the spotlight, because he doesn't want (or feel the need) to. He's got honor, and will follow his leader roy helping him to the best of his abilities. Durkon is boring? Maybe. Not all characters HAVE to be the deconstruction of the standards, you know...

On a last note: I have always found Durkon's characterization in Origin of PCs pretty awesome. You know, there's a reason why there's Durkon on that book's cover.

Nimrod's Son

2009-10-29, 06:30 AM

Elan is the girl
:elan: Awwww, man! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0590.html)

Jan Mattys

2009-10-29, 06:33 AM

LOL

Fixed :smallbiggrin:

Faleldir

2009-10-29, 12:01 PM

Jan Mattys, you know I was kidding. You didn't need to quote me.

Optimystik

2009-10-29, 02:57 PM

Durkon? Durkon is the rock-solid, dependable good guy who doesn't want a spotlight, who's VERY faithful to the group, VERY focused on the mission. He's probably the second strongest character in the Order, and still never steals the spotlight, because he doesn't want (or feel the need) to. He's got honor, and will follow his leader roy helping him to the best of his abilities. Durkon is boring? Maybe. Not all characters HAVE to be the deconstruction of the standards, you know...

Fleshing out Durkon isn't a "deconstruction." It's the opposite. The stereotypes are supposed to be the baseline, not the bottom line. Deviating from them is an expected path for a character to take.

To illustrate, I'll use the "Character Diamond" concept (mentioned in this (http://www.wow.com/2008/05/25/all-the-worlds-a-stage-character-diamonds/) roleplaying article and developed by screenwriting professor David S. Freeman.) The diamond consists of four unique traits (each usually one word long) that define your character's core personality. In fantasy roleplaying, the diamond is usually adopted in the following way:

1) One trait typical of your race;
2) One trait typical of your class;
3) One trait that is unusual for either or both;
4) A quirk - something odd or funny that makes your character memorable.

Using that model, we can see why Durkon is weak - he has 1 and 2, but lacks 3. (He might also lack 4, though personally I think his irrational behavior towards trees might count, even if other dwarves in OotS might share it.)

To contrast, let's run Belkar through it.

1) He's sensitive about his height (like many halflings.)
2) He's skilled with his ranged weapon of choice (like many rangers.) He's also obsessed with appearing masculine (like many barbarians.)
3) He's a complete sociopath (unlike many halflings)
4) Belkar has several quirks. he's a gourmet chef (one wonders how he stopped killing long enough to take lessons); he is very protective of his cat (odd considering how little he values other forms of life); and just about every act he's taken towards the rest of the party after his epiphany has been quirky.

So even Belkar, who has managed to polarize the forum on his impending fate, has more characterization than Durkon. In fact, just being able to polarize the fans in the first place shows that he is the deeper character.

Ton conclude, Durkon could use some help. I'm sure the story won't suffer even if he doesn't get any, but I personally would be disappointed if he stayed as he is now all the way to the end.

(There was an innuendo in that last sentence; please pay no attention.)

veti

2009-10-29, 03:51 PM

1) One trait typical of your race;
2) One trait typical of your class;
3) One trait that is unusual for either or both;
4) A quirk - something odd or funny that makes your character memorable.

Using that model, we can see why Durkon is weak - he has 1 and 2, but lacks 3. (He might also lack 4, though personally I think his irrational behavior towards trees might count, even if other dwarves in OotS might share it.)

Durkon's "unusual" trait could be, simply, his exile - his yearning to go home. Granted that it arises from his devotion to duty (which is a typical dwarfish trait, or at least he thinks it is), but it's still unusual: most dwarfs, as far as we've seen, go pretty much where they want.

The danger with Durkon, as I've posted above, is that development could easily become derailment. Constancy is his character.

Mystic Muse

2009-10-29, 04:34 PM

If it weren't for Durkon the entire party would probably have died in Cliffport, thanks to no-one having any ability to deal with Leeky Windstaff's trees. Is that not enough to be going along with? Besides, we know that the whole "Durkon returns to his homeland posthumously and brings death and destruction with him" is likely to be fairly epic!

please spoiler the spoilered part in your original post for those who have not read "On the Origin of PCs."

unless that was mentioned somewhere in the comic I'm unaware of.

Optimystik

2009-10-29, 05:00 PM

Durkon's "unusual" trait could be, simply, his exile - his yearning to go home.

No, dwarves typically love to stay home. Nothing unusual about it. "Go where they want" is a halfling/kender trait, not a dwarven one.

This trait is touched on in Races of Stone as well as countless other fantasy works, including Tolkien and Warcraft.

Sewblon

2009-10-29, 05:13 PM

I can't say I dislike him, but as this strip lampshades http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html he is mostly just a race, a class and an alignment, so I wouldn't mind if he died and another dwarf-cleric replaced him.

Allan Surgite

2009-10-29, 05:35 PM

Where do you get foul-mouthed? Are you misinterpreting Durkon's accent?
He has a Scottish accent, he must be foul-mouthed.

He's the only OotS member (to me knowledge) to a say a swear to the severity of "wanker", the closest one being Haley with "bitch" (which Durkon has stated recently).

veti

2009-10-29, 05:43 PM

No, dwarves typically love to stay home. Nothing unusual about it. "Go where they want" is a halfling/kender trait, not a dwarven one.

This trait is touched on in Races of Stone as well as countless other fantasy works, including Tolkien and Warcraft.

Well, yes. Most dwarfs love to stay home, and they do. Durkon would love to stay home, but he can't. That's why he's different.

hobbitkniver

2009-10-29, 06:31 PM

Stop talking as "we", I like him.:smallfrown:

Mugen Nightgale

2009-10-29, 06:56 PM

I think most people don't like Durkon because he is Wise. And that's what makes him different from the rest of the party "boring" some may say. While the other members have their minor sometimes childish dramas that leads to various plot expositions. Durkon simply doesn't have that. And I agree, thats not really interesting to most of the readers. But I like him he is the "normal" for me. The guy that doesn't have time for emotional stupidness. Besides tree-hating, he has bigger problems in his head and is really focused on the mission. The only time we've seen Durkon relax and do nothing was on the boat arc. And he regrets it.

If Durkon wasn't around the order would have failed miserably since the beginning. You gotta admit. Clerics are powerful.

Optimystik

2009-10-29, 07:28 PM

Well, yes. Most dwarfs love to stay home, and they do. Durkon would love to stay home, but he can't. That's why he's different.

Being exiled isn't a trait. It's a key element to his backstory, yes, but he's behaving just as any normal dwarf would have in those same circumstances. A trait is not what happens to you; a trait is how you react to what happens to you.

Something very un-dwarflike for him to do would be to resent his treatment by his elders. That's the kind of emotion that would set him apart and increase his complexity.

I think most people don't like Durkon because he is Wise. And that's what makes him different from the rest of the party "boring" some may say. While the other members have their minor sometimes childish dramas that leads to various plot expositions. Durkon simply doesn't have that. And I agree, thats not really interesting to most of the readers. But I like him he is the "normal" for me. The guy that doesn't have time for emotional stupidness. Besides tree-hating, he has bigger problems in his head and is really focused on the mission. The only time we've seen Durkon relax and do nothing was on the boat arc. And he regrets it.

Wisdom is not mutually exclusive with depth. Roy is pretty wise and is a much more complex character than Durkon. Shojo also has his share of wisdom (particularly fever-dream Shojo) as do Lien and Cole. All have deeper characterization than Durkon, because they all have that 3rd point on the diamond that Durkon lacks.

If Durkon wasn't around the order would have failed miserably since the beginning. You gotta admit. Clerics are powerful.

Clerics are highly useful, but why can't we have both the utility and the characterization? It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Mugen Nightgale

2009-10-29, 08:07 PM

Argeus

2009-10-29, 09:44 PM

Optimystik

2009-10-29, 10:23 PM

And who said he didn't? You totally missed my point. What I said was that Durkon has characterization. It's just not obvious as the other members. Not as silly as Haley's trust issue or V's obsessive need for power through arcane means. Durkon's problems are more subtle because it would be stupid for a cleric to have dramas. The guy is dedicated to a cause and a god. Lives a life of discipline(+Dwarf) and faith. Not saying he doesn't have those but if he does. He can deal with it without making it a side quest. And Roy's wisdom score is "decent", not his main attribute. Not gonna say anything about Shojo or Lien because they are NPCs and they are nothing but plot tools.

"It would be stupid for a cleric to have drama?" Have you even read any good stories about clerics? I urge you, start with the Cleric Quintet by R. A. Salvatore. There is a lot of room in a cleric's life for drama.

Everything you listed about Durkon just proves my point. "dedicated to a cause and a god." Right, like every other cleric. "Lives a life of discipline and faith." Right, like every other Dwarven Cleric. What sets him apart? Nothing.

"NPCs are nothing but plot tools" says nothing about their characterization. A character can be minor to the narrative as a whole and still be wonderfully deep.

So yeah you don't like Durkon because he doesn't act like the whole plot is about him and his problems. That just your opinion.

You couldn't be further from the truth.The whole plot isn't about anyone in particular (including the examples I used, unless Lien and Shojo became main characters while I wasn't paying attention.)

Until then, Durkon will just be yet another generic dwarf following the examples of Gimli and Muradin Bronzebeard.

Even Gimli had a bit of depth - dwarves befriending elves (and especially being befriended in turn) isn't a big deal in D&D, but at that time in Middle Earth, it was all but unheard of.

Mugen Nightgale

2009-10-30, 08:29 PM

Yeah man you win.
Because really, the fact that lots of people stood for him in this topic probably just makes you feel good right? I mean we know nothing about characterization and that's why we like Durkon. But you see right through it right? Because you know he is just a regular, boring, class/race combo. Congratz. I stand defeated.

Lappy9000

2009-10-30, 09:05 PM

Man, I'd be depressed if Durkon were to kick the bucket or otherwise get written out of the story. He's the ultimate grounding reason of common sense that the group needs (not counting the trees). I can respect him for his stalwart devotion to law, a trait that seems to be largely missing from the party.

And it doesn't hurt that I find him to be hilarious.

Optimystik

2009-10-31, 02:19 PM

Yeah man you win.

You're still missing my point.

You seem to think I dislike Durkon. I don't. I just think that his character can be fleshed out better. But people like you take the slightest bit of criticism of a character as a resounding declaration of hate.

Because really, the fact that lots of people stood for him in this topic probably just makes you feel good right? I mean we know nothing about characterization and that's why we like Durkon. But you see right through it right? Because you know he is just a regular, boring, class/race combo. Congratz. I stand defeated.

Um, the comic itself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html) thinks of him the same way I do. If you want to have a mature discussion, show me where he acts contrary to stereotype and I'll gladly discuss it. If all you want to do is hide your lack of a position behind sarcasm, say so and I'll gladly stop responding to you.

OITS

2009-10-31, 04:52 PM

He is the Ned Flanders (strange language, high morals), of the Order. The colour (which actually isn't a colour) black in a comic strip. He is there and he has to be here but doesn't jump at you from the screen. Black is important, Flanders is important, Durkon is important.

Cracklord

2009-10-31, 05:38 PM

And it doesn't hurt that I find him to be hilarious.

Tell me about it. The fact that he doesn't constantly shove his jokes in your face is what makes him so good.
Because he doesn't crack them so often you appreciate them more.

GreatWyrmGold

2009-10-31, 06:20 PM

Cracklord

2009-10-31, 07:18 PM

And you missed his point-rolled a natural 1 on the attack roll, even. Durkon is generic. Want me to say it over and over again in order to get you to get that? :smallmad:

You just crossed a terrible threshold.
Durkon has real, varying relationships with the other characters, and can be observed to interact differently with different people. A large portion of his characterization comes from the way he talks to his friends.

His characterization is subtle. He doesn't force it in your face every strip, but it's there. He is a good, pious person trying to be a mentor figure, who is humble and so reluctant to take the spotlight himself. How do you develop that? He's already wise, and doesn't have any obvious flaws. He is more then content to admit he was wrong, and while he is in some ways naive, it's not presented as a problem, as he can play supposedly savvy characters like a drum when he needs to.

But when he does come to the foreground, he consistently brings awesome with him in a way unmatched by any other character. Almost all my favorite moments in the strip (well, at least half) have been Durkon moments.

The generic dwarf makes short jokes, has a beard, an axe to grind and is always drunk with a Scottish accent.
Not exactly Durkon, but does have traits in common.

V could be said to be a generic wizard, the whole 'power to fix things by any means necessary' has been done so many times you'd need quantum mechanics to calculate them, even with iconic characters like Raistlain Majere or Elric.

Same could be said for Haley. Hell, her backstory in needing to steel to save her father but continuing to steal anyway is very simmilar to Thief's from 8-bit theater.

I would mention Belkar, except he NEEDS a characterization to be considered, and one joke does not a character make.

So dismissing Durkon for being generic is odd. After all, what is so good about this comic is the ability to form memorable characters out of generic basics. You just have to look a little deeper.

Optimystik

2009-11-02, 09:50 AM

The generic dwarf makes short jokes, has a beard, an axe to grind and is always drunk with a Scottish accent.
Not exactly Durkon, but does have traits in common.

V could be said to be a generic wizard, the whole 'power to fix things by any means necessary' has been done so many times you'd need quantum mechanics to calculate them, even with iconic characters like Raistlain Majere or Elric.

Same could be said for Haley. Hell, her backstory in needing to steel to save her father but continuing to steal anyway is very simmilar to Thief's from 8-bit theater.

When designating a character as "generic," the idea is to focus on the differences between them and other archetypes, not the similarities. Both of the examples you used - Haley's duplicity, V's lust for power - were what made them generic, I agree. But you're forgetting that the comic developed both of them beyond these class-based traits.

V no longer believes in "power to fix things by any means necessary." That was the old V, the one who was willing to abandon his friends to further his magical research. The new V not only relies on his party, he allows them to take the fore and focuses on support. Did Raistlin ever do that?
This sets him apart from other wizards.

The old Haley lied like a rug, usually with an innocently disarming "tee-hee!" to throw off suspicion. Like most other rogues, she saw her party as a means to an end and saw no need to open up to any of them. Subsequent events (especially the climax to her cryptogram episode) taught her that lying for lying's sake can have unfortunate consequences. Thief, despite the similarity with Haley's backstory, has yet to learn that lesson - and likely never will.
This sets her apart from other rogues.

Durkon, on the other hand, has yet to have such a crowning development. Not all of his fans are satisfied with the way he is now. We (and by we, I mean the dissatisfied fans) just want him to have one - something to make him stand out from other dwarven clerics. He's pious, he's wise, he's an amazing fighter - I acknowledge all those things, but if he were to die in the next strip and be replaced by his cousin Borkon Thundershield with the exact same personality, it would make barely a ripple in the narrative as it is now. Maybe you think he's fine as-is, and that's okay. But I don't.

I would mention Belkar, except he NEEDS a characterization to be considered, and one joke does not a character make.

I addressed this before; even Belkar has been characterized more than Durkon has. A sociopath that can exercise self-control, be productive to society, and still be a sociopath is a fairly complex character. It is a thin tightrope the Giant is walking with Belkar, and he is doing it well. Compared to that, Durkon is a paved sidewalk with railings.

So dismissing Durkon for being generic is odd. After all, what is so good about this comic is the ability to form memorable characters out of generic basics. You just have to look a little deeper.

It isn't odd at all. I agree with you that forming memorable characters from generic bases IS one of the comic's key strengths. I'm not dismissing Durkon, I'm making my voice heard in the hope that his character will be similarly enhanced by that very strength.

I assume the Giant has something big planned for him either just before or just after the story's focus has turned to Kraagor's/Serini's gate - hopefully before he dies. If so, I can't wait. But if he stays as he's always been until the end, I'll be disappointed.

Kaytara

2009-11-02, 11:29 AM

I'm kind of sad we saw so little of Durkon in the fleet arc. His indecisiveness and problems with V back then seem like they would have been excellent character development points, and instead we get it added retroactively in a single "Mending Wounds" comic.... :smallfrown: I'll just be holding out for the bonus strips.

On a slight tangent, one problem I have when using the term "stereotype" in character discussions is that, well, there's nothing new under the sun. Optimystik refers to Roy's fixation with proving himself to be more than a big dumb fighter as something that makes his character deep. But it only needs to be done enough times to become a stereotype, as well, and V is even more blatant in that regard. The whole "Arrogant person who think themselves infallible learning a lesson about humility and the value of teamwork" is an ancient and well-known story.

While I agree that Roy and V and deeper characters, I disagree on the reasons. To me, those traits are just as potentially stereotypical as anything else. What makes them deep and real to me is how Rich has fleshed out their psychology in a way that goes way beyond a diamond of four traits. We know how they tick on quite stunningly deep and intricate levels. We have a sharp, detailed picture of their personalities, while with Durkon it's more as if the artist used large and rough strokes, instead. Perhaps the problem with him is that we see only traits and not the swirl of thoughts and emotions underneath.

Durkon's development is probably a question of when rather than if. Resentment towards his homeland for abusing his Lawfulness would seem an obvious way to go. Failing to feel resentment where any other Lawful cleric would snap would IMO also be an interesting twist, and give his faithfulness a touch of fanaticism. We'll just have to wait and see.

Selene

2009-11-02, 11:36 AM

To illustrate, I'll use the "Character Diamond" concept (mentioned in this (http://www.wow.com/2008/05/25/all-the-worlds-a-stage-character-diamonds/) roleplaying article and developed by screenwriting professor David S. Freeman.) The diamond consists of four unique traits (each usually one word long) that define your character's core personality. In fantasy roleplaying, the diamond is usually adopted in the following way:

1) One trait typical of your race;
2) One trait typical of your class;
3) One trait that is unusual for either or both;
4) A quirk - something odd or funny that makes your character memorable.

Using that model, we can see why Durkon is weak - he has 1 and 2, but lacks 3. (He might also lack 4, though personally I think his irrational behavior towards trees might count, even if other dwarves in OotS might share it.)

3) He's naive.

Origin:
Given that the High Priest of Odin remarked upon Durkon being so lawful that he'd stay away forever if so ordered, I don't think that's typical of OotS Dwarves. He was naive enough to believe the HPO that he was ordered away by Odin, and he went, no questions asked, and barely any complaints registered. The other dwarf knew it was a con job.

He was also naive enough that he didn't seem to realize Hilgya was evil.

4) He plays Parcheesi.

Optimystik

2009-11-02, 11:59 AM

While I agree that Roy and V and deeper characters, I disagree on the reasons. To me, those traits are just as potentially stereotypical as anything else. What makes them deep and real to me is how Rich has fleshed out their psychology in a way that goes way beyond a diamond of four traits. We know how they tick on quite stunningly deep and intricate levels. We have a sharp, detailed picture of their personalities, while with Durkon it's more as if the artist used large and rough strokes, instead. Perhaps the problem with him is that we see only traits and not the swirl of thoughts and emotions underneath.

Durkon's development is probably a question of when rather than if. Resentment towards his homeland for abusing his Lawfulness would seem an obvious way to go. Failing to feel resentment where any other Lawful cleric would snap would IMO also be an interesting twist, and give his faithfulness a touch of fanaticism. We'll just have to wait and see.

Oh, I'm not claiming the diamond is perfect. It's just a tool. But if I were going to flesh out Durkon, that's where I would start - either by having him resent his exile at some point, or run into Hilgya again (pregnant) and rail against custom to take care of his own. Either of those would be very undwarflike things to do.

Your point about failing to resent his situation still being a form of characterization is an interesting one. But remember that for us as the audience to arrive at that conclusion, we need some sort of indication that he's even questioning his situation. If he just trundles along playing healbot and hitting trees, we'll have no idea whether the question even occurred to him.

I agree with you that we haven't seen what's swirling under his surface as much as we could have. It's possible there's something under there that is uniquely Durkon and very special. But I can only make judgments on what has been displayed in the strip.

3) He's naive.

This is a common trait of low-level clerics. (See also: Cadderly.) The "acolyte that has never left the seminary and doesn't know the ways of the world" is almost common enough to be a trope.

Menas

2009-11-02, 12:15 PM

From what I'm hearing it sounds like some people don't like Durkon just because he plays his character well. The way he behaves is consistently in line with his dwarven background, his alignment, and his class. Also, he generally knows exactly what is the best way for him to contribute to the party business, combat or otherwise (bandit tree jokes aside, which I actually find amusing, and which are one of his 'quirks').

The argument of 'I don't like Durkon because he hasn't undergone any real development' isn't very compelling to me, as I feel it should be obvious to people that he doesn't really need any (development, that is). While he doesn't really need much development as a character, however, it would be nice to see more of his backstory. I haven't read any of the books yet, so if it's in there, I'm unaware of it.

I feel that the Vaarsuvius/Durkon comparison that was made doesn't really apply. Vaarsuvius DID fall into the stereotype for casters which involves them thinking they can overcome any obstacle with supreme power. This IS a fundamental character flaw which needs to be overcome, which is why Vaarsuvius needed character development in that area. The stereotypes that Durkon has incorporated into his character, however, are stereotypes that one would EXPECT of a character that is dwarven, good, and also a cleric. They are NOT flaws, and therefore there is NO reason for Durkon to 'overcome' them. Instead, the fact that these stereotypes are there shows how well Durkon incorporates the elements of his character into the story, and just how good he is at playing his character.

I wouldn't mind seeing a little more quirkiness to him, as that would make him a little more unique and a little more of an individual. But whether that happens or not I feel he's a very solid character, and I have very much enjoyed his contributions to the comic strip.

Tyndmyr

2009-11-02, 01:44 PM

Durkon never had a personality. Roy's the perfect one, V's the brooding bad boy, Elan's the clown, and Haley, well, she's the girl. What is Durkon supposed to be?[/COLOR]

A dwarven steriotype.

Tyndmyr

2009-11-02, 01:51 PM

This is my speculation: Durkon's Day In The Limelight has yet to come. And the day it come will be the day the Oracle's "you'll go home posthumously" prediction become reality.

Until then, Durkon will just be yet another generic dwarf following the examples of Gimli and Muradin Bronzebeard.

Woah....Durkon's going to go home as an undead monster.

Obviously, this can get tied in to Belkar's impending ceasing to breathe. Clearly, we're gonna have an epic final fight.

veti

2009-11-02, 02:55 PM

Durkon, on the other hand, has yet to have such a crowning development. Not all of his fans are satisfied with the way he is now. We (and by we, I mean the dissatisfied fans) just want him to have one - something to make him stand out from other dwarven clerics. He's pious, he's wise, he's an amazing fighter - I acknowledge all those things, but if he were to die in the next strip and be replaced by his cousin Borkon Thundershield with the exact same personality, it would make barely a ripple in the narrative as it is now. Maybe you think he's fine as-is, and that's okay. But I don't.

Please don't take this the wrong way - but it seems to me that you're placing expectations on the OOTS that may not be consistent with what the Giant has in mind for it.

As I see it, the Order is a party: they each have their own part to play in creating the whole tapestry of the story. Roy is a fighter who's intelligent - yes, fine - but he's also the party leader, and we've seen him (very slowly) learning the lessons of leadership. Haley (pretty much) appointed herself his deputy because, well, she's vain enough to enjoy the spotlight, but when she actually had to show some leadership she hated every minute of it. And so on. Their individual stories and personas are interesting, sure, but there's also a story in how they all learn to work together.

Durkon has played an enormous part in that story. He's the trustworthy one, the constant one - the only one, basically, who isn't a drama queen. It's no coincidence that Roy decided to form a party, initially, after meeting Durkon. He's the rock on which the party is built.

The others' "character development" has - pretty much universally - taken the form of "learning to work with one another". Haley, Vaarsuvius, even Belkar learned, through hard lessons, that they can't be effective unless they trust their teammates. As leader, Roy already knew that, but he's learned other lessons about leadership - to work with people's natures rather than against them, to communicate with all of them, to take responsibility for them. Elan learned the converse lesson - that you can't just "support" all the time, but occasionally you really need to pull your weight.

Durkon already knows all that. He's the exemplar for all the others. You could say they're, each of them, learning to think more like a dwarf.

Now, I'm not saying that this "party" narrative does, or should, eclipse the individual stories of the team members. But it is there, and I think you're overlooking it in your eagerness to learn the stories of each individual.

Optimystik

2009-11-02, 03:52 PM

The others' "character development" has - pretty much universally - taken the form of "learning to work with one another". Haley, Vaarsuvius, even Belkar learned, through hard lessons, that they can't be effective unless they trust their teammates. As leader, Roy already knew that, but he's learned other lessons about leadership - to work with people's natures rather than against them, to communicate with all of them, to take responsibility for them. Elan learned the converse lesson - that you can't just "support" all the time, but occasionally you really need to pull your weight.

Durkon already knows all that. He's the exemplar for all the others. You could say they're, each of them, learning to think more like a dwarf.

I'll be the first to admit that, where teamwork and self-sufficiency are concerned, that Durkon has less to learn than the other members of the party did. You're right - he is at the same time more self-sufficient than Elan and more team-oriented than Vaarsuvius.

But that still doesn't mean his character has nothing to learn. Characters with nothing to learn are boring. Roy, for example, is skilled both in leading the group, AND on his own (rescuing the party without a weapon); yet he still has managed to show remarkable growth and depth throughout the strip. Durkon, through no fault of his own, hasn't. Nothing has come along to really challenge his worldview. For him to get through the story unscathed, to live and die still believing "bein' a dwarf is aboot doin' yer duty, even if it makes ye miserable. ESPECIALLY if it makes ye miserable!" would be just as disappointing to me as Belkar still thinking random murder is acceptable, or V still believing that arcane magic is all he needs to solve his problems.

Now, I'm not saying that this "party" narrative does, or should, eclipse the individual stories of the team members. But it is there, and I think you're overlooking it in your eagerness to learn the stories of each individual.

It seems to me you're assuming that having a good "party narrative" is somehow mutually exclusive with the individual members having well-developed characters. I think the Giant is more than skilled enough at his craft that we can have both.

If he intended for Durkon to just be a background character - the "rock," as he has been referred to throughout this thread - then why bother giving him any solo adventures at all? The way I see it, Durkon's time in the dwarven lands could have been omitted from Origin, and his time away from the party with Hilgya could have all been bonus material or even removed from the comic, and it would have had no effect on the story as a whole. All of his unique adventures could be excised without so much as a ripple. If that's really what the Giant wanted for him, I just don't think he would have gone to all the trouble of lifting the curtain as much as he did. He just needs to lift it the rest of the way.

Menas

2009-11-02, 04:20 PM

This thread seems to be straying from the original question, which was 'if Durkon wasn't part of the story, would he be missed?'.

For my part, the answer is a resounding yes. Putting any generic cleric into Durkon's role would certainly not be the same.

The Giant has hinted at devoting some time in the storyline to Durkon, and if that happens he may see some growth as well.

But whether or not this happens, he is currently a strong part of the storyline.

And I agree with Waggy that this was one of the best jokes to date (stolen from the least favorite OoTS character thread):

"PUPPETS CANNAE EVEN EAT PIE!!!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0561.html)

veti

2009-11-02, 04:25 PM

Even a rock needs a foundation. Heck, especially a rock needs a foundation. We needed to know what makes Durkon tick, before we could see what it was that the others can learn from him.

I disagree with your assessment of Roy's leadership. I think Roy has made some big mistakes - starting with recruiting a team he didn't even trust enough to go to sleep (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0014.html) in their presence, and most recently assuming he knew them all (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) better than some random celestial observer. As a leader, he's done - okay. Not great. The lessons that he's learned have been about leadership, and he's been extremely slow to learn some of them. (For instance: by the time of the Azure City battle, he really should have known enough to discuss tactics with his team beforehand.)

But back to Durkon...

No, I'm not saying that the two types of story can't be combined, merely that there's more to it than just "making Durkon interesting". Any serious change to Durkon's character before the others had had a chance to absorb some of his understanding would have derailed not just Durkon, but the entire party. They may be reaching a point, now, where they've learned their basics and can afford to spare him for a while, but I'm not sure.

What I'm saying is - you seem to be demanding that the Giant tell a story of six multi-faceted individuals who learn life experiences together. But he hasn't promised us anything of the sort. What I see, in the story so far, is the story of a party becoming an effective unit, and I see how Durkon fulfils the most critical role in that process.

If Durkon is to get his own "character development" story now - great, I'll enjoy it. But I don't think the lack of such a story to date is a "weakness", and I don't think the author has any sort of obligation to do it. Let him tell the story he wants to tell.

Kaytara

2009-11-02, 06:35 PM

Your point about failing to resent his situation still being a form of characterization is an interesting one. But remember that for us as the audience to arrive at that conclusion, we need some sort of indication that he's even questioning his situation. If he just trundles along playing healbot and hitting trees, we'll have no idea whether the question even occurred to him.

It probably hasn't. I was talking about the hypothetical situation of him eventually learning the truth about the reasons he was exiled.

From what I'm hearing it sounds like some people don't like Durkon just because he plays his character well. The way he behaves is consistently in line with his dwarven background, his alignment, and his class.

I don't quite agree. I don't think there's such a thing as being consistently in line with background, alignment, and class, per se. I don't think there's a "right" way to play the cleric, not where storytelling is concerned. We've seen Rich explore with paladins just how many (plausible) ways there are to play a paladin. A cleric isn't too different.

Just because "all" clerics are tight-laced straight men doesn't mean a cleric couldn't be loose and relaxed. Just because "all" clerics are faithful to a fault doesn't mean Rich couldn't tell a story about one who's actually having serious doubts but has learned to hide it. It doesn't have to be incompetancy on Elan's level or neurosis on V's level, but it can go in further than being just skin-deep.

Anyway, I'm one of those who doesn't mind the way Durkon is now, I just look back at what seems like great opportunities to develop him and feel sad about it.

Optimystik

2009-11-02, 08:12 PM

Even a rock needs a foundation. Heck, especially a rock needs a foundation. We needed to know what makes Durkon tick, before we could see what it was that the others can learn from him.

That's the problem - we have yet to learn "what makes him tick." Exiled from home indefinitely? Not a word of complaint. Prophesied to die? Laughs and cheers. Confronted with an adulterer? Fire and brimstone. What could anyone, us especially, have learned about him from those episodes that we didn't already know?

I disagree with your assessment of Roy's leadership. I think Roy has made some big mistakes - starting with recruiting a team he didn't even trust enough to go to sleep (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0014.html) in their presence, and most recently assuming he knew them all (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) better than some random celestial observer. As a leader, he's done - okay. Not great. The lessons that he's learned have been about leadership, and he's been extremely slow to learn some of them. (For instance: by the time of the Azure City battle, he really should have known enough to discuss tactics with his team beforehand.)

Roy's mistakes are a key part of his growth. They make him that much more human and relatable. More importantly, they provide a basis for showcasing his growth - without an "old Roy," the "new Roy" doesn't mean anything. He lampshades the process and differences himself in this strip. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0500.html)

Durkon's biggest mistake thus far has been... taking no action in a situation where he couldn't really take any helpful actions anyway. Again, this is not his fault - he can't very well face a challenge if one doesn't come his way - but it doesn't teach us anything about him either.

But back to Durkon...

No, I'm not saying that the two types of story can't be combined, merely that there's more to it than just "making Durkon interesting". Any serious change to Durkon's character before the others had had a chance to absorb some of his understanding would have derailed not just Durkon, but the entire party. They may be reaching a point, now, where they've learned their basics and can afford to spare him for a while, but I'm not sure.

I'm not asking for a "change to Durkon's character." I'm asking for him to show us a character. What we've seen so far is all a baseline. It's possible for us to get a glimpse of the dwarf within WITHOUT countermanding everything we already know about him. He won't magically cease to be the moral center for the others just because he shows some emotions himself.

What I'm saying is - you seem to be demanding that the Giant tell a story of six multi-faceted individuals who learn life experiences together. But he hasn't promised us anything of the sort. What I see, in the story so far, is the story of a party becoming an effective unit, and I see how Durkon fulfils the most critical role in that process.

If Durkon is to get his own "character development" story now - great, I'll enjoy it. But I don't think the lack of such a story to date is a "weakness", and I don't think the author has any sort of obligation to do it. Let him tell the story he wants to tell.

I'm not "demanding" anything, nor does the Giant have any "obligations" to accomodate me. I'm criticizing a character on an open forum and have every right to do so. You seem determined to interpret "I'll be disappointed if the Giant doesn't do X" as being equal to "The Giant had better do X or else!" despite all my assertions to the contrary.

As for Durkon's role as the rock, I'd argue that Roy fulfills that role. The instant he is gone, the party falls apart; the quest is at a standstill until he comes back. Durkon brought him back, but if you'll recall, another cleric could have done so just as easily were it not for Celia's buffoonery. Even with that, Roy was simply a scroll away from returning. So again I ask, what purpose does he serve that another cleric of equal level could not?

Menas

2009-11-02, 09:23 PM

So again I ask, what purpose does he serve that another cleric of equal level could not?

What role does any member of the party play that another x of equal level could not? When it comes down to it, Vaarsuvius, Belkar, and Elan have all brought serious amounts of baggage with them, along with the 'role' they're supposed to be playing. If all that mattered was the 'role' they're playing, then it would have made sense to replace any of them early on. Roy, Durkon, and Haley are the only ones that have been able to consistently play their roles effectively without excessively burdening the party with their character flaws at the same time. So if we were going to argue about whether or not someone should be in the party just because of how well they play their role - well, Durkon is in the top three for staying. If we're just taking role into account, they'd be hard pressed to find a cleric as talented as Durkon.

But we're not just talking about the role. It's obvious that the party has a loyalty and bond to each other. Even Belkar, who has considered on more than one occasion leaving the group, has always chosen to stay with them. Which is another reason Durkon wouldn't and shouldn't just be 'abandoned'.

Lastly, Durkon does his job well and was the first member of the party. He's had plenty of high points within the lifetime of the comic strip, he just hasn't had a side-quest or side-story devoted to him (intentionally not counting the Hilgya arc). Saying that he's not interesting as a character because he hasn't demanded the spotlight and/or had a sidequest simply means... well, that you place a lot of importance on spotlights and sidequests I guess.

I have a very hard time seeing how people wouldn't think Durkon is both a likeable and enjoyable character. Yes, side-quests/stories are fun and I certainly wouldn't mind if Durkon had one. But Durkon is just as appealing and engaging in the 'main' comic strip devoted to the party (which is supposed to be the true focus of the story) as any of the characters.

But hey, to each their own. It's obvious from the other thread that there are plenty of other people that find Durkon lame/boring for whatever reason.

I still think he's great.

Menas

2009-11-02, 09:30 PM

I don't quite agree. I don't think there's such a thing as being consistently in line with background, alignment, and class, per se. I don't think there's a "right" way to play the cleric, not where storytelling is concerned. We've seen Rich explore with paladins just how many (plausible) ways there are to play a paladin. A cleric isn't too different.

Well, the class certainly has a definition. Just like alignments and races have definitions. It's great to see how people can balance the individuality of their character against the boundaries of their class/alignment/race. But the boundaries are still there. If you break them, you play the price. And being aware of the boundaries is part of the skill required to play a character well.

Just because "all" clerics are tight-laced straight men doesn't mean a cleric couldn't be loose and relaxed. Just because "all" clerics are faithful to a fault doesn't mean Rich couldn't tell a story about one who's actually having serious doubts but has learned to hide it. It doesn't have to be incompetancy on Elan's level or neurosis on V's level, but it can go in further than being just skin-deep.

All clerics don't have to be tight-laced =). Lawful good ones are more likely to be, but they don't have to be completely uptight either. And dwarven ones ARE generally more likely to drink. As for a cleric that is having serious doubts and needs to hide it - well, then they need to make a decision about whether or not they really want to be a cleric. If they decide they don't believe in being a cleric, or what a cleric is supposed to do, then that's the point where they stop being a cleric.

Anyway, I'm one of those who doesn't mind the way Durkon is now, I just look back at what seems like great opportunities to develop him and feel sad about it.

I like the way Durkon is now, and don't feel sad about missed opportunities. I wouldn't mind seeing more though. I should probably get the origin of PCs book....

Optimystik

2009-11-02, 09:53 PM

@ Menas: Spotlights and sidequests are the best way (but not the only way) of seeing how much a character has grown. Shakespeare used soliloquies to accomplish the same effect - get a character away from the ensemble so the audience can really get inside his/her head.

I'm not asking Durkon to hog the spotlight, either. He can get a little more focus and still keep his niche as the party's most unassuming member as so many in this thread want him to do. He has a long way to go before he can hog the spotlight from the other members.

Concerning your "party members' baggage" comment, you have it backwards. The baggage that the party members brought along on the quest - Belkar's rampant sociopathy, Haley's kleptomania and duplicity, Vaarsuvius' insurmountable myopia, Elan's lack of independence, and even Roy's inferiority complex - have all been dropped in favor of the more important goal. Durkon is the only one that hasn't changed. The prevailing argument seems to be, he doesn't need to. But from my perspective, his belief - that one should do one's duty even if it makes one miserable - has yet to be challenged. He dislikes the human lands, but he isn't actually miserable, not yet. Until that particular tenet has been put to the test, it is just a string of words.

Kaytara

2009-11-02, 10:02 PM

Well, the class certainly has a definition. Just like alignments and races have definitions. It's great to see how people can balance the individuality of their character against the boundaries of their class/alignment/race. But the boundaries are still there. If you break them, you play the price. And being aware of the boundaries is part of the skill required to play a character well.

I'm not sure what you mean by boundaries. Clerics and paladins can Fall, yes, but that's a pretty heavy extreme. There's lots of space for all sorts of personalities there.

All clerics don't have to be tight-laced =).
Lawful good ones are more likely to be, but they don't have to be completely uptight either.
I'm not talking about class requirements, I'm talking about stereotypes, hence my use of the word "all". And it seems to be a stereotype for LG clerics to be uptight as much as for clerics of Sune to be promiscuous. (In my experience, anyway, correct me if I'm wrong.)

And dwarven ones ARE generally more likely to drink.
I'm not referring to traits, as in "more likely to drink", I'm talking about personality. As you noted yourself, Durkon's tendency to drink doesn't stem from being loose or relaxed, it stems from him being a dwarf. It also makes sense that for a dwarf, with his two livers, drinking alcohol doesn't exactly have the same tone as it does in our society. He's still a pretty no-nonsense type of person with a clear sense of duty.

As for a cleric that is having serious doubts and needs to hide it - well, then they need to make a decision about whether or not they really want to be a cleric. If they decide they don't believe in being a cleric, or what a cleric is supposed to do, then that's the point where they stop being a cleric.

On one note - that change, that fascinating metamorphosis, is exactly the sort of thing one would write a story about. Not what came before, or after, but the change itself.

On a different note, why does it even have to be one or the other? A character can feel conflicted about what they do. The conflict may or may not be resolved, but it still makes them more interesting than a plain character who's completely at peace with themselves.

veti

2009-11-02, 10:13 PM

That's the problem - we have yet to learn "what makes him tick." Exiled from home indefinitely? Not a word of complaint. Prophesied to die? Laughs and cheers. Confronted with an adulterer? Fire and brimstone. What could anyone, us especially, have learned about him from those episodes that we didn't already know?

That he's exceptionally stoic? Accepts his fate, if not cheerfully, then at least with resignation? That his sense of values is quite different from (say) Roy's, or Elan's, or Haley's? You keep calling Durkon a "stereotype" and a "typical dwarf", but if it weren't for Durkon we wouldn't even know what a "typical dwarf" was in the Stickverse. It's a bit harsh to criticise him for being "exactly like" tens of thousands of imaginary other characters, when those "other characters" are all patterned on him.

For myself, I'd say that Durkon is very different from Gimli, or many other fantasy dwarfs.

I'm not asking for a "change to Durkon's character."

Hmmm.... okay, I'll accept your word for that. Apparently I'm misreading this post, where you complain:

Durkon, on the other hand, has yet to have such a crowning development. Not all of his fans are satisfied with the way he is now.[...] Maybe you think he's fine as-is, and that's okay. But I don't.

That's my mistake, and I apologise for misreading you.

I'm asking for him to show us a character. What we've seen so far is all a baseline. It's possible for us to get a glimpse of the dwarf within WITHOUT countermanding everything we already know about him. He won't magically cease to be the moral center for the others just because he shows some emotions himself.

What sort of emotions? Would compassion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html) help at all? anger (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0585.html) or irritation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html)? happiness (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0646.html)? exasperation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0505.html)? sadness (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0085.html)? If we're counting OtOoPCs, we could also includebitterness, anger and resentment - his frame of mind when Roy first encounters him.

I'm not "demanding" anything, nor does the Giant have any "obligations" to accomodate me. I'm criticizing a character on an open forum and have every right to do so. You seem determined to interpret "I'll be disappointed if the Giant doesn't do X" as being equal to "The Giant had better do X or else!" despite all my assertions to the contrary.

Umm. It seems to me that the difference between "or else" and "or I'll be disappointed" is basically that the second version is more complete.

Of course you have every right to criticise whoever and whatever you like, or don't like. And I've never suggested otherwise, despite all your assertions to the contrary.

As for Durkon's role as the rock, I'd argue that Roy fulfills that role. The instant he is gone, the party falls apart; the quest is at a standstill until he comes back. Durkon brought him back, but if you'll recall, another cleric could have done so just as easily were it not for Celia's buffoonery. Even with that, Roy was simply a scroll away from returning. So again I ask, what purpose does he serve that another cleric of equal level could not?

I'd dispute that strenuously.

Everyone trusts Durkon. When Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0205.html) chafes against Roy's leadership, it's Durkon who talks her round. Even Belkar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0286.html) trusts Durkon. And the reason why they trust him - first, among all their companions - is because he's the trustworthy one, the one who doesn't let his personal feelings get in the way of his duty, who doesn't lie to them (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0139.html) or cheat them (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0129.html). He teaches them the meaning of trust. Without him, they'd have fallen apart after leaving the Dungeon of Dorukan.

Selene

2009-11-03, 07:23 AM

This is a common trait of low-level clerics. (See also: Cadderly.) The "acolyte that has never left the seminary and doesn't know the ways of the world" is almost common enough to be a trope.

Maybe in other worlds. I haven't seen any other low level OotS clerics exhibiting this, have you? Hilgya wasn't like that.

And really, what *isn't* common enough to be a trope? If you're going to use that argument, then you're going to have to apply it to everyone in the party. Heroic Sociopath (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroicSociopath) has a freaking picture of Belkar. :smallconfused:

Killer Angel

2009-11-03, 08:16 AM

Durkon is important in the OotS but, as a character, he's the one with less impact on the story and on the group.
Plot advancement? almost none. The last I remember was this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html).
Character's growth? none. The last I remember was this one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html), then nothing for 600 strips.
Interaction between the group? very poor.
The jokes involvin' Durkon are becoming old (The plants. The palm (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html)! Durkon, you're a Cleric, were's your wisdom?). Meh, even Belkar has more variety.

That said, Rich can easily develope him, and makes him shine anew. (unless there's something related to the old rivalry between Giants and dwarves... :smallwink:)

Optimystik

2009-11-03, 09:07 AM

That he's exceptionally stoic? Accepts his fate, if not cheerfully, then at least with resignation? That his sense of values is quite different from (say) Roy's, or Elan's, or Haley's? You keep calling Durkon a "stereotype" and a "typical dwarf", but if it weren't for Durkon we wouldn't even know what a "typical dwarf" was in the Stickverse. It's a bit harsh to criticise him for being "exactly like" tens of thousands of imaginary other characters, when those "other characters" are all patterned on him.

For myself, I'd say that Durkon is very different from Gimli, or many other fantasy dwarfs.

He exhibits just about every racial and class trait detailed in both Races of Stone and the Complete Book of Dwarves. Perhaps you haven't read those books, but I have.

Hmmm.... okay, I'll accept your word for that. Apparently I'm misreading this post, where you complain:

That's my mistake, and I apologise for misreading you.

Sarcastic apologies aside, you're still misunderstanding me. When I say I don't want his character to change, I mean that I want the Giant to expand and go more in depth on what is already there; to build on the existing foundation. In other words, there is plenty of depth we can add without fundamentally altering his core character. So forgive me when I say I can't fathom why you would have a problem with this, unless you just fear exposition.

What sort of emotions? Would compassion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html) help at all? anger (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0585.html) or irritation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html)? happiness (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0646.html)? exasperation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0505.html)? sadness (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0085.html)? If we're counting OtOoPCs, we could also includebitterness, anger and resentment - his frame of mind when Roy first encounters him.

1) Durkon has yet to show actual anger in the strip. (Your example - "ye daft fool!" - is yet more exasperation.)
2) Irritation, exasperation, and resentment are all the same emotion. Cloaking your point in synonyms doesn't make it any more accurate.
3) His so-called "sadness" is never elaborated on or explored. He sheds one tear walking away from Hilgya and we never know if the encounter keeps him up every night, if he begged his god/ancestors for forgiveness or if she was just some ill-begotten tail to him. Again I say, you may be satisfied with that. I'm not.
4) The compassion bit WAS good characterization. I want more scenes like that. Don't you?

Umm. It seems to me that the difference between "or else" and "or I'll be disappointed" is basically that the second version is more complete.

Wrong. The difference is that "or else" implies anger and animosity towards the author. Disappointment is a far more passive emotion - something I'd feel without acting on or even letting interfere with my enjoyment of the rest of the comic.

Connotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotation) is something you should read up on.

Of course you have every right to criticise whoever and whatever you like, or don't like. And I've never suggested otherwise, despite all your assertions to the contrary.

Oh, I see. So apparently I'm misreading this post, where you tell me to:

Let him tell the story he wants to tell.
Implying that I'm somehow obstructing him from doing so by voicing my opinion?

I'd dispute that strenuously.

Everyone trusts Durkon. When Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0205.html) chafes against Roy's leadership, it's Durkon who talks her round. Even Belkar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0286.html) trusts Durkon. And the reason why they trust him - first, among all their companions - is because he's the trustworthy one, the one who doesn't let his personal feelings get in the way of his duty, who doesn't lie to them (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0139.html) or cheat them (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0129.html). He teaches them the meaning of trust. Without him, they'd have fallen apart after leaving the Dungeon of Dorukan.

Haley's chafing - Durkon reminds her of her greed. She could have come to this realization on her own, easily.
Belkar - thinks Durkon is a sucker. I suppose that's a very loose form of "trust," but it says more about Belkar's simple-mindedness than any quality of Durkon.
As for "teaching them the meaning of trust," standing there like a block while Roy and Haley fleece the party isn't what I call teaching anything. Maybe your teachers stood at the front of the class and didn't say a word, but mine didn't. You might say he's leading by example, but by that standard Mr. Scruffy is "teaching them trust" by licking himself.

"I've got naught to do in human lands until I'm called home, so I'm in." Yes, that's quite a ringing declaration of his dedication to the party, that is.

veti

2009-11-03, 03:22 PM

Sarcastic apologies aside, you're still misunderstanding me.

I am neither sarcastic nor misunderstanding. I did misunderstand on first reading, but on re-reading I saw what you meant. Which is why I apologised, as sincerely and specifically as I know how. If you read sarcasm into that, then that's your problem and I have nothing further to add.

3) His so-called "sadness" is never elaborated on or explored. He sheds one tear walking away from Hilgya and we never know if the encounter keeps him up every night, if he begged his god/ancestors for forgiveness or if she was just some ill-begotten tail to him. Again I say, you may be satisfied with that. I'm not.

Durkon is a very private person. He doesn't want to share his feelings even with Roy. Do you imagine he'd consent to share them with the likes of you and me?

4) The compassion bit WAS good characterization. I want more scenes like that. Don't you?

Once more: all I want is to know how the story of the OOTS unfolds. If that involves more characterisation for Durkon, fine. If it doesn't, that's also fine. I trust the Giant to tell his story, without me telling him what bits to put in and what to leave out.

Wrong. The difference is that "or else" implies anger and animosity towards the author. Disappointment is a far more passive emotion - something I'd feel without acting on or even letting interfere with my enjoyment of the rest of the comic.

If you assume that Rich is an artist who wants his work to be appreciated, then a threat not to appreciate it is a threat. A mild threat, granted. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, legally or morally. But still a threat.

As for "teaching them the meaning of trust," standing there like a block while Roy and Haley fleece the party isn't what I call teaching anything. Maybe your teachers stood at the front of the class and didn't say a word, but mine didn't. You might say he's leading by example, but by that standard Mr. Scruffy is "teaching them trust" by licking himself.

Another word for "trust" is "faith". Durkon is a walking exemplar of the power of trust. Everything he does, up to and including resurrecting Roy, is a demonstration of it.

Durkon's finest hour is the first encounter with Miko. In that situation he doesn't know what's going on, he has no more information than anyone else in the party, but he's still the one who figures it out - because he trusts his god. Even though he has no clue what Thor has in mind, he is committed to going through with it whatever it is. (The fact that he's completely wrong about this is neither here nor there, since neither Durkon nor the rest of the party ever knows that.)

In the same way, he's willing to trust both Roy and Haley, even when he knows or suspects that they're not telling the truth, because he knows their motives are good. His attitude to Elan is similar - although it'd be daft to 'trust' him in the sense of believing what he says, he never doubts Elan's motives. To Belkar and Vaarsuvius, he's scrupulously fair and honest. He never discriminates on the basis of class, race or alignment. (Is that a dwarfish trait, incidentally? I thought they had a certain animosity towards orcs, but Durkon shows no sign (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0561.html) of it.)

Optimystik

2009-11-03, 06:18 PM

I am neither sarcastic nor misunderstanding. I did misunderstand on first reading, but on re-reading I saw what you meant. Which is why I apologised, as sincerely and specifically as I know how. If you read sarcasm into that, then that's your problem and I have nothing further to add.

If your misunderstanding was truly genuine then I apologize. Due to the difficulty of detecting sarcasm on the internet, I tend to presuppose its presence in the arguments of my opposition a bit more than I should. Mea culpa.

Durkon is a very private person. He doesn't want to share his feelings even with Roy. Do you imagine he'd consent to share them with the likes of you and me?

That doesn't wash. Even private people have thought balloons, or talk to themselves. Case in point, V and Haley.

Once more: all I want is to know how the story of the OOTS unfolds. If that involves more characterisation for Durkon, fine. If it doesn't, that's also fine. I trust the Giant to tell his story, without me telling him what bits to put in and what to leave out.

Nobody is "telling him what bits to put in and what to leave out," including me. Stop saying that already.

If you assume that Rich is an artist who wants his work to be appreciated, then a threat not to appreciate it is a threat. A mild threat, granted. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, legally or morally. But still a threat.

If you consider mere criticism of one character to be threatening, I suggest you be very wary of becoming an artist yourself.

Besides which, somehow I doubt he's the least bit threatened by our little exchange. Read any thread about people not wanting Belkar to die; there you'll find threats to stop appreciating the comic or whatever exhortation you seem to be railing against.

Being disappointed in one aspect of the comic, even if the Giant cared enough about my opinion to be so thoroughly shaken by it, is not the same as being disappointed in the comic as a whole.

Another word for "trust" is "faith".

Stop there and read the article I linked on connotation again. Those words cannot be used interchangeably. That's like me saying "another word for hot is searing" or "another word for dangerous is lethal."

But lets play it your way, and swap the word "trust" for "faith" in your post. "Durkon is a walking exemplar of the power of faith. Everything he does, up to and including resurrecting Roy, is a demonstration of it." Well I should hope he is, he's a high-level cleric. Nothing in that makes him stand out from others of his class.

"Durkon's finest hour is the first encounter with Miko. In that situation he doesn't know what's going on, he has no more information than anyone else in the party, but he's still the one who figures it out - because he has faith in his god. Even though he has no clue what Thor has in mind, he is committed to going through with it whatever it is. (The fact that he's completely wrong about this is neither here nor there, since neither Durkon nor the rest of the party ever knows that.)"

Faith in a god is yet another trait most clerics share. Still nothing special.

"In the same way, he's willing to have faith in both Roy and Haley, even when he knows or suspects that they're not telling the truth, because he knows their motives are good. His attitude to Elan is similar - although it'd be daft to 'have faith in him' in the sense of believing what he says, he never doubts Elan's motives. To Belkar and Vaarsuvius, he's scrupulously fair and honest. He never discriminates on the basis of class, race or alignment. (Is that a dwarfish trait, incidentally? I thought they had a certain animosity towards orcs, but Durkon shows no sign (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0561.html) of it.)"

A good cleric trusts good people - that Durkon, what a rebel he is! Or not. Seriously though,

1) Dwarves have no racial bias against orcs - you're thinking of elves. Or perhaps Middle-Earth, where everybody hates them.
2) It is conflict that defines a character, not lack of conflict. Yeah, he gets along with everyone. So does Mr. Scruffy. Yeah he never discriminates. Neither does Mr. Scruffy. Yes, he follows unquestioningly. So does... I think you get the point.

veti

2009-11-03, 08:12 PM

That doesn't wash. Even private people have thought balloons, or talk to themselves. Case in point, V and Haley.

Those two are not "private" in the same way as Durkon. When V and Haley don't share their problems, it's because there's no-one they trust enough to share them with. Durkon holds closer to a stiff-upper-lip (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/keep-a-stiff-upper-lip.html) ethos, which holds it simply wrong to share your emotions. Even if he had a wife, mentor, and childhood-best-friend camping just 50 yards away, he wouldn't go and talk to them about it. You just don't talk about these things.

I sympathise with that, because that's how I was brought up myself. Perhaps that's why I do feel Durkon's single tear over Hilgya, or his outbursts over V's monomania or Elan's theology, are quite enough - I have no problem reading deep emotions into fairly minor signs. Durkon is simply different from any of the other characters - even though, you insist, he's exactly the same as all those other LG dwarf clerics we've never seen.

Stop there and read the article I linked on connotation again. Those words cannot be used interchangeably. That's like me saying "another word for hot is searing" or "another word for dangerous is lethal."

Yesyesyesyes, there are almost no true synonyms in English. Even when people use the same word in the same sense, they often mean quite different things (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) by it. I'm not saying the words can simply be interchanged - just that they both refer to the same thing. In the same way as "the Giant", "Rich", "the author" and "the artist" all refer to the same person, even though we use them in different contexts.

A good cleric trusts good people - that Durkon, what a rebel he is! Or not.

Brian: You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not.

He's not a rebel. He's not an individualist. He's the only one in the party who isn't. Don't you see how that in itself makes him special?

Seriously though,
1) Dwarves have no racial bias against orcs - you're thinking of elves. Or perhaps Middle-Earth, where everybody hates them.

Actually I'm thinking more of the "race attitudes" table in the 1st edition Players Handbook, which I was looking through a few weeks back, which clearly said that orcs and dwarfs detested one another. But if that's been done away with since then, fair enough.

Edit: Although now I recall where else (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html) I've seen it mentioned.

2) It is conflict that defines a character, not lack of conflict. Yeah, he gets along with everyone. So does Mr. Scruffy. Yeah he never discriminates. Neither does Mr. Scruffy. Yes, he follows unquestioningly. So does... I think you get the point.

I feel sure you don't really need me to point this out, but Mr Scruffy is a cat. And like all cats, he does what he does basically because it's the line of least resistance between him and his next meal. Durkon does it on principle. There's a big difference.

Optimystik

2009-11-03, 10:47 PM

Those two are not "private" in the same way as Durkon. When V and Haley don't share their problems, it's because there's no-one they trust enough to share them with. Durkon holds closer to a stiff-upper-lip (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/keep-a-stiff-upper-lip.html) ethos, which holds it simply wrong to share your emotions. Even if he had a wife, mentor, and childhood-best-friend camping just 50 yards away, he wouldn't go and talk to them about it. You just don't talk about these things.

I sympathise with that, because that's how I was brought up myself. Perhaps that's why I do feel Durkon's single tear over Hilgya, or his outbursts over V's monomania or Elan's theology, are quite enough - I have no problem reading deep emotions into fairly minor signs. Durkon is simply different from any of the other characters - even though, you insist, he's exactly the same as all those other LG dwarf clerics we've never seen.

You've adroitly dodged my point yet again; all we need to know what's going on in Durkon's head are simple conveyances like a thought balloon, having him talk to himself, or even a dream sequence. None of those would compromise his privacy toward the other party members. Yay or nay?

Unless you're saying he never thinks to himself or dreams, ever.

Yesyesyesyes, there are almost no true synonyms in English. Even when people use the same word in the same sense, they often mean quite different things (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) by it. I'm not saying the words can simply be interchanged - just that they both refer to the same thing. In the same way as "the Giant", "Rich", "the author" and "the artist" all refer to the same person, even though we use them in different contexts.

"X is another word for Y" implies they are interchangeable. Say what you mean.

He's not a rebel. He's not an individualist. He's the only one in the party who isn't. Don't you see how that in itself makes him special?

So he's special for not being special. I see.

I feel sure you don't really need me to point this out, but Mr Scruffy is a cat. And like all cats, he does what he does basically because it's the line of least resistance between him and his next meal. Durkon does it on principle. There's a big difference.

How do we know what his principles are? And I don't mean the principles listed under "Dwarf" in Races of Stone. His principles.

Lvl45DM!

2009-11-04, 12:28 AM

A Lawful cleric of Neutral god is pretty odd, and one who infact depends on his God's occasional chaotic actions like warping a control weather spell is even stranger
A dwarf wholl engage in dialogue with orcs ...odd
dwarf who doesnt show any animosity towards elves...odd
A cleric who takes petty vengence (sunburning Belkar)...odd
A dwarf who worships a sky based deity...odd(and rather incomprehensible)
A dwarf who surrenders whilst his teammates are being attacked? thats REALLY odd

Overall hes a pretty strange dwarf

Jackson

2009-11-04, 02:49 AM

You've adroitly dodged my point yet again; all we need to know what's going on in Durkon's head are simple conveyances like a thought balloon, having him talk to himself, or even a dream sequence. None of those would compromise his privacy toward the other party members. Yay or nay?
I guess the problem here would be this: how many thought balloons has this comic had, if we don't count Haley's aphasia?

I think it's very fair to say that Durkon is a character we learn about more implicitly than explicitly, and the fact that the author could make him more explicit doesn't discount the fact that he's more interesting (to my mind) as somebody you learn about indirectly. He's interesting (again, to me) because he's unknowable in exactly the same way another person in real life is unknowable: you see his reactions to certain events but get very little insight into his personal life, which exists through implication rather than through an explicit monologue. I don't think that's an inferior way to draw a character.

That said, when contrasted against characters whose thoughts and feelings are shown more explicitly, it's not surprising that he comes of as less entertaining. But come on. You've read Origins. You know there's more going on with him beneath the surface than he'll ever show. Put on your close reading caps and see the character hidden behind the easy stereotype. It's what he's there for.

Nimrod's Son

2009-11-04, 03:35 AM

I guess the problem here would be this: how many thought balloons has this comic had, if we don't count Haley's aphasia?
These (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0046.html) are the only ones that spring to mind.

Optimystik

2009-11-04, 09:12 AM

A Lawful cleric of Neutral god is pretty odd, and one who infact depends on his God's occasional chaotic actions like warping a control weather spell is even stranger

All of those are odd things about Thor, not Durkon. Thor is the one that's granting the spells in this partnership, after all.

A dwarf wholl engage in dialogue with orcs ...odd
dwarf who doesnt show any animosity towards elves...odd

Races of Stone: Dwarven adventurers are not quick to dismiss anyone, and will give any race a chance to prove themselves.

A cleric who takes petty vengence (sunburning Belkar)...odd

Doesn't this behavior fly in the face of his role as the "moral center" and "the rock" mentioned in this thread? In other words, even that scrap of identity was an illusion after all.

A dwarf who worships a sky based deity...odd(and rather incomprehensible)

Thor is specifically listed in some supplement as a dwarven deity. De&Dg?
Either way, pretty run-of-the-mill choice.

A dwarf who surrenders whilst his teammates are being attacked? thats REALLY odd

A LG cleric that doesn't want to fight a paladin... yep, he's a weirdo all right.

Overall hes a pretty strange dwarf

I commend your effort, but have to say no.

I guess the problem here would be this: how many thought balloons has this comic had, if we don't count Haley's aphasia?

Because characters (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html) never (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0624.html) talk to (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0655.html) themselves (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html) in OotS. Ever. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html)

Or have dream sequences. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html)

Oh, wait!

hamishspence

2009-11-04, 09:20 AM

According to Deities and Demigods:

(though admittedly I think there was a post from The Giant saying OoTS Thor was based on Marvel Thor)

: Thor is a god of dwarves- among other things.

OoTS dwarves appear to worship the Northern Gods- including Odin (in Origin)- who is not any less of a sky god, as far as I can tell.

So, not that unusual.

What is more unusual, is Durkon's Lawfulness, compared to the more fun-loving Thor.

veti

2009-11-04, 02:24 PM

You've adroitly dodged my point yet again; all we need to know what's going on in Durkon's head are simple conveyances like a thought balloon, having him talk to himself, or even a dream sequence. None of those would compromise his privacy toward the other party members. Yay or nay?

And you've adroitly dodged ignored my point. It's not just his privacy towards other party members that's at issue: it's his privacy towards us.

"Ridiculous", I hear you say. "He doesn't know we exist. How can it possibly matter to him one way or the other, if we get to read his thoughts?"

Well, speaking for myself, which I feel is relevant here because I identify with Durkon: I don't want people reading my thoughts even if I don't know about it. Especially if I don't know about it. Haley, Vaarsuvius, Elan - they all crave the understanding of others. That's natural. But Durkon doesn't. He chooses what to reveal and what to hide, and that control is very important to him. Why can't we respect it?

"X is another word for Y" implies they are interchangeable. Say what you mean.

Now you're just being silly. You know better than that. Try reading up on connotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotation) sometime.

So he's special for not being special. I see.

I very much fear you don't, but you should. Really you've run out of places to hide now.

The tyranny of nonconformism is every bit as restrictive as any other kind of social expectation. You're the one who's attacking Durkon for not conforming to your expectation of what a major character in an online comic strip (or other medium) should be. He's breaking the mould.

He proves that you don't have to be a rebel, in order to be a hero.

Optimystik

2009-11-04, 03:07 PM

And you've adroitly dodged ignored my point. It's not just his privacy towards other party members that's at issue: it's his privacy towards us.

"Ridiculous", I hear you say. "He doesn't know we exist. How can it possibly matter to him one way or the other, if we get to read his thoughts?"

Well, speaking for myself, which I feel is relevant here because I identify with Durkon: I don't want people reading my thoughts even if I don't know about it. Especially if I don't know about it. Haley, Vaarsuvius, Elan - they all crave the understanding of others. That's natural. But Durkon doesn't. He chooses what to reveal and what to hide, and that control is very important to him. Why can't we respect it?

"I identify with Durkon, so any rationalization I come up with for wanting my internal monologue kept from any possible audience must automatically apply to him." Is that right?

Whether you identify with Durkon unfortunately doesn't matter a fig. The question is (which you cannot answer), does he identify with you?

If he gave any indication in the comic that said "I'm a very private person and don't like sharing my feelings with the others" I could maybe see where you were coming from. But you are taking his silence and coming up with all kinds of tortuous reasons for it. Since you are neither Durkon nor the Giant, you'll forgive me if I merely respond with [citation needed.]

Oh, and how about this one. If he's so insecure about people finding out what he's thinking, why does he talk to himself? That's a much more likely avenue of letting something slip than, say, walking around without a permanent mind blank on or whatever you seem to be suggesting.

Now you're just being silly. You know better than that. Try reading up on connotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotation) sometime.

I didn't mean to sting you by linking that, you know. It was a genuine effort to refine your future arguments.

"Trust is another word for faith" betrays a lack of knowledge of connotation. Besides which, both "trustworthy" and "faithful" are pretty basic traits for an LG cleric to have.

I very much fear you don't, but you should. Really you've run out of places to hide now.

Hide? From your rhetoric? You must be joking.

The tyranny of nonconformism is every bit as restrictive as any other kind of social expectation. You're the one who's attacking Durkon for not conforming to your expectation of what a major character in an online comic strip (or other medium) should be. He's breaking the mould.

He proves that you don't have to be a rebel, in order to be a hero.

Let me get this straight. I want to know more about a character's inner motivations... and you call that "tyranny?"

I expect that a main character in a story should have a personality, and you call his lack of one "breaking the mold?"

Since you admit (finally) that the only thing that makes him special is not being special at all, we've come full circle. You're supporting my point - he has so few other unique characteristics that his lack of them is the only characteristic you can point to. Your argument isn't a refutation of mine; you're merely asserting that he doesn't need to be unique in order to be a hero.

I never said he wasn't a hero. I said he's boring. There's a huge difference, chum.

I'm not satisfied with the development he's gotten in the story. I'd love to boot up the comic one day and say "hey, a Durkon strip!" Maybe you're fine with him not getting any in-depth screen time, and that's okay. But I'll be disappointed.

Menas

2009-11-04, 03:13 PM

If nothing else this thread is establishing that Durkon has some avid fans.

Go Durkon!

veti

2009-11-04, 04:24 PM

If he gave any indication in the comic that said "I'm a very private person and don't like sharing my feelings with the others" I could maybe see where you were coming from.

How about this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0085.html)? Or this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0444.html)? Durkon always says just enough about his feelings to stop other people from badgering him about them, and get them to focus on what matters. No more.

Oh, and how about this one. If he's so insecure about people finding out what he's thinking, why does he talk to himself? That's a much more likely avenue of letting something slip than, say, walking around without a permanent mind blank on or whatever you seem to be suggesting.

Did I say "insecure"? He's the most secure one there. That's the very reason why he's not continously seeking validation from his friends. Unless you're saying that the desire for privacy is a kind of insecurity, in which case why are we all posting from behind pseudonyms?

Let me get this straight. I want to know more about a character's inner motivations... and you call that "tyranny?"

You want to read a character's mind? Every clue you have suggests that they don't want you to do it, yet you claim you have some sort of natural "right" to it? Yes, I'd call that tyranny.

Back on the real-world level, you say that the writer's decision not to give us monologues or asides or thought bubbles about a character can only be a flaw or mistake - it can't possibly be a conscious decision that he may be perfectly justified in taking? Don't you think that's just a wee bit... prescriptive?

I expect that a main character in a story should have a personality, and you call his lack of one "breaking the mold?"

He does have a personality - it's just that you insist on rejecting that personality as "too conformist". Why the hell shouldn't he be conformist? Why does everyone have to be a rebel?

Since you admit (finally) that the only thing that makes him special is not being special at all, we've come full circle. You're supporting my point - he has so few other unique characteristics that his lack of them is the only characteristic you can point to. Your argument isn't a refutation of mine; you're merely asserting that he doesn't need to be unique in order to be a hero.

I never said he wasn't a hero. I said he's boring. There's a huge difference, chum.

Okay. You find him boring. I'll concede that if the only people you find interesting are rebels, then you're entitled to find Durkon boring. So boring, in fact, that you'll fight tooth and nail through a three-page thread to analyse his character. Nicely demonstrated.

Personally I find Durkon one of the most interesting characters. Perhaps second to Belkar.

Kaytara

2009-11-04, 04:41 PM

If nothing else this thread is establishing that Durkon has some avid fans.

Go Durkon!

Indeed. I never thought I'd see the day people have page-long debates over Durkon. :)

Optimystik

2009-11-05, 09:08 AM

If nothing else this thread is establishing that Durkon has some avid fans.

Go Durkon!

Of course I am. I wouldn't care so much about his development if I wasn't.

How about this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0085.html)? Or this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0444.html)? Durkon always says just enough about his feelings to stop other people from badgering him about them, and get them to focus on what matters. No more.

The first was an isolated incident with Hilgya, and the second says absolutely nothing about his privacy. If you're going to resort to linking random comics with Durkon in them, clearly you don't have a leg to stand on.

Did I say "insecure"? He's the most secure one there. That's the very reason why he's not continously seeking validation from his friends. Unless you're saying that the desire for privacy is a kind of insecurity, in which case why are we all posting from behind pseudonyms?

Uh, it is insecurity that makes us use usernames. Go ahead, post your social security number.

But that's moot anyway. I know he's secure. The insecurity theory was your idea, buddy, not mine.

You want to read a character's mind? Every clue you have suggests that they don't want you to do it, yet you claim you have some sort of natural "right" to it? Yes, I'd call that tyranny.

I want to know what he's thinking. You keep ignoring that he can do that easily by talking to himself, which he has done in the strip more than once. No telepathy necessary.

Back on the real-world level, you say that the writer's decision not to give us monologues or asides or thought bubbles about a character can only be a flaw or mistake - it can't possibly be a conscious decision that he may be perfectly justified in taking? Don't you think that's just a wee bit... prescriptive?

He did give us monologues and asides from Durkon. I just want more of them. Honestly, where do you get this stuff?

He does have a personality - it's just that you insist on rejecting that personality as "too conformist". Why the hell shouldn't he be conformist? Why does everyone have to be a rebel?

He doesn't have to be anything. But I'll be disappointed if that's all he'll be. You're finally getting it.

Okay. You find him boring. I'll concede that if the only people you find interesting are rebels, then you're entitled to find Durkon boring. So boring, in fact, that you'll fight tooth and nail through a three-page thread to analyse his character. Nicely demonstrated.

There you go again, equating "I wish Durkon were a better character" to "I don't care about Durkon at all." They are opposing statements in case you didn't realize. If I really didn't care about him, his development wouldn't matter to me.

I saw you didn't answer my question about Durkon identifying with you. If you're going to cede defeat, at least be gracious about it.

Snake-Aes

2009-11-05, 09:34 AM

Guys, are you sure we REALLY need every single damn character to be "equal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html), yet different (http://goblins.keenspot.com/d/20050710.html) to the stereotype" or whatever?

veti

2009-11-05, 04:07 PM

The first was an isolated incident with Hilgya, and the second says absolutely nothing about his privacy. If you're going to resort to linking random comics with Durkon in them, clearly you don't have a leg to stand on.

You asked for "any indication". I gave you what you asked for. If you're just going to brush it aside without answering it, then clearly - oh never mind, I see where this is going.

Uh, it is insecurity that makes us use usernames. Go ahead, post your social security number.

But that's moot anyway. I know he's secure. The insecurity theory was your idea, buddy, not mine.

In the first place, I don't have a SS number, so bite me. In the second place, I suggest you re-check who introduced the word "insecure" into this thread.

I want to know what he's thinking. You keep ignoring that he can do that easily by talking to himself, which he has done in the strip more than once. No telepathy necessary.

Absolutely. If he felt it was important or relevant for other people to understand what he was thinking, there's nothing to stop him from talking to himself more. But he doesn't. From which we can conclude...?

There you go again, equating "I wish Durkon were a better character" to "I don't care about Durkon at all." They are opposing statements in case you didn't realize. If I really didn't care about him, his development wouldn't matter to me.

I saw you didn't answer my question about Durkon identifying with you. If you're going to cede defeat, at least be gracious about it.

You're absolutely right. How silly of me to imagine... no, that's wrong, there's no call for the dripping-with-sarcasm approach.

Look: Durkon told us (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html), right back near the beginning, that his way of thinking isn't what he called the "human" way, 'with their "if it feels groovy, do it" and their "inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness".' I'd call it the "modern" way.

In modernism, as I'm defining it for the purposes of this post, the highest ideal in life is self-realisation. Everyone's first and highest duty is to themselves, to be the best, or the most, they can be. Roy, Haley, Elan, Vaarsuvius and Belkar all accept this unquestioningly.

But Durkon's values are from an earlier time. Not much earlier - only a century ago he'd have fitted right in - but now, he's out of his time. Durkon believes in duty, in honour, in being part of something that is bigger and more important than any one person. Even himself. Look again at the comic where he reacts to Roy's death (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0444.html). Or to the Oracle's prophecy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0333.html). Or where he argues about priorities (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0505.html) with Vaarsuvius.

And therefore his personal feelings are irrelevant. It's his actions, not his thoughts, that make a difference in the world, and that's what he wants to be judged by. That's what makes him so secure. He knows he can't answer for his feelings, but he doesn't have to, because he doesn't act on them.

His role in the party, so far, has been to contrast that pre-modern worldview with the modern one that everyone else, quite unthinkingly, subscribes to. And that's what you're criticising him for.

Optimystik

2009-11-06, 08:56 AM

You asked for "any indication". I gave you what you asked for. If you're just going to brush it aside without answering it, then clearly - oh never mind, I see where this is going.

The Hilgya incident is exactly the kind of thing I want to see more of. In fact, I can't wait for her to reappear in the comic. But I already addressed it as being what I was looking for, so you citing it adds nothing to the discussion. Your second link was just a random Durkon comic as far as I can see. He certainly didn't talk to himself or use thought bubbles there. He praises Roy for dying like a dwarf - something any dwarf would do - then upbraids Haley for not taking leadership initiative - again, something any dwarf would do. So I really don't see what you were getting at with these "indications."

In the first place, I don't have a SS number, so bite me. In the second place, I suggest you re-check who introduced the word "insecure" into this thread.

The idea that he might be consciously hiding his feelings for fear that others might see them - including the audience, which makes no sense whatsoever - was all yours. But you have no basis for that notion whatsoever. Neither Durkon himself nor the Giant have labeled him as a private person. Show me where they did and I will cede the point.

Absolutely. If he felt it was important or relevant for other people to understand what he was thinking, there's nothing to stop him from talking to himself more. But he doesn't. From which we can conclude...?

We can't conclude anything from his silence. It's silence. As in, the absence of expression.

Or perhaps I should say, we can't rationally conclude anything from silence. It doesn't seem to have stopped you from doing so.

His role in the party, so far, has been to contrast that pre-modern worldview with the modern one that everyone else, quite unthinkingly, subscribes to. And that's what you're criticising him for.

I don't suppose you have anything from the Giant or Durkon himself to back this up? As fascinating as your ass-pulls have been, you don't write the comic, so I can't exactly consider you a reliable source.

Kaytara

2009-11-06, 12:58 PM

Children, children, keep it civil.... :smallannoyed:

I don't know. Durkon not having a unique personality does not equal him not having a personality. Seems like a case of TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife) to me. :smallamused:

Optimystik

2009-11-06, 01:30 PM

Children, children, keep it civil.... :smallannoyed:

Oh, like you've never gotten into a heated discussion before. :smalltongue:

(I don't recall being actually insulting either... I've certainly yet to tell someone to "bite me" for instance.)

I don't know. Durkon not having a unique personality does not equal him not having a personality.

As far as I'm concerned, a dormouse could starve on the difference. I'm not alone in thinking so either, if the "least favorite" thread is any indication. (You'll note that I voted for Belkar there, however.)

I'm not sure how TVTropes comes into this; neither I nor veti have cited it to my knowledge.

Ozymandias9

2009-11-06, 01:38 PM

We can't conclude anything from his silence. It's silence. As in, the absence of expression.

Or perhaps I should say, we can't rationally conclude anything from silence. It doesn't seem to have stopped you from doing so.

Well, that's just silly. You can conclude a great deal from silence, particularly when there is something you would generally expect to be expressed.

For my part, I both hope and expect that Durkon will have his shining moment. And the greater portion of it, I imagine, will revolve around that which has not been said.

Nevertheless I do not wish or expect it to change who he is: I rather expect us and the order to learn more of who he is and was instead.

Menas

2009-11-06, 01:49 PM

We can't conclude anything from his silence. It's silence. As in, the absence of expression.

There's this whole 'actions speak louder than words' idea that's been going around for a while.

It's surprising how many things can be accomplished without actually saying anything. In fact, I would have to argue that the majority of people could actually get a lot MORE accomplished if they chose to remain silent while focusing on the task at hand.

sihnfahl

2009-11-06, 02:30 PM

In fact, I would have to argue that the majority of people could actually get a lot MORE accomplished if they chose to remain silent while focusing on the task at hand.
Rule of thumb. The person who talks loudest and speaks most is the one best to ignore.
Except when it's your boss.

Optimystik

2009-11-06, 02:42 PM

For my part, I both hope and expect that Durkon will have his shining moment. And the greater portion of it, I imagine, will revolve around that which has not been said.

If the basis of his shining moment is never made known in the strip, how will we know?

Nevertheless I do not wish or expect it to change who he is: I rather expect us and the order to learn more of who he is and was instead.

But that's EXACTLY what I want too. Why is that so hard for other people to grasp?

Maybe I'm communicating this poorly. One more try: I'm not satisfied with the level of knowledge we have of Durkon's character at present. I want to learn more about his motivations. Something that would set him apart from any other cleric of the same level and alignment that would be in his place. Is that so unreasonable a request?

There's this whole 'actions speak louder than words' idea that's been going around for a while.

It's surprising how many things can be accomplished without actually saying anything. In fact, I would have to argue that the majority of people could actually get a lot MORE accomplished if they chose to remain silent while focusing on the task at hand.

It's not Durkon's accomplishments I have an issue with, its his character. A 14th-level cleric is capable of a large number of accomplishments even without a unique personality (or with one that is no different from any other 14th-level cleric.) You could power up a construct, give it some cleric levels, make it like beer and hate trees, and you'd have a substitute for Durkon as he is right now. So "look how much he's done!" is irrelevant, if those actions don't tell us anything about him that couldn't be said about that theoretical construct. You might be fine with Durkon being interchangeable with another level 14 LG cleric, but I'm not, and won't ever be.

Menas

2009-11-06, 03:18 PM

You could power up a construct, give it some cleric levels, make it like beer and hate trees, and you'd have a substitute for Durkon as he is right now.

If that's your opinion it's no wonder you think so little of Durkon in his current role. I don't think that just any character or construct could fill in for Durkon. He's very good at what he does and I don't believe just any character could do it.

So "look how much he's done!" is irrelevant, if those actions don't tell us anything about him that couldn't be said about that theoretical construct.

It's not just how much he's done, it's how he's done it. Everything he does has a Durkon flavor to it. Apparently you don't like the flavor. I enjoy it very much.

And this is true about anyone really, character or real. What they say doesn't mean jack. It's what they do and how they do it that shows their true nature.

Also, he's done plenty. If it wasn't for him the party probably never would have made it past the druid. He was very creative in the way he handled that situation. I doubt many clerics could have handled things that way with regard to either skill or staying in character.

You might be fine with Durkon being interchangeable with another level 14 LG cleric, but I'm not, and won't ever be.

I never said I was fine with this, because I never stated it to be the case. And I don't believe it to be the case.

Menas

2009-11-06, 03:20 PM

Rule of thumb. The person who talks loudest and speaks most is the one best to ignore.
Except when it's your boss.

Amen to that brother :smallwink:.

Lvl45DM!

2009-11-06, 08:04 PM

Rule of thumb. The person who talks loudest and speaks most is the one best to ignore.
Except when it's your boss.

:smallfrown: I speak loudest and the most...doesnt mean i have nothing to add

ok i concede defeat on the races of stone angle, id never heard of it before but if he is so open to talking to people how does he still get the plus one to hit them :smallconfused:

You know we have seen alot of characterisation for Durkon, its just rather subtle and he doesnt talk about it. He doesnt have Elans speech about moderate ability or haleys ideas of mistrust, belkars hippievisionquest V's jimminy raven, or Roys time in the after life
But we do get it.
How about not even telling his party off for leaving him behind? he accepts it, moves on the thought that it was their fault never even crossed his mind (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0073.html).
Again its not that he says "ah it not be thar fault!"
he just doesnt say anything relating to it, silence speaking louder than words

bobspldbckwrds

2009-11-06, 10:13 PM

just going to throw this out here, but every comedy needs the strait man. roy may have claimed to be it on at least one occasion, but lets be realistic, there is too much sarcasm there, too much pride and too many jokes are centered on roy for him to be the strait man.

oots is a comedy; yes it has had some serious moments, but i defy you to find me a strip without a joke. every comedy needs a strait man and durkon fits the bill quite nicely by being the (usually)mature adult.

Selene

2009-11-07, 10:42 AM

I'm not sure how TVTropes comes into this; neither I nor veti have cited it to my knowledge.

Ahem.

This is a common trait of low-level clerics. (See also: Cadderly.) The "acolyte that has never left the seminary and doesn't know the ways of the world" is almost common enough to be a trope.

(Emphasis added.) You didn't link to it, but you started talking tropes, nonetheless. Just saying.

Kaytara

2009-11-07, 10:53 AM

While not specifically talking about tropes, one of Optimystik's main arguments is that the personality we DO see of Durkon is exactly like that of any other dwarf of the same class and alignment. I was actually referring to how Durkon seems to be a lot less satisfactory as a character to the more "worldly" readers with DnD and gaming experience.

If he has the typical LG Dwarf Cleric personality, someone who hasn't encountered enough dwarves, clerics, dwarven clerics and Lawful Good dwarven clerics to become familiar with what is typical of them would never realise it.

Optimystik

2009-11-07, 10:58 PM

I never said I was fine with this, because I never stated it to be the case. And I don't believe it to be the case.

Specify why that is, then, so we can discuss it. Being "very good at what he does" comes with having a high level; it's not possible to become a high-leveled cleric without being competent at being a cleric (or having a very generous DM, anyway.) A "Durkon flavor" to his actions is awfully vague.

The druid was a great Durkon moment; I agree with you there. But it was also what, three hundred strips ago? Aren't we due for another one?

(Emphasis added.) You didn't link to it, but you started talking tropes, nonetheless. Just saying.

Ahem. That word has existed long before the wiki itself. Just saying.

Rule of thumb. The person who talks loudest and speaks most is the one best to ignore.
Except when it's your boss.

I guess we should ignore V then? :smalltongue:

If he has the typical LG Dwarf Cleric personality, someone who hasn't encountered enough dwarves, clerics, dwarven clerics and Lawful Good dwarven clerics to become familiar with what is typical of them would never realise it.

I agree completely; I'm willing to bet, however, that myself and the other posters who consider Durkon to be bland have come to that realization for just that reason.