Durkon's Prophecies

[Morphdruid]

If Malack turns Durkon into a vampire and then Durkon returns to the Dwarven Homeland and destroy's it. He will have fulfilled both the prophecy of Odin's high priest: bringing great doom when he returns home; and that of the Oracle of Sunken Vally: returning home posthumously.

But how likely is it that Rich would kill off Durkon?

[ti'esar]

But how likely is it that Rich would kill off Durkon?

Pretty darn likely, I'd say.

[sam79]

But how likely is it that Rich would kill Durkon like this, here and now, before giving him much chance to grow and shine, taking his life, freedom and honour, destoying and desecrating all he was?

Pretty darn likely, I'd say. :smallfrown:

[Winter]

Durkon needs character development. Turning a "very good" person with very strong principles, especially against vampires, into a vampire seems to be a pretty effective mean to drive it.
It's actually a classic of the vampire genre that opens a whole lot of things to happen.

Maybe Durkon dies now (for good and gets called back later), maybe he turns into a vampire, maybe he gets destroyed, maybe he finds redemption. In any case, I am pretty sure Durkon has opportunity to change.

[sam79]

Durkon needs character development. Turning a "very good" person with very strong principles, especially against vampires, into a vampire seems to be a pretty effective mean to drive it.
It's actually a classic of the vampire genre that opens a whole lot of things to happen.

Maybe Durkon dies now (for good and gets called back later), maybe he turns into a vampire, maybe he gets destroyed, maybe he finds redemption. In any case, I am pretty sure Durkon has opportunity to change.

I suppose it depends on how vampires are run in D+D, and in OOTS in particular. In a lot of vampire stories, becoming a vampire isn't character growth, because the character is dead. The vampire is a different character who looks the same as the old one, and perhaps has some of their memories, under the control of someone else. It is character development of a rather forced and non-consensual sort, in the same was as casting a permanent Dominate Person-type spell on Haley and have her not care about treasure would be.

But in response to the OP's point; this would indeed be a good way for Durkon to fulfil the two prophesies. The next question would be: would he be returning to the Dwarvern homelands as a member of the Order, or of the Linear Guild, or Team Evil, or as a lone avatar of doom? I suppose the answer depends on how much of the ‘real’ Durkon’s personality is left in the vamp Durkon, and how much control Malack (should he survive this arc, which I doubt) could exert on him.

[Winter]

I suppose it depends on how vampires are run in D+D, and in OOTS in particular.

We cannot know. D&D is very unspecific on what you are supposed to do with a character once the template is applied. Given that Rich tends to see those things from a general "What is an interesting story?" perspective, I think he's more going with the "World of Darkness" than with, uhh, let's say "Blade".


In a lot of vampire stories, becoming a vampire isn't character growth, because the character is dead.

There's an entire RPG world around the question "What happens if you become a Vampire". Some movies/books explore it, in others the vampire is just some evil thing that needs to get killed.

[Dr. Gamera]

We cannot know. D&D is very unspecific on what you are supposed to do with a character once the template is applied.

I hesitate to point out anything related to *l*gnm*nt, especially *lw*ys *v*l, but perhaps I can summarize by saying that D&D tradition is opposed to the idea of a lot of kind-hearted vampires running around.

But The Giant has also given what appears to me to be a strong clue as to how vampirism affects character in OOTS: "Bringing me back to life is just a complicated way of annihilating the person I am today."

[Winter]

I hesitate to point out anything related to *l*gnm*nt, especially *lw*ys *v*l, but perhaps I can summarize by saying that D&D tradition is opposed to the idea of a lot of kind-hearted vampires running around.

I think all Vampire Lore is either generally or very strictly against "Vampires being Nice". Either they get totally evil by the transformation or the get gradually evil and more and more de-humanized by the lifestyle that is forced upon them.

[VanaGalen]

I think all Vampire Lore is either generally or very strictly against "Vampires being Nice". Either they get totally evil by the transformation or the get gradually evil and more and more de-humanized by the lifestyle that is forced upon them.

They're perfectly allowed to be Nice, though it's likely they can't be Good. After all, Nice != Good.

Anyway, Durkon has to die pretty soon because of his prophecy from the Orcale. I think we can assume that he can't return to the Dwarven Homelands unless he dies first. The Order seems to be pretty close to finding (and probably destroying) Girard Gate, so they will soon move to Kraagor&Serini Gate. The Gate seems to be located far north, and so are Dwarven Homelands. So I guess Durkon has to get over with his death preferably before they start for the last Gate.

Returning as a vampire would be pretty neat. Otherwise the Order would just have to carry his body along, which is rather anticlimactic.
Also, (if he survives the current fight) keeping the prophecy of the Oracle in mind, the Order could try to convince him to leave before they start for the Gate, in attempt to save his life. Which would be even more anticlimactic, and Durkon's sense of duty wouldn't allow it anyway.

As to the other prophecy, it could also be fulfilled not by Durkon himself. After all, when the Order rushes to the last Gate, all sorts of villains might follow: Xykon, Redcloak, MitD, Linear Guild, Tarquin and IFFC. Any of those would bring death and destruction to the dwarves and Durkon would be indirectly responsible.

[Winter]

They're perfectly allowed to be Nice, though it's likely they can't be Good. After all, Nice != Good.

Of course.

[Raineh Daze]

But The Giant has also given what appears to me to be a strong clue as to how vampirism affects character in OOTS: "Bringing me back to life is just a complicated way of annihilating the person I am today."

I remember a lot of discussion on that, and how 200 years of being a vampire and having bonuses to your three mental stats is important to how you are as a person. Knocking off the end three and taking away something you've been used to for 200 years could be enough to destroy who you are.

There's not necessarily anything in there saying that it hits a reset button and/or that a vampire is a different person entirely. :smallannoyed:

[sam79]

There's not necessarily anything in there saying that it hits a reset button and/or that a vampire is a different person entirely. :smallannoyed:

Well, the vampire template turns you Evil straight away, right? Which is pretty close to reset for a Lawful Good Cleric with the Good domain.



Anyway, Durkon has to die pretty soon because of his prophecy from the Orcale.

There's no time limit on Durkon's prophesy, unlike Belkar's; he could survive the events of this story, on the condition that the party doesn't go back to Durkon's homeland during the quest. He could even live to a ripe old age and still fulfil the prophesy. Obviously, that's very unlikely.


There's an entire RPG world around the question "What happens if you become a Vampire". Some movies/books explore it, in others the vampire is just some evil thing that needs to get killed.

Safe to say that RPG isn't the one OOTS is based on. In my (relatively limited and not that recent) experience of D+D, vampires are very much in the "evil thing that needs killing" category. Obviously, that tells us only a little about what our author might decide to do in his story. But the whole reason why this section is dramatic (at least to me) is the fear that first Belkar and now Durkon may go over to the Dark Side (Darker side, in Belkar's case). If being a vampire means only having to wear a sunhat and make certain dietary adjustments...well, that seems a bit lame to me.

[Kish]

There was actually a 2ed Ravenloft supplement for making undead PCs.

[Shale]

Given that, as pointed out elsewhere, Durkon is supposed to bring "death and destruction" to the dwarven lands, and Nergal is the god of death and destruction, it'd be a fun twist on the expectations of the prophecy if Durkon gets vamped, converts to Nergalism, and when he returns to his homeland he just preaches for his new god, rather than actually killing anyone or destroying anything.

[Sir_Leorik]

There was actually a 2ed Ravenloft supplement for making undead PCs.

There's also a Vampire PC class in 4E, in Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow. Its a bit of a glass cannon, since Vampire PCs have only 2 healing surges at the start of an encounter, but they can get more by bloodying and killing enemies.

[sam79]

There was actually a 2ed Ravenloft supplement for making undead PCs.

Interesting. In my memory, Ravenloft = place where you need to roll up three back-up characters. Was the idea of the Undead PCs to have an Evil party, or did these rules allow (for example) NG vampires?


Given that, as pointed out elsewhere, Durkon is supposed to bring "death and destruction" to the dwarven lands, and Nergal is the god of death and destruction, it'd be a fun twist on the expectations of the prophecy if Durkon gets vamped, converts to Nergalism, and when he returns to his homeland he just preaches for his new god, rather than actually killing anyone or destroying anything.

LOVE this idea!

[hamishspence]

Interesting. In my memory, Ravenloft = place where you need to roll up three back-up characters.

I thought that was Dark Sun? Maybe it's both.

[sam79]

I thought that was Dark Sun? Maybe it's both.

Dark Sun was three back up characrers per session! :smallwink:

[Silverionmox]

Turning Durkon into a Vampire most likely won't make him evil immediately, if only because he would be under Malack's control - he's not making choices, so why would his alignment change? If Malack were to be killed, however, he's left to make his own choices. Even then it would depend on how he handles his affliction. If he became evil he would lose most of his priest class, and would be as good as dead plot-wise..

Being killed by a fireball from V or whatever other intervention will still happen is more likely IMO, after which the Order would high-tail it to the Dwarven lands to get him raised and prepare the last gate. There's not much you can do against a lich without a functional cleric/healer, anyway.

[hamishspence]

Turning Durkon into a Vampire most likely won't make him evil immediately, if only because he would be under Malack's control - he's not making choices, so why would his alignment change?

Thing is- some forms of magic change your alignment without you ever having made an "evil choice"

A Helm of opposite alignment for example.

Getting very unlucky on your Will save, when you're an afflicted lycanthrope, aware of it, and involuntarily change.

And- being transformed into certain types of undead.

Think of it as a personality rewrite, and a part of alignment determination, being personality, not just actions.

[Kish]

Interesting. In my memory, Ravenloft = place where you need to roll up three back-up characters. Was the idea of the Undead PCs to have an Evil party, or did these rules allow (for example) NG vampires?
Ravenloft strictly forbade evil PCs, and that rule didn't change for undead characters. Of course, undead characters were expected to have "get restored to the living" as an urgent priority.

[sam79]

Ravenloft strictly forbade evil PCs, and that rule didn't change for undead characters. Of course, undead characters were expected to have "get restored to the living" as an urgent priority.

That sounds pretty interesting. I guess this was a way that people could continue to play their favourite characters even though they'd been vamp'ed, wight'ed or whatever?


Thing is- some forms of magic change your alignment without you ever having made an "evil choice"

A Helm of opposite alignment for example.

Getting very unlucky on your Will save, when you're an afflicted lycanthrope, aware of it, and involuntarily change.

And- being transformed into certain types of undead.

Think of it as a personality rewrite, and a part of alignment determination, being personality, not just actions.

This was my understanding of D+D Vamperism, and why I don't think the argument that Durkon turning into a vampire is character development for him. He's not learning and developing and changing as a result of experience/contemplation; he's being re-wired by an Evil adversary.

[Winter]

This was my understanding of D+D Vamperism, and why I don't think the argument that Durkon turning into a vampire is character development for him. He's not learning and developing and changing as a result of experience/contemplation; he's being re-wired by an Evil adversary.

I guess the comic might not go as you expect.

D&D-vampirism isn't defined. It's up to any DM. I very much doubt Rich goes all the way to make Durkon to become friends with a vampire, then get turned (if he does ;)) by that "friend" and then simply lets this stay at
Durkon: "HOHOHO I am an Evil Vampire now! I'll suck you dry! MUHAHAHAH!"

[hamishspence]

And there have been D&D vampires that come out of the transformation with a hefty chunk of their morality still there. I think Jander Sunstar was one.

Nothing stopping Durkon coming out of it LN rather than LE, invoking the "unique or rare exceptions" clause of Always X alignment.

[Poppatomus]

Do Vampires in D&D even need to feed on blood to survive? Or is it just something they want to do, and benefit from doing?

[Winter]

And there have been D&D vampires that come out of the transformation with a hefty chunk of their morality still there. I think Jander Sunstar was one.

Nothing stopping Durkon coming out of it LN rather than LE, invoking the "unique or rare exceptions" clause of Always X alignment.

The point of turning any main character into a Vampire is to have him struggle with that condition. So whatever happens, Durkon will struggle with his new state (should he get it).
I can very much imagine him to "not start out as LE", but I can also see him as becoming LE and doing all kinds of bad things (and losing his cleric-levels at that) and fighting his way back from that (something we call "redemption").

Anyway, becoming a Vampire must be a major plot point or Rich would have gone for something else.
Also note that Durkon is the one character who had no character development so far. If he gets it, there's not much time left (two gates one of them is very probably nearing its end) for that to happen. I doubt we're reading a comic where everyone gets character development (from the Order over Team Evil and the MitD) but one of the main PCs is left out. Does that sound likely? No!

[hamishspence]

Do Vampires in D&D even need to feed on blood to survive? Or is it just something they want to do, and benefit from doing?

In Libris Mortis, they go immobilized eventually if they don't get it. And I think they go insane eventually if they don't use their energy drain, as well.

[Winter]

Do Vampires in D&D even need to feed on blood to survive? Or is it just something they want to do, and benefit from doing?

The SRD does not say anything about that. I guess it's up to any DM to decide this.

[sam79]

I guess the comic might not go as you expect.

That's pretty much a given!


D&D-vampirism isn't defined. It's up to any DM. I very much doubt Rich goes all the way to make Durkon to become friends with a vampire (if he does), then get turned by that "friend" and then simply lets this stay at
Durkon: "HOHOHO I am an Evil Vampire now! I'll suck you dry! MUHAHAHAH!"

But it is defined to the extent that applying the vampire template makes a character Evil, and presumably being Evil Undead will make Durkon's continued career as a cleric of Thor...difficult. The author is free of course to ignore these rules and restrictions; its his world and his story. But I think the audience could legitimately cry foul in that case, especially given that we've recently(ish) had Redcloak give Tsukiko a lesson on the nature of the undead in OOTS.

[Winter]

But it is defined to the extent that applying the vampire template makes a character Evil, and presumably being Evil Undead will make Durkon's continued career as a cleric of Thor...difficult.

Yes, that... "difficulty" is probably what it's going to be all about...

[sam79]

Yes, that... "difficulty" is probably what it's going to be all about...

I was actually using 'difficult' with the lesser-known meaning of "self-evidently impossible". :smallwink:

I guess I feel that the whole 'he's a vampire but he's good really' has been a bit over-done of late, in the same way as the CG-rebel Drow thing. Vampire Durkon is an elegant way of fulfilling prophesy, but it is more a character hijack than a development.

[Winter]

I was actually using 'difficult' with the lesser-known meaning of "self-evidently impossible". :smallwink:

Yes, I understood it. And I blatantly ignored your meaning (which was pretty clear from what you wrote before) because that would be a rather pointless plot for a Main Character.

You say that Durkon is getting evil and that is about it. The template leaves no choice at all: Evil. Period.

I say that Durkon is going to struggle with his condition (either to prevent becoming evil or to get back from being evil) and his relationship with Thor (to be understating a lot) is going to be a part of that.

[elros]

So far the Giant has shown that alignment is shaped by the overall scope of someone's decisions, and does not necessarily predict how someone will act in any given situation. For example, Tarquin is obviously evil but he loves Elan. That is demonstrated by him embracing slavery, killing innocents, and other horrible acts, but also by acts of kindness for his son. Tarquin also wants Elan to succeed, but only if that has dramatic effect which benefits him.

In a similar way, Haley does a lot of questionable things for a good character. She is selfish. She steals. She murdered Crystal in cold blood after Crystal helped her retrieve Roy. But overall she does not like to hurt innocent people.

The Giant summed up alignment beautifully in this strip. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) It's the decisions that the person makes that define alignment, not the other way around.

So will Durkon turn evil? It depends if vampires keep free will after they turn. If yes, Durkon will eventually become good because he wants to be. In story terms, I bet he finds a way resurrect himself if he does become a vampire, especially since the Giant made clear that was a possibility.

[hamishspence]

You say that Durkon is getting evil and that is about it. The template leaves no choice at all: Evil. Period.

I say that Durkon is going to struggle with his condition (either to prevent becoming evil or to get back from being evil) and his relationship with Thor (to be understating a lot) is going to be a part of that.

I tend to agree- not least because there's already D&D precedent.

[sam79]

So will Durkon turn evil? It depends if vampires keep free will after they turn. If yes, Durkon will eventually become good because he wants to be. In story terms, I bet he finds a way resurrect himself if he does become a vampire, especially since the Giant made clear that was a possibility.



You say that Durkon is getting evil and that is about it. The template leaves no choice at all: Evil. Period.

I say that Durkon is going to struggle with his condition (either to prevent becoming evil or to get back from being evil) and his relationship with Thor (to be understating a lot) is going to be a part of that.


I tend to agree- not least because there's already D&D precedent.

I say that the reason why I am scared for Durkon's fate in the current strip, and was similarly worried for Belkar a few days ago, is because I assume, (like Durkon does), that vamperism is abomination, in the sense that it destroys a person in an important way, and turns them into the thrall of someone else. That it is, in fact, a fate far worse than a simple and clean death. We could be wrong in this, of course, depending on the author's take on vamperism.

But the greater the degree of free will that a vamped Durkon could have, the less dramatic is the change in the first place. There is obviously a huge amount of space to play with between a) vampirism gives some alignment feedback in the same way a soul splice does (surely a too minimalist approach) and b) vampire=default Evil. The closer we are to b), the more dramatic the change, but the more it is a high-jacking rather than a development based on choice. And the closer we are to a), the more of Durkon's old character remains; but the dramatic nature of becoming Undead is likewise diminished. A hard balance to get right, I think, but I have confidence in our author.

[hamishspence]

There's also the issue of even if Durkula is mostly Durkon, he's now Malack's minion.

From Libris Mortis:

Usually, even creatures of free will come to resent being under the control of another, but this is not true of undead spawn. The act of their creation generates a bond of service and even affection for their creators. While this command can be briefly undermined through a cleric's turning or rebuking ability, undead always return to the service of their creators if possible.

Calling any portion of the bond between spawn and creator "affection" may be going too far, but spawn are definitely slavish in their attention to every detail of their creator's wishes. Spawn never hesitate to take any action commanded by their creators, even if that action leads to certain destruction.

[Feddlefew]

See, this is how I expected the reveal / moral event horizon to go- with Malack turning Durkon into a vampire against the later's wishes. Even if Malack decides to not bind Durkon to him (like that's going to happen), it's probably the most horrible thing that Malack could do on screen right now, even if Malack believes it is a benevolent act.

Of course, the mind rape-y "IF YOU WON'T BE FRIENDS WITH ME I WILL MAKE YOU LOVE ME" subtext that goes with it only makes things worse. I don't care how lonely you are, you can't force people to like you by mind-slaving them and not be evil.

Then I was expecting the orderly and efficient regime of destruction thing to come up, because Malack's going to need someone to help him run it...

[hamishspence]

See, this is how I expected the reveal / moral event horizon to go- with Malack turning Durkon into a vampire against the later's wishes. Even if Malack decides to not bind Durkon to him (like that's going to happen), it's probably the most horrible thing that Malack could do on screen right now, even if Malack believes it is a benevolent act.

Of course, the mind rape-y "IF YOU WON'T BE FRIENDS WITH ME I WILL MAKE YOU LOVE ME" subtext that goes with it only makes things worse. I don't care how lonely you are, you can't force people to like you by mind-slaving them and not be evil.

Libris Mortis does bring that up:

Some undead that retain corporeal bodies and can create spawn (most notably vampires) retain a strong tie to the associations of their life. As such, they may continue to nurture real affection for individuals still living. Tortured by the thought of losing contact with a friend or loved one, the undead may seek out that individual and, out of love, may attempt to turn its beloved into a spawn. If the attempt is successful, the loved one joins the ranks of the undead, but the bond between the two of the is now artificially enforced by the nature of the creation. The "loved one" now exists in a horrible position of compulsory affection.

[merget]

I doubt that Durkon will fulfill the prophecies by ravaging his homelands as a vampire, simply because it matches the obvious interpretations of both prophecies too well. I'm expecting more of a twist. And both prophecies can be interpreted in ways that make them mean almost the opposite of how they sound.

The Oracle said that Durkon would return home posthumously. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll be a corpse or vampire. He could return as a living, breathing dwarf, as long as he dies and gets resurrected before then. "Posthumous" means "after death"; it doesn't say that the individual stayed dead. Technically, everything Roy does these days is posthumous.

The other prophecy says, "When next he returns home, he will bring death and destruction for us all." If you read that right, it doesn't say who the death and destruction will be aimed at. Durkon could fulfill the prophecy by fighting Team Evil in the Dwarven Lands, bringing death to Redcloak and destruction to Xykon, with "for us all" referring to who benefits from that: "Durkon is risking his life for us all. He fights for us all. He brings death and destruction [to Team Evil] for us all."

Huh. Prophecy twists seem to work in your favor if the prophecy sounds depressing. Maybe it's the optimistic-sounding ones you've got to watch out for.

[TRH]

I dunno - the Death and Destruction thing still matches up way too neatly to Nergal's god portfolio to be a coincidence. The only way to not waste that connection is for Durkon to return home bringing the attention of Nergal with him - whether as prey or as Nergal's prophet remains to be seen.

[SaintRidley]

In a similar way, Haley does a lot of questionable things for a good character. She is selfish. She steals. She murdered Crystal in cold blood after Crystal helped her retrieve Roy. But overall she does not like to hurt innocent people.


You should buy Don't Split the Party. You might not question Haley killing Crystal so much after you do.

Crystal repeatedly tries to kill Haley during said retrieval of Roy.



I dunno - the Death and Destruction thing still matches up way too neatly to Nergal's god portfolio to be a coincidence. The only way to not waste that connection is for Durkon to return home bringing the attention of Nergal with him - whether as prey or as Nergal's prophet remains to be seen.

Perhaps Durkon will become a vampire and return to the Dwarven lands...

Only to peacefully spread the good news of Nergal.

[TRH]

Really? Then why did no one mention that in the comic proper? Seems at least halfway relevant.

[SaintRidley]

Really? Then why did no one mention that in the comic proper? Seems at least halfway relevant.


The strips didn't go online due to pacing. Also, nobody but Haley was present during the attempts, and Haley already chose to lie about how she got the dagger. Rich also forgot, when he chose not to put them online, that they had the rationale for Haley's action, which didn't sit well with him, as it would lead to people interpreting Haley's actions in an unfavorable way.

[Kish]

I honestly do not get the criticism of Haley killing Crystal even without Don't Split the Party.

I mean, maybe I'm more ruthless than most people, but it's honestly not like Crystal has the tiniest, most remote indication of a redeeming feature in the online comic. That it doesn't spell out that, in fact, during the raid to retrieve Roy she was a thoroughgoing albatross hung around Haley's neck and tried her level best to be a lethal one might be a reason not to yell "YAY, HALEY!" quite as loudly when Haley knifes her but I don't understand why it would be more of a reason to yell, "COLD-BLOODED MURDER!" instead than Haley's using lethal force against any of the hobgoblins she could have avoided killing.

[Feddlefew]

How many round do you think it'll take Durkon to wake up?

[Magnera]

If Malack turns Durkon into a vampire and then Durkon returns to the Dwarven Homeland and destroy's it. He will have fulfilled both the prophecy of Odin's high priest: bringing great doom when he returns home; and that of the Oracle of Sunken Vally: returning home posthumously.

But how likely is it that Rich would kill off Durkon?

I guess we know now...:smallfrown:

[SaintRidley]

How many round do you think it'll take Durkon to wake up?

It may be done next round, it may be done by the SRD and the Order would bury Durkon at the pyramid.

Hard to say.

[Sir_Leorik]

How many round do you think it'll take Durkon to wake up?

Here's what the rules say:


Create Spawn (Su)
A humanoid or monstrous humanoid slain by a vampire’s energy drain rises as a vampire spawn 1d4 days after burial.

If the vampire instead drains the victim’s Constitution to 0 or lower, the victim returns as a spawn if it had 4 or less HD and as a vampire if it had 5 or more HD. In either case, the new vampire or spawn is under the command of the vampire that created it and remains enslaved until its master’s destruction. At any given time a vampire may have enslaved spawn totaling no more than twice its own Hit Dice; any spawn it creates that would exceed this limit are created as free-willed vampires or vampire spawn. A vampire that is enslaved may create and enslave spawn of its own, so a master vampire can control a number of lesser vampires in this fashion. A vampire may voluntarily free an enslaved spawn in order to enslave a new spawn, but once freed, a vampire or vampire spawn cannot be enslaved again.

There's no guarantee that the Giant will stick to the letter of the rules on this one. The Oracle's prophecy is ambiguous on this point; it could refer to Durkon's remains being brought back to Dwarven lands, or it could refer to Vampire Durkon coming home on his own. It might depend on whether Malack is driven off by the Order or whether he gets to escape with Durkon's body.

[Porthos]

Malack has already shown he can research spells.

Hasten Undeath, perhaps?