Durkon's death within (D&D) context

[Zerter]

Durkon wanted to die and did. Evidence for this is in what he said and in what he did, consider:

He went after Belkar alone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html). This is what players do when they don't like their character anymore. This is relevant because all OoTS characters are genre-savvy to some extent.

The DM offered him a easy way out (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html). He had to activally seek out his death. This is DM code for 'don' take this encounter that will kill you'. Relevant.

Durkon shows on the one hand he fully knows the vampiric powers of Malack, but yet shows ineffective tactics or grasp of strategy. This is evident in him using heal before it would finish Malack off (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0873.html), in Durkon going for a physical encounter with a high level vampire, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html) but especially:

Durkon admits he knew he could never have truly harmed Malack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0876.html), but apparantly decided to risk his own life and that of Belkar (and by extent that of the universe) even though the best case scenario would have been a draw. There was no potential reward in the fight for him whatsoever. At least not on the material plane. Yet now he is a vampire and his soul will likely travel to a sweet afterlife.

Durkon got what he wanted, but if judged properly that afterlife will be Lawful Neutral.

[Cizak]

Oots is not a DnD campaign.

And no, Durkon did not want to die.

[Tingel]

There are no players behind the characters, thus your reasoning is unsound. There is no gamemaster either.

How do you figure that Durkon's last actions were non-good? He risked his own life trying to defeat a monster, was unwilling to compromise his ideals, and worried about the well-being of his friends and pleaded for their lives instead of his own. I say if his death deserves any alignment qualifier it is without a doubt Lawful Good.

[Winter]

I think Durkon was ready to give his life for the right cause. Fighting a Vampire and defending one of the group (even if it is Belkar) is a good cause.

What he did not expect is that he might come back just as what he died for to fight. :smallbiggrin:

[DoctorWhooves]

I feel like some people have never heard of the concept of alternative interpretations of literature.

[Chantelune]

Mmmh, even going by you're idea of this being a d&d game, I disagree with you.

Durkon went alone : well, Roy was busy giving Haley a lift while she's busy disarming really dangerous traps. V is missing. Elan ? Too random in usefulness. And Durkon is a cleric, a class that's among the best alone (healing, access to heavy armor, decent attack modifiers, offensives and defensives spells). Plus, the LG just retreated, it was not unreasonable to think that he wouldn't met anything more dangerous than a few random encounter and given that Girard seemed to rely more on illusion than anything else...

An easy way out : That GM would clearly not understand Durkon's character if that was his "easy way out". A LG cleric dwarf that stated his hatred for undead and his loyalty to the party, even its less likeable members ? You don't put a vampire eating one of his party member in front of him if you want him to retreat thinking "this is too much for me". I was dissatisfied with Durkon not even contemplating any compromise, but it was completely in character for him. A good GM would have expect no less from this situation.

Lack of strategy : Durkon shows his best strategic side on this battle. He managed to lure Malack in for a heal, managed to get him to rant so he would find him and he was under MDW with no way to know that it could be dispelled with a simple word. He made a few mistakes, yes, but asking Malack to surrender was again in character. If there wasn't the backdoor to bypass MDW, even being grappled by Malack wouldn't be such an issue, Malack himself stated that the clock was ticking in Durkon's favor, preventing him to just wait for MDW to fade off. Without the bypass, an ally would probably came in and saved Durkon before MDW fades.

He knew he couldn't really hurt Malack : Irrelevant, as Durkon is a LG cleric who wouldn't abandon a party member. His objective here was to save Belkar. He probably wanted to stall until V or someone else find him. He could have fled, yes, but that meant leaving Belkar behind and Durkon would never do such a thing. Being able to hurt Malack at this point probably never accounted in his decision. Plus, he was confident in MDW with every reason to do so as Malack already failed to dispel it with his spells.

So no, Durkon had no reason to think that he would die before any of his allies to show up and if there was a GM trying to tell him "don't fight or you die", he did a poor job at this. :smalltongue:

[Zerter]

Oots is not a DnD campaign.

And no, Durkon did not want to die.

And nowhere does it say it is. What is true however is that within OoTS Durkon was a PC. What is also true is that the PCs in OoTS are aware of the rules of their universe. Thus it is also true that if it was incredibly evident to any player what the results of his actions would be, it was evident to him.

And if you disagree, the strongest evidence comes outside of the context of D&D. Durkon clearly states he knew he could not truly hurt Malack, meaning there is no potential upside in the fight. Yet he chose to challenge him anyway, likely resulting in his death.

Meaning that yes, Durkon wanted to die.


Without the bypass, an ally would probably came in and saved Durkon before MDW fades.

Hold Person would have lasted a minute at best. The bypass was to help develop Malack as a character, Durkon was doomed either way.



He knew he couldn't really hurt Malack : Irrelevant, as Durkon is a LG cleric who wouldn't abandon a party member. His objective here was to save Belkar.

I would read the comic again. Malack was perfectly happy to let Durkon leave with Belkar. Meaning that if his objective was to save Belkar as you say it was he went the other way, meaning that following your logic, Durkon went against his alignment.

[Nephrahim]

Durkon died fighting an Evil vampire. He could not leave him alone, since as he stated, he's a danger to the entire continent. He tried to fight him, as best he could, but in the end he lost. His attempt to force him to his Coffin was a sound strategy, since it would have meant he would have been out of the fight for a while which would have left the Linear guild without their divine spellcaster.

It's been established that people are not judged in afterlife for how effective or smart they are at trying to kill evil, that they were trying is what counts. Durkon has not performed a single evil act, and the worst that could be said about him is he was unwilling to negotiate with a Vampire (Which I doubt a Diva will care about) and that he tried to fight a hopeless battle. He didn't seek out his death any more then Roy did back when he was killed.

Oh, and like said, it's not a D&D campeign. There's no DM.

[Zerter]

He didn't seek out his death any more then Roy did back when he was killed.

Actually, if you re-read the comic you'll notice that Xykon gave Roy a number of opportunities to withdraw. Meaning that the universe send him a signal like it did Durkon, in accordance with their status as PCs. I would not argue that Roy commited suicide since the context was different, but thanks for pointing out the two are in fact similiar.

[Boogastreehouse]

I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

Durkon shows on the one hand he fully knows the vampiric powers of Malack, but yet shows ineffective tactics or grasp of strategy.

Allow me to quote a being of pure Law and Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html): "True, he could have gone about it more efficiently, But we don't penalize people for ineffectiveness. He was doing what he thought was best, to the limit of his abilities—including his ability to judge what was best."


I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

[Nephrahim]

Actually, if you re-read the comic you'll notice that Xykon gave Roy a number of opportunities to withdraw. Meaning that the universe send him a signal like it did Durkon, in accordance with their status as PCs. I would not argue that Roy commited suicide since the context was different, but thanks for pointing out the two are in fact similiar.

That's my point. They're the exact same situation, and we know that Roy was judged to be Lawful good, so I don't see how this would be any different.

[Zerter]

Allow me to quote a being of pure Law and Good: "True, he could have gone about it more efficiently, But we don't penalize people for ineffectiveness. He was doing what he thought was best, to the limit of his abilities—including his ability to judge what was best."

Exactly, thanks for pointing to another comic that argues the point for me. Durkon will go to a Lawful Good afterlife because he played his cards right. He died a heroic death. He knew that would be the result of his otherwise useless suicide.

[hamishspence]

That's the thing- "Durkon used ineffective tactics" is not the same thing as "Durkon committed suicide"

[Chantelune]

Actually, if you re-read the comic you'll notice that Xykon gave Roy a number of opportunities to withdraw. Meaning that the universe send him a signal like it did Durkon, in accordance with their status as PCs. I would not argue that Roy commited suicide since the context was different, but thanks for pointing out the two are in fact similiar.

Roy and Durkon are very much alike, yes. Espacially in the fact that they don't retreat when lives are at stakes. Roy explained it quite clearly when Xykon offered him a chance to retreat : he couldn't bear the thought of letting Xykon kill countless innocent people just so he would save his own life.

Both he and Durkon were ready to make the sacrifice. doesn't mean they wanted to die. And Durkon had better chances than Roy. Without the backdoor, that fight might have ended better for Durkon.

[Zerter]

Both he and Durkon were ready to make the sacrifice. doesn't mean they wanted to die. And Durkon had better chances than Roy. Without the backdoor, that fight might have ended better for Durkon.

Well, no. Without the backdoor Malack could have waited less than a minute for Belkar to come and finish Durkon off. But even following your logic, suppose he would have defeated Malack (which he could have done if he had gone about it smarter), what then? Malack would still be active, unharmed and as much a threat to him as before the fight. Tell me, what lives were at stake exactly except those put at stake by Durkon?

[Boogastreehouse]

I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

Durkon got what he wanted, but if judged properly that afterlife will be Lawful Neutral.


Exactly, thanks for pointing to another comic that argues the point for me. Durkon will go to a Lawful Good afterlife because he played his cards right. He died a heroic death. He knew that would be the result of his otherwise useless suicide.

...um...


I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

[Nephrahim]

Well, no. Without the backdoor Malack could have waited less than a minute for Belkar to come and finish Durkon off. But even following your logic, suppose he would have defeated Malack (which he could have done if he had gone about it smarter), what then? Malack would still be active, unharmed and as much a threat to him as before the fight. Tell me, what lives were at stake exactly except those put at stake by Durkon?

The lives of the party which would have to fight Malack anyway? He couldn't run at that point, since he would be abandoning Belkar. If he could have even escaped by running, which is doubtful.

[Boogastreehouse]

I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

Well, no. Without the backdoor Malack could have waited less than a minute for Belkar to come and finish Durkon off. But even following your logic, suppose he would have defeated Malack (which he could have done if he had gone about it smarter), what then? Malack would still be active, unharmed and as much a threat to him as before the fight. Tell me, what lives were at stake exactly except those put at stake by Durkon?

If Durkon could drive off Malack, he would prevent him from turning Belkar into a vampire. Durkon risked his life to try and keep his team mate alive and to prevent the Linear Guild from gaining another member.


ninja'd...
I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

[Chantelune]

Well, no. Without the backdoor Malack could have waited less than a minute for Belkar to come and finish Durkon off. But even following your logic, suppose he would have defeated Malack (which he could have done if he had gone about it smarter), what then? Malack would still be active, unharmed and as much a threat to him as before the fight. Tell me, what lives were at stake exactly except those put at stake by Durkon?

A lot of things might have happened in a minute, starting by Roy coming to see what happened with Durkon and Belkar or V stumbling there. Malack knew he had no time to waste, or why would he not just do that and wait for Belkar to move again ?

As for the stake : Belkar's live. (Plus every life that Malack planned to sacrifice when he rises to power. But Durkon didn't know that at first.) Durkon is just that kind of guy : he won't walk away in the face of evil. Sure, he failed, but the point is given D's character, there where no way for him to accept retreat. He was still confident in him having a winning chance given he asked Malack "What now, I can't hurt you and I'm still under MDW" when grappled. Not something you say when you think you're doomed.

[deworde]

Exactly, thanks for pointing to another comic that argues the point for me. Durkon will go to a Lawful Good afterlife because he played his cards right. He died a heroic death. He knew that would be the result of his otherwise useless suicide.

We are now down the rabbit latrine of "If you know there's a heaven, all good actions become selfish."
According to Durkon's Dwarven value system, retreat would have been a dishonourable and irresponsible act. He'd have left a dangerous monster to roam free in order to save the lives of warriors, for whom death in battle is not something to be feared. And his last act was to try and protect his friends.
At the end of the day, he died fulfilling his duty, just like a dwarf. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0444.html)
That doesn't make it Neutral, it just makes it less effective. Being good doesn't mean you have to be perfect. His death wasn't selfish, even if by tactical standards, it was foolish.

[Rui]

Remember that when Durkon entered melee he though his mass death ward will give him the victory over a vampire focused on death spells with no weapons at all. Seems like an easy battle.

[Nephrahim]

And forcing Malack to his coffin is not nothing. IT would take him out of the battle for at least an hour, possibly more, and in fact could kill him if his coffin is far enough away (Unlikely, but possible)

[SowZ]

I will say right now that if Durkon deserves/receives a Lawful Neutral afterlife, I will eat my copy of OTOOPCs.

[Cizak]

And if you disagree, the strongest evidence comes outside of the context of D&D. Durkon clearly states he knew he could not truly hurt Malack, meaning there is no potential upside in the fight. Yet he chose to challenge him anyway, likely resulting in his death.

Meaning that yes, Durkon wanted to die.

Um... no. What Durkon clearly states is that he can still aim to send Malack back to his coffin. That's the upside of the fight, since it would've sent Malack away from the pyramid. He thought he had a fool-proof shield against Malack's most dangerous abilities, and if you look closely you'll notice Malack takes damage from Durkon's hammer, meaning Durkon actually stood a small chance. As others have pointed out, just because you don't use the best tactics possible doesn't mean you long for death.

[Zerter]

Okay, I'm at school now and I don't have time to reply to everyone individually until later. I do see a recurring argument for fighting Malack which is that Belkar's life was at stake. This is simply not true (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html).

[The Giant]

What I love is the insistence that there must be a player behind Durkon's actions, but the complete inability to imagine that player as anything but an emotionally vacant strategy machine whose sole consideration must be maximum efficiency.

It's not a game, it's a story. But even if it were a game, not everyone plays it that way.

EDIT: In case I need to be really clear: No, of course Durkon did not want to die.

[Morph Bark]

Even if there were players behind the character (there aren't), the player could still be going with what they feel their character would do, not just have "I don't like him anymore, let's have him die" attitude. Some players might, not all, and from what we've seen of Durkon so far, I doubt that - if he had a player - that his player would have such an attitude about this.

[theinsulabot]

Durkon was being selfish and morally bankrupt when he quite literally gave his life and quite possibly imperiled his very soul* trying to protect a team mate from a fate worse then death.

Congratulations, you just single handedly won the award for the absolutely worst character analysis...and understanding...I have ever read during my long time here on these boards.

*I don't know if the evil one does as a vampire effects the fate of one's soul or if vamp durkon represents a new creature and durkon will go to the afterlife he deserves after dying in battle.

[Edhelras]

What I love is the insistence that there must be a player behind Durkon's actions, but the complete inability to imagine that player as anything but an emotionally vacant strategy machine whose sole consideration must be maximum efficiency.

It's not a game, it's a story. But even if it were a game, not everyone plays it that way.

EDIT: In case I need to be really clear: No, of course Durkon did not want to die.

Thank you! Rich. As for me, I do indeed feel that there's a player behind Durkon, and I can really sympathesize with that player as well - and I thought he played it brilliantly. DnD is a role-playing game and Durkon's player played him perfectly in-character, according to how he has chosen to play the Durkon character previously.

Durkon's player was the one of the 5 players who really should understand that "someone has to go look for Belkar, even though he's an annoying brat", because Durkon has been the one to fight prejudice and accept people as who they are (as long as they're not tree-huggers...) throughout the campaign. As a LG character, opportunities for self-sacrifice should be what Durkon's player was actively looking for, even though that's mostly the "self-" part of it ("someone's gotta do it, and that someone is me") rather than the "sacrifice" part of it - only a emo-psycho-style player would actively seek the destruction of his character.

There is no way a LG priest of a good deity can simply walk away from or even negotiate with a creature of pure evil, a vampire no less. It's not only Durkon who hates them undead so much - that's what priests in DnD do. That's why they're there, and that's why their gods fuel them with their divine energy, to be their champions against Evil and the undead. Had Durkon done anything but try to defeat or at least contain Malack, that would actually have been a threat to his LG alignment. And even though alignment shouldn't be a straight-jacket, almost everything about Durkon in this campaign has been about adhering to the alignment he picked at character creation.

That's why I so sympasize with Durkon's player: I think he loves his character, and he's so into Durkon, that during the last few comics, he has realized the inevitable: the only way he could stay true to the character he so loves, is to lead Durkon down that path to heroic death - or actually worse: To horrible, enslaved undeath.

But it shows roleplay of high class, that instead of just minmaxing and optimizing out of it, breaking entirely the character he has spent 877 comics to develop, he just had to stick with it and accept the fate.
The emotions Durkon's player has now: The loss, the despair - that's what really makes it worthwhile to play DnD, that's why DnD may sometimes be "more real than life", and may provide gamers with a way to experience the highs and lows of life without actually going through them physically. And for Durkon's player, I bet that extreme sensation of tragedy is also mixed with a great sense of pride and contentment: He stayed true to his character to the end. Even the other players will probably watch in awe: The death of Durkon will be one of their most memorable moments while playing DnD, and will inspire them to even better role-play in the future.

DnD is about telling a compelling story together (at least to me - and according to the guys who wrote the rule books in the first place).

[Man on Fire]

What I love is the insistence that there must be a player behind Durkon's actions, but the complete inability to imagine that player as anything but an emotionally vacant strategy machine whose sole consideration must be maximum efficiency.

It's not a game, it's a story. But even if it were a game, not everyone plays it that way.

EDIT: In case I need to be really clear: No, of course Durkon did not want to die.

With all due respect, I think there is nothing wrong with beliving there are players. It gives completely new perspective to many things. Like in this case. Because, while I disagree that Durkon not acting like cold, logical killing machine, shows his player wanted him to die, I think that idea of said player wanting to retire the character and setting up opportunity for him to die heroic death with DM, and maybe Belkar's player, is pretty interesting concept.

[oppyu]

Durkon was being selfish and morally bankrupt when he quite literally gave his life and quite possibly imperiled his very soul* trying to protect a team mate from a fate worse then death.

Congratulations, you just single handedly won the award for the absolutely worst character analysis...and understanding...I have ever read during my long time here on these boards.

*I don't know if the evil one does as a vampire effects the fate of one's soul or if vamp durkon represents a new creature and durkon will go to the afterlife he deserves after dying in battle.
Considering how many people have argued that Belkar is Chaotic Neutral, or Tarquin is Neutral, or Malack is Lawful Neutral (sensing a theme here), that is incredibly stinging criticism.


Okay, I'm at school now and I don't have time to reply to everyone individually until later. I do see a recurring argument for fighting Malack which is that Belkar's life was at stake. This is simply not true (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html).
Roleplaying trumps tactics. Even if there was a player behind Durkon (which Word of Giant disproves, but anyway), said player would have realised that their character would never accept the compromises that Malack offered, that all basically equated to 'sit back and do nothing while Tarquin and Nale try to achieve unlimited power'. Durkon is the epitome of what little Level 1 Lawful Good PCs strive to be; a fearless crusader for Good who would fight against impossible odds without a second thought.

[Edhelras]

With all due respect, I think there is nothing wrong with beliving there are players. It gives completely new perspective to many things. Like in this case. Because, while I disagree that Durkon not acting like cold, logical killing machine, shows his player wanted him to die, I think that idea of said player wanting to retire the character and setting up opportunity for him to die heroic death with DM, and maybe Belkar's player, is pretty interesting concept.

Maybe, only that actually Durkon's player doesn't necessarily have to retire his character because of this development. Unless the corpse is destroyed, and provided that Malack or Durkon's unknowing allies put it in a coffin, Durkon will rise as a vampire in 1d4 days. That character will be enslaved to Malack, but won't necessarily be a NPC under the DM's control. Of course he might, and that could be a way for the player (who was moving to another town, for instance) to hand over a long-time character to the DM to use at his discretion.

But as a free-willed (although enslaved to Malack) character, Durkon might still be a PC, and an exciting one to play at that. After all, it's not all that uncommon that PCs are dominated or controlled by evil NPCs, one way or the other. For some players, that's not "losing" their character - it's just another exciting challenge to their role playing skills: How to credibly play a character that's supposed to be under someone else's control, and an Evil creature at that?

Furthermore, if Durkon's player really wants to keep and develop his character, he's in for an exciting period, where a lot of sub-plots will be about the other character trying to destroy and then resurrect him, freeing him from the curse of undeath, whereas Durkon's player has to actively resist their efforts (I think? I don't think a vampiric character ought to actively seek his own destruction and resurrection - that's one of the aspects of being a slave and having an Evil alignment forced upon you, besides the thirst for blood that clouds your thoughts).

As a middle road - perhaps Durkon's player just had a baby or something, and won't be able to participate regularly in the future, but still likes to join the game from time to time. Then an ideal solution is to have him turn into a semi-NPC, which he can co-control with the DM as time allows.

[theinsulabot]

Considering how many people have argued that Belkar is Chaotic Neutral, or Tarquin is Neutral, or Malack is Lawful Neutral (sensing a theme here), that is incredibly stinging criticism

In the words of Tarquin: yes, I know.

Hell, I have also been here long enough to see arguments that Roy proved himself chaotic evil and miko was chaotic evil during the azure city arc, and seen repeated claims, dispite WoG to the contrary, people say that Belkar is not just chaotic nuetral, but chaotic good.

And yet, I stand by the point.

[Edhelras]

Roleplaying trumps tactics. Even if there was a player behind Durkon (which Word of Giant disproves, but anyway)....

If this is based solely on this quote by the Giant:

What I love is the insistence that there must be a player behind Durkon's actions, but the complete inability to imagine that player as anything but an emotionally vacant strategy machine whose sole consideration must be maximum efficiency.

It's not a game, it's a story. But even if it were a game, not everyone plays it that way.

EDIT: In case I need to be really clear: No, of course Durkon did not want to die.

...then I'm not sure I agree on the interpretation. In the first paragraph, Rich comments on the coupling of 1) there must be a player and 2) that player must be a minmaxing dude whose sole motivation is to see his character "win the game", beat everybody else, triumph. Of course, if there WAS a player behind Durkon, it would be just as likely that this player was motivated by other factors, like storytelling, character development, and such things that I commented on above.
Even more: As a guy of 43 myself, I get a feeling that a Durkon-kind of PC might be played by a somewhat older and "mature" player, both because he feels old and inflexible, he looks somewhat old with that beard and all (actually, he's the OOTS member who looks the most like Rich's avatar...), and he's never showed any great interest in Hack&Slash or optimizing his character. He's been more anxious to do "stupid" things just to stay in character.
Early on, this was kinda commented on in the comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html
A minmax optimizer wouldn't be the type to "forget" about any bonus to attack and damage rolls, like Durkon's player did here.

Of course, like Rich says in the second paragraph: This is a story, not a game. But even if it was a game - and to me it is! - Durkon's player is staying in character not only with Durkon, but even with himself!

[theinsulabot]

Well, for the record, you should know you the giant has on other occasions made the point that this is not a game, and their are no players. He even referenced that obliquely in comic at one point with belkar's dream sequence.

There are no charachter behind the PCs, there is no table the game is being played from.

I suppose it doesn't actually hurt anyone to imagine the players though.

[Kish]

If this is based solely on this quote by the Giant:
It's not. He's said there are no players before.

Which isn't to say there's a problem with imagining it's a game and there are players, unless it leads you to speculating about the reasons "so-and-so's player" have for doing something rather than the reason so-and-so is doing it. Or to make the tautology overt, there's no harm in imagining something which isn't accurate unless there is harm.

(This was most noticeable when Miko was around, when many posters were screaming about how her player was clearly the DM's girlfriend or Roy's player's girlfriend. But it still shows up fairly regularly...like in this thread, with this business about a DM occluding Malack's motivations for making the offers he did, and what those offers were.)

[The Giant]

99.9% of the time that people around here posit the existence of players, it's in the service of criticizing me, as if I'm a cheating DM. They can imagine whatever they want, but they shouldn't then use those imaginings as a foundation to tell me I'm wrong to have written this, that, or the other, because I don't operate under that theory. Likewise, if that theory leads someone like the OP to take an obviously emotional scene and rob it of all impact, I suggest that they have missed the point of the story...and also possibly the point of stories.

[Edhelras]

Well, for the record, you should know you the giant has on other occasions made the point that this is not a game, and their are no players. He even referenced that obliquely in comic at one point with belkar's dream sequence.

There are no charachter behind the PCs, there is no table the game is being played from.

I suppose it doesn't actually hurt anyone to imagine the players though.

OK. I didn't know, or rather: I didn't know that Rich has made such a point to such an effect. I remember this comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html
but I'm not entirely sure what to make of it.
What I hear the most is that Rich has told us this game isn't played by minmaxers and optimizers. But for me - the Belkar dream sequence and character growth could be interpreted really as the DM or some other friendly figure having a serious talk with Belkar's player: Why do you come to these sessions, really? Just to create a nuisance, or do you really want to be part of that game that everybody else present are engaged in? Do you want to play your character so one-dimensional, and destructively at that? Or are there ways that you can play Belkar that are fun for you, and at the same time shows that you're in the same game as the other players, and contributes to telling a story that's funny and goes forward?

Of course I realize that there aren't actually any real players behind the OOTS. I mean, of course. But what I do think is that the PCs are being "played" very differently, and consistently, and that they demonstrate different styles of play that can be found around the game table.
Actually, for lack of fellow players, I sometimes have tried "playing" games with myself as the DM and the entire party. It's not that funny, but it can be somewhat entertaining. It requires, or allows, you to take the role not only of different characters, but of different players. For instance, in a long adventure I played "with myself", I tried to play one character as if I was a storytelling player, one other as if I was a brilliant planner, one other as if I was a heroic munchkin, etc. I get the feeling that Rich is doing the same thing - on a highly proficient and artistic level.

Even though there aren't any real players behind the OOTS, these PCs are surely being "played" as if they were played by very different players. Their motivations, their degree of participation in the story, their focus on character development - all this differs between the characters, and differs rather consistently throughout the story. For instance, it's no surprise to me that Haley was the character to 1) fall in love with another PC, 2) be secretly in love for a long period of time, 3) develop this absurd speech "condition" (which surely must've been frustrating for her fellow players, and must've got her a lot of attention on her particular character), 4) turned out to have a family member in need of help (although, I realize most of the PCs shared that one), 5) got a hair-cut.

I know there aren't any players. But if there had been - the OOTS might have been just as it is. The mastery of Rich isn't simply that he tells a compelling story on his own - it's also that he depicts his character in such a way that he showcases different styles of playing DnD. Since OOTS is a comic that heavily relates to DnD, that's only appropriate to me.

[Edhelras]

99.9% of the time that people around here posit the existence of players, it's in the service of criticizing me, as if I'm a cheating DM. They can imagine whatever they want, but they shouldn't then use those imaginings as a foundation to tell me I'm wrong to have written this, that, or the other, because I don't operate under that theory. Likewise, if that theory leads someone like the OP to take an obviously emotional scene and rob it of all impact, I suggest that they have missed the point of the story...and also possibly the point of stories.

All right, so for the record: When I allow my fantasy to envision players behind the OOTS PCs, that's in admiration of the storytelling, not as a criticism! And it's my way to pay tribute to that essential aspect of DnD, which is that the DM and the players are there to tell a story together - heroic, tragic, dramatic, emotional - what ever is the compound product of DMs and players and their combined fantasies.
It may not be the main point of the OOTS comic, but to me it's a great added bonus from it - that I can also make parallels in my mind to how these comics might have played out on the gaming table. And they serve as inspirations for good role play (and even good roll play, at times!) for me as a DnD lover.

[Shale]

Oots is not a DnD campaign.

And no, Durkon did not want to die.

OOTS is not a DnD campaign, but that doesn't mean Durkon didn't want to die. He considered it his duty to keep fighting evil as long as he could, but as far as what he wanted? The only thing he's ever said he wanted, other than an enormous mug of good beer, is to go back home. And he knew that the only way he would get to go home was dead.

[Winter]

This comes up a lot. It is not the people who claim "there are players behind the characters" that often misunderstand what is going on. OotS does not have players behind it, but it would work the same with players if you have story-oriented players and a DM who prefers story over rules.

When things run out of scope here is when posters postulate players that should/need play as effective as possible and see D&D not as story-driven but as purely tactical war game.

They do not seem to put focus on playing a role in a Role Playing Game, but see it more as Tactical Game.

I have the impression they do not do it to support some position, but because they genuinely see RPGs merely as "Use the Rules to Win"-game and have no interest in emotional stories, playing an actual character and a style where the rules can, in dramatic scenes, go to hell. They are genuinely and honestly not getting why the characters in OotS behave as "ineffective" like they do, it simply does not fit into their conception how RPGs should work - and therefore, they come here and complain to point out the characters act "wrong" or "get cheated by the DM".

I so far have never found a controversy on this forum where someone merely said "I imagine players behind the characters". It only (and always!) is "Why do the players use their characters so horribly ineffective in this situation???" that causes these discussions.

Why I find puzzling: How can someone read 870+ strips here and still think this was a mechanical, tactical, rule-based fight-simulation?

[Edhelras]

...

Winter, I actually wanted to quote your signature, with the names of characters from Game of Thrones (NB! Possible SPOILERS below!). I really love that series - even though it's a bit too bloody for my taste (and my wife's) - sometimes unecessarily brutal. Actually, one of my favorites is the old BBC series "I Claudius", which managed to tell a compelling story without resorting to large buckets of false blood and such.
But anyway - what's really great with Game of Thrones - besides the really interesting intrigue/story - is the characters. They are so personalized, so believeable, so real - it's been long since I saw a fantasy movie or comic with such interesting characters.
Take Stannis Baratheon - during Season 2 a possible King and a leader of thousands - he ought to have something heroic, right? But rather he's quite a boring and bland character. A leader by birth and by military rank and experience, not by charisma. Just like Ned Stark described him, I think.
Stannis's second in command is also a jewel: He's nothing if not loyal, loyal towards Stannis, because Stannis is his liege, no matter what choices Stannis makes, or what personality he shows. He can be frustrated by his lord's actions, and then that frustration doesn't only lead him to "follow his own path", for that character is based on loyalty, even when it hurts, even when it's difficult (which is, really, when loyalty comes into question).

The same goes for all the Game of Thrones characters (or, most of them at least) - they are played consistently, varied, believable. Quite a few of them are played contrary to the easy cliches, many of them have sides to their character that may be useful in some situations, but carry penalties in others - and they pay that penalty.

I think this is what good role play is about - not just adapting to whatever situation your character encounters, in order to make the best of it, but developing some kind of character, and sticking to it in good times and bad.
This is too what OOTS does so brilliantly IMO. And the reason why I keep insisting (as I realize) on the "player behind the characters" concept is that Rich either intentionally (probably not) or unintentionally highlights how characters may be played, by different players.

I have to say: This is too what makes so many other fantasy novels deeply boring. All to often, you get the feeling that even the story itself is good, the plot is interesting, the combat scenes thrilling, the locations mysterious and intrigueing - but the characters are all described or "played" as if the one and same player was behind them. They all show the basic type of motivations, of humour, they're all "on the same team", even though they're supposed to be individuals and independent of each other. Usually, they have some kind of "happy-go-lucky" self confidence, since they all seem to know that the author (the "DM") is on their side, is actually playing them as well, and it's just a matter of getting through the motions and they will triumph against whatever plot they're defeating this time.

So, I don't think one should simply expect such good storytelling just from any fantasy author. On the contrary - more often than not, the development of separate, unique, different and believeable characters each with his own motivation is what "kills" otherwise interesting fantasy novels.
And this is what makes OOTS shine in my eyes.

[Winter]

I also want to point out a discussion of "players behind characters" isn't totally bad, even if we know there are none.

For example, Miko is a perfect example on how many players misunderstand how Paladin's are and Rich made perfectly clear that this is not how they are supposed to be played.
While Miko of course was a LG antagonist to the group, she also serves as example on how Paladin's are sadly often played while that's not what they are. (Origin of PCs had a very similar paladin of that kind, even he was worse than Miko).

Also, what Vaarsuvius did to the Black Dragons is a typical reaction of a player. Many players would do what Vaarsuvius did because the "Rules says all Black Dragons are evil". The discussions here in the forum are a solid proof of that. Rich, as the comment in the book make clear, deliberately wrote that scene to show that is a misconception.

OotS is full of situations where you can imagine typical players (of various kinds, ranging from "story driven roleplayers" over "metagamers" to "has typical misconception about class X") can be imagined behind the characters.
I guess in that way it is no different from any other piece of fiction. :smalltongue:

[Chantelune]

OOTS is not a DnD campaign, but that doesn't mean Durkon didn't want to die. He considered it his duty to keep fighting evil as long as he could, but as far as what he wanted? The only thing he's ever said he wanted, other than an enormous mug of good beer, is to go back home. And he knew that the only way he would get to go home was dead.

Yeah, well, the Giant stated in this topic that he didn't want to die.

And being fine with dying at some point doesn't mean he's eager to do so in order to go back home. Durkon knew that he was going home after he died, thus why he was able to smile in the end. But he had a strong sense of duty as well and his duty was to protect the gates and save the world. He wouldn't want to die before that.

As it turned out, he had no choice but to die, he couldn't do anything more, save an ally coming him to help him, which was unlikely to happen. He knew it, came to term with it and was fine with it. He fought, he lost, he died. He didn't want to die, but he was wise enough to accept his fate and see the bright side of it : returning home at last.

[Winter]

I think Durkon has the problem he had no idea what he wanted to live for, given he was exiled from his homelands and his experience in the Other Lands wasn't all too good apart from being friends with Roy (and to a lesser degree with two other members of the Order).

Durkon did not want to die but beyond stumbling behind Roy, he really had no perspective what his life should be. While he could come up with a "reason to die for" (which he just did), I hardly can imagine Durkon (as we saw him over the last 877 strips) coming up with a "reason to live for".*

* And yes, if you think I quote Babylon 5, you are about correct. ;)

[Orzel]

Durkon is a Lawful Good Dwarf Cleric. He deviates little from the stereotypes of all four aspects of him. And he acted and died the way a LG dwarf cleric would.

Heroically and stubbornly trying to defy odds, slay undead, and save his allies.

[Winter]

Heroically and stubbornly trying to defy odds, slay undead, and save his allies.

I think it is safe to assume we all agree on that, the problem just arises: How is the following vampirism calculated in? ;)

[dps]

While it continues to astound me how some people will insist on some things, like Belkar being something other than Chaotic Evil, despite both WoG and everything we've seen in the comic saying that he is indeed CE, I don't think that wondering why characters didn't make different choices at certain points depends on believing that there are players behind the characters' actions. Watch any on-line video review of a movie or TV show, particularly a bad movie or show, and a fairly common comment at many points will be along the lines of, "Why didn't he just...", though clearly the reviewer doesn't think there are players behind the characters. We even do this with real-life events--go to a forum devoted to military history, and you'll find plenty of discussions about why a commander should have done things differently than he really did. Heck, that's the whole point behind wargames, to explore the affects of commanders making different choices.

[Edhelras]

I think it is safe to assume we all agree on that, the problem just arises: How is the following vampirism calculated in? ;)

I totally agree - unless some high-level cleric shows up soon, this will be the most interesting issue following Durkon's death.

For the record: I do love playing dwarves that adher to the stereotype about dwarves. Actually, when I do pick a dwarf, I do that with that particular stereotype in mind. I do it because I like to endulge in that stereotype.
I can vary it a bit, but if I stray too far away from that stereotype, I'd rather pick another race.
There may be some fun dwarves hopping about in fantasy literature. Sometimes, they can showcase what dwarves are all about, by being different. But many times, un-dwarfish dwarves just resembles feeble and stereotyped attempts at "I just have to do something original", or you can see that someone wants to play an elf or a human with high CON and Darkvision.

Of course one can do whatever one wants with the game you bought for your own money, but if you insist on bending the rules to play a dwarf that's not a dwarf, then the question arises why you bought the rule books in the first place, and how your DM and fellow players are supposed to handle your choices.
It doesn't make for fair and fun gaming if your character gets one more HP/lvl while still acting like a lively elf, or he gets to see in pitch darkness, foiling the DMs attempts at making a scary encounter, while still being able to reach the high ledge that is the only way out of the pit. Or being able to court the most beautiful lady in the tavern, just because he happens to be a dwarf that looks and smells like a princely human.
You get some benefits, you get some penalties, on a whole it should be fair.

[Castamir]

He didn't want to die, but succumbed to his Lawful Stupid alignment.

In other words: Good is Dumb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsDumb) often leads to Too Dumb to Live (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooDumbToLive).

[SavageWombat]

Let's just refocus this thread.

So Durkon goes to the Mountain. Where Roy's Archon, as per instructions, is waiting for him.

What could they possibly accomplish from that position?

/credit for this observation to some poster I don't remember.

[Winter]

He didn't want to die, but succumbed to his Lawful Stupid alignment.

In other words: Good is Dumb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsDumb) often leads to Too Dumb to Live (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooDumbToLive).

Dieing for a principle that you consider important isn't dumb. It is what constitutes being "good" in the very end. Good: The ability to acknowledge there is something more important than your own wishes, including your most basic wish to live and facing the consequence of that.

[Procyonpi]

Considering how many people have argued that Belkar is Chaotic Neutral, or Tarquin is Neutral, or Malack is Lawful Neutral (sensing a theme here), that is incredibly stinging criticism.

Honestly, it's true, though. I mean, Durkon's final act was not only good, but downright heroic.

[Orzel]

I think it is safe to assume we all agree on that, the problem just arises: How is the following vampirism calculated in? ;)

Durkon is a stereotypical LG Dwarf Cleric

He died actively attempting to save his allies and stubbornly fighting undead longer than he should.

[Man on Fire]

99.9% of the time that people around here posit the existence of players, it's in the service of criticizing me, as if I'm a cheating DM. They can imagine whatever they want, but they shouldn't then use those imaginings as a foundation to tell me I'm wrong to have written this, that, or the other, because I don't operate under that theory. Likewise, if that theory leads someone like the OP to take an obviously emotional scene and rob it of all impact, I suggest that they have missed the point of the story...and also possibly the point of stories.

With all due respect again, I just would like to point out what other said. Let me quote:


This comes up a lot. It is not the people who claim "there are players behind the characters" that often misunderstand what is going on. OotS does not have players behind it, but it would work the same with players if you have story-oriented players and a DM who prefers story over rules.

When things run out of scope here is when posters postulate players that should/need play as effective as possible and see D&D not as story-driven but as purely tactical war game.

They do not seem to put focus on playing a role in a Role Playing Game, but see it more as Tactical Game.

I have the impression they do not do it to support some position, but because they genuinely see RPGs merely as "Use the Rules to Win"-game and have no interest in emotional stories, playing an actual character and a style where the rules can, in dramatic scenes, go to hell. They are genuinely and honestly not getting why the characters in OotS behave as "ineffective" like they do, it simply does not fit into their conception how RPGs should work - and therefore, they come here and complain to point out the characters act "wrong" or "get cheated by the DM".

I so far have never found a controversy on this forum where someone merely said "I imagine players behind the characters". It only (and always!) is "Why do the players use their characters so horribly ineffective in this situation???" that causes these discussions.



All right, so for the record: When I allow my fantasy to envision players behind the OOTS PCs, that's in admiration of the storytelling, not as a criticism! And it's my way to pay tribute to that essential aspect of DnD, which is that the DM and the players are there to tell a story together - heroic, tragic, dramatic, emotional - what ever is the compound product of DMs and players and their combined fantasies.
It may not be the main point of the OOTS comic, but to me it's a great added bonus from it - that I can also make parallels in my mind to how these comics might have played out on the gaming table. And they serve as inspirations for good role play (and even good roll play, at times!) for me as a DnD lover.


I also want to point out a discussion of "players behind characters" isn't totally bad, even if we know there are none.

For example, Miko is a perfect example on how many players misunderstand how Paladin's are and Rich made perfectly clear that this is not how they are supposed to be played.
While Miko of course was a LG antagonist to the group, she also serves as example on how Paladin's are sadly often played while that's not what they are. (Origin of PCs had a very similar paladin of that kind, even he was worse than Miko).

Also, what Vaarsuvius did to the Black Dragons is a typical reaction of a player. Many players would do what Vaarsuvius did because the "Rules says all Black Dragons are evil". The discussions here in the forum are a solid proof of that. Rich, as the comment in the book make clear, deliberately wrote that scene to show that is a misconception.

OotS is full of situations where you can imagine typical players (of various kinds, ranging from "story driven roleplayers" over "metagamers" to "has typical misconception about class X") can be imagined behind the characters.
I guess in that way it is no different from any other piece of fiction. :smalltongue:


Besides that, you are not only creating a fantasy story, which are common to interpretation as D&D game (see Lord of the Rings, Berserk or Demon Knights, who all got those treatment over the internet) but a fantasy based on RPG system. Many people feel like the addition of imagined players enrich and adds new layer to that kind of story. It gets overboard when some of them decide they can dictate you how the story should progress, but they aren't the majority of us.

[Winter]

I have just one question left: Did you have to quote all my typoes and broken sentences? :smalltongue:

[KillianHawkeye]

But even if it were a game, not everyone plays it that way.

QFT.

Personally, I play a lot of characters who have no problems going off by themselves and getting into trouble. It's not because they have a death wish; they're just confident.

[Edhelras]

QFT.

Personally, I play a lot of characters who have no problems going off by themselves and getting into trouble. It's not because they have a death wish; they're just confident.

Or lethally reckless... I had a rogue, once, who was so proud of her sneakiness - she always wanted to scout ahead (she had a much higher speed than her heavily armored comrades too) and put that Hide and Move Silently to use. Initially, she had some fantastic successes too - defeated whole bunches of enemies singlehandedly and turned encounters upsidedown. It came to a point where she almost played the game on her own, leaving the other just to observe or mop up.

Then, on one of her scouting (ego-) trips, she met a very low-lvl cleric with Hold Person. Bam. And Coup-de-grace. Then she learned.

[pendell]

Dieing for a principle that you consider important isn't dumb. It is what constitutes being "good" in the very end. Good: The ability to acknowledge there is something more important than your own wishes, including your most basic wish to live and facing the consequence of that.

No, but continuing a fight which gains you nothing you could not gain without fighting is extremely unwise. Durkon was from beginning to end a lawful good character who died according to his beliefs and principles. However, his principles Do NOT require him to fight a hopeless battle he can't win (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html). As in the link, Durkon advised Hinjo to retreat and fight again another day. Key quote:

:hinjo: What about all the people who will die between now and then?
:durkon: It cannae be more than the people who'll die if'n ye never come back at all 'cause ye died fightin' a hopeless battle today ... ye gotta do the good ye can, when ye can. Else ye end up doin' na good at all.

Durkon should have followed his own advice in this strip.

This, then, is how I see it: Durkon would never have got into this fight if he didn't believe he had a plausible chance of winning. He believed his mass death ward neutralized Malack's most effective tactics, and that it was more important to take Malack out now than to walk away from the fight and leave his friends unsupported.

Because he misjudged the situation , he got himself killed. That doesn't make him anything but lawful good. It does mean, however, that he was not a tactical genius , as Roy is.

ETA: In fairness to Durkon, misjudging tactical/strategic situations is fairly common. I'm reading The Guns of August in which it is discussed that the consensus across all general staffs among all participants was that the war would last 2-3 months. Those who prognosticated 6 months were considered defeatist idiots.

The war lasted 4 years and killed an entire generation.

The takeaway is that forecasting the outcome of a battle is something mortals are ill-equipped to do. If humans really understood war in a fantasy or real context, we'd never fight them, because the soon-to-be-losers would negotiate a conditional surrender first.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[King of Nowhere]

No, but continuing a fight which gains you nothing you could not gain without fighting is extremely unwise. Durkon was from beginning to end a lawful good character who died according to his beliefs and principles. However, his principles Do NOT require him to fight a hopeless battle he can't win (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html). As in the link, Durkon advised Hinjo to retreat and fight again another day. Key quote:

:hinjo: What about all the people who will die between now and then?
:durkon: It cannae be more than the people who'll die if'n ye never come back at all 'cause ye died fightin' a hopeless battle today ... ye gotta do the good ye can, when ye can. Else ye end up doin' na good at all.

Durkon should have followed his own advice in this strip.


As you said, drukon failed to realize it was a losing battle. he should have realized he was short of spells and against someonee more powerful than him. But defending a teammate is a strong instinct in most team games, and i suppose in battle too. I've died so many useless deahs in league of legends trying to save a teammate that was doomed anyway, and many teammates died the same way for me. To a certain kind of mind you just can't abandon a teammate, you always think you can do something.

by the way, I think durkon should have taken the offer of both of them staying out of the fight. malack is stronger than durkon and had more spells still available. He would still have protecged his friends that way, by removing malack from the fight.

[Incom]

Let's just refocus this thread.

So Durkon goes to the Mountain. Where Roy's Archon, as per instructions, is waiting for him.

What could they possibly accomplish from that position?

/credit for this observation to some poster I don't remember.

My theory, thanks (sometimes I feel like I get ignored a bit around here).

We don't technically know that's what RA is doing, but it's a reasonable assumption since:
1. Roy knew of Durkon's "posthumously" prophecy
2. Roy knew Xykon would hit Kraagor's Gate last, if it came to that (two gates already blown, he *thinks* Azure is secure at the time but it isn't, and Oracle says he's going to Girard's before Kraagor's--process of elimination)
3. Roy knew Kraagor was a dwarf and his gate was in dwarven lands (I think)
4. Roy knew he and Durkon had the same alignment

Therefore, Roy knew Durkon might not live to see Xykon's defeat, and would go to the LG afterlife, and so Roy's Archon would presumably get to meet him, pass on any useful information, etc.

I'm wondering if it would be something to allow Durkon to haunt the party and thus provide them with any useful information; or something akin to the Ghost-Martyrs that would allow him to continue assisting the Order more directly.

[Winter]

No, but continuing a fight which gains you nothing you could not gain without fighting is extremely unwise.

Luckily, this here was not such a case. It was not clear he had no chance and it also was not clear he would not be able to flee should things to truly badly.


Durkon was from beginning to end a lawful good character who died according to his beliefs and principles. However, his principles Do NOT require him to fight a hopeless battle he can't win (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html). As in the link, Durkon advised Hinjo to retreat and fight again another day. Key quote:

Luckily, no one said he is forbidden to retreat or has to be stupid about his principles (at least I did not ;)). In this case, Durkon saw a fight that was worth fighting and did it. He lost. But not because he was stupid or started a fight he had no chance of winning, but simply because he... lost the fight.



Durkon should have followed his own advice in this strip.

I'm in agreement. But letting Belkar getting Vampired (Durkon knows that'd be a pretty bad development for the world made it a bit trickier. What made it more tricky is that he just got betrayed by the "friend" the fight was about.


This, then, is how I see it: Durkon would never have got into this fight if he didn't believe he had a plausible chance of winning. He believed his mass death ward neutralized Malack's most effective tactics, and that it was more important to take Malack out now than to walk away from the fight and leave his friends unsupported.

This is why it was not a stupid fight to start. Throw in as well that the Heal worked pretty nicely and Durkon might now know about the +8 Str, the DR or the Fast Healing (or how awesome they actually are for Malack).


Because he misjudged the situation , he got himself killed. That doesn't make him anything but lawful good. It does mean, however, that he was not a tactical genius , as Roy is.

I also want to emphasize: This also does not make him Lawful Stupid or something.

[Winter]

This here seems to be the most current thread about this? Or am I mistaken?

[Zerter]

99.9% of the time that people around here posit the existence of players, it's in the service of criticizing me, as if I'm a cheating DM. They can imagine whatever they want, but they shouldn't then use those imaginings as a foundation to tell me I'm wrong to have written this, that, or the other, because I don't operate under that theory. Likewise, if that theory leads someone like the OP to take an obviously emotional scene and rob it of all impact, I suggest that they have missed the point of the story...and also possibly the point of stories.

Nowhere do I posit the existence of players. I merely state that within the context of their universe the main characters are PCs and there are certain rules that apply to them. Rules they are (or think they are) aware of to some extent. This is shown as recently as this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0869.html).

I've been emotional impacted many times by OoTS, which I consider a great work, but I am just not feeling it with this one. Durkon died happy and as far as I can see there's a good chance he'll remain happy forever (maybe with some bumps in the immediate future). I just don't see any sadness there, other than the grief Durkon causes his friends by a choice he made willingly and knowingly.

[pendell]

I also want to emphasize: This also does not make him Lawful Stupid or something.


Agreed. Everyone is stupid some of the time , some people are stupid all the time (Elan and Thog fit this category). Durkon isn't terminally or wilfully stupid; he simply miscalculated. Everyone in this strip has at one time or another.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Angulf]

I believe the point of Durkon's death is missing here.

Durkon was confident to win the battle because of his Mass Death Ward; he didn't know that Malack could dispel it until... well... HE DID. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0876.html)

Second, he could not go fetch the rest of the party because: Haley is dissarming the traps, Roy is helping her reach and Elan is boosting her with the Bard Song.

And third, even though Belkar is a small little killing machine, Durkon has a DUTY with his team member, even if he's not reliable.

Fourth, it has already been said that there are no players behind this particular PC's, but given the case, not all players play alike (as The Giant said before).

In fact, mechanical overpowering players are... BORING. The point of a roleplay is more than winning, it's about storytelling, and having fun. In the context of having fun, players often make mistakes, because above all they're people and people make mistakes. Period.

If you want to think that Durkon made a wrong call, that's fine, but it's still in the world of "if's". The Giant decided to write what he wrote, and that's the truth in the context of the story. Durkon died a Lawfull Badass death, trying to shield his party from the menace of an epic level vampire-lizard-cleric-thing. And any player who plays a character like that is welcome at my table :P

[Zerter]

Yeah, you know what. Maybe I got a little bit carried away in my thinking. Durkon was never that smart to begin with and this would have required him to connect a number of dots in a short amount of time. I guess it makes more sense that he actually believed the stuff he was saying.

[pendell]

Kudos to Zerter for giving heed to the arguments and changing his mind based on them. To admit error is such a rare thing I believe it should be recognized and applauded :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

...Now you believe Durkon meant what he said...because "he was never that smart to begin with."

*epic facepalm*

[Acrux]

Dwarven culture in OOTS appears to be loosely based on Norse traditions. Among those was the idea of endurance in the midst of sure defeat. One could say that for Durkon not to have fought Malack here would have gone against such a belief.