Laying the groundwork- Redcloak

[SavageWombat]

Does anyone else think that this is the real reason Redcloak gave his little speech about the true nature of undead?

So that we'd know that "Count Durkula" isn't the real Durkon - it's just Durkon's corpse laden with Neg-E. And that the real Durkon - his essence - is going on to his reward.

/2 coppers

[Rorrik]

Or perhaps that Durkon will retain his memories and will, as Malack has, and provide counter-proof to Redcloak's argument. I don't think all of Durkon will be lost from him. He will at least have memories, and maybe even more than that.

[ti'esar]

I think that if "Count Durkula" isn't really Durkon, he'll be pretty short-lived. There's not a lot of pathos involved in having him around if there's nothing left of the real deal.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Ummm... Maybe... No.
It always depends on how powerful the undead is. A zombie or wight is not the person it once was. A lich is mostly the same person. (Xykon pre-lich was pretty much the same guy he is now). Usually a vampire is more or less the same as before the change.

I think it depends on how much intellegence you get to bring forward with you. Skeletons, zombies, etc, don't bring anything with them, so they are just the bodies or bones, animated. Same with ghasts, wights, etc. A little more intelligent, and maybe some memories of desires (e.g. Tsukiko's wight wanting boots). But Xykon has the same goals, and intelligence to obtain those goals as before he died, and it seems as if Malack does as well. Durkon's goals may change, and his spell list as well, but it will still be Durkon's intelligence directing the vampire body. His goals may well change, but they may remain similar.

Hmm... Some mental excercise. If you see a little girl vampire, you can guess she wants her dolly, and friends to play with. True, she eats the friends afterwards, but you know what an appetite kids can work up while playing! :smallbiggrin:
A thief vampire wants to use his powers to make stealing easier, and snack on a guard or three during a caper.
Malack the Cleric wants to spread the Word of Negral, and enjoy a refreshing glass of chilled blood (or warm blood. Meh).

So, what would Durkon's post-vampire goals be? To finish his mission amongst the humans, and return home? To stop Xykon (evil undead does not mean automatic team up). To chug ale and slay trees? To remain Roy's friend? That could be a sad tale...

[Psyren]

If we're going by strict D&D - which we're not, but anyway - Libris Mortis implies that the vampire (or other spawned creature that contains the real soul) is its own being. It has the memories of the host, and can draw upon them - which is why Malack can remember his life before, and even his family - but all of that is reduced to mere information, and does not inform the decisions of the being itself. So in the end, whatever the living Malack would have done, the undead one now lives only to serve Nergal with a bloodbath of continental proportions.

For Durkon, we can predict a similar fate - there is now going to be another vampire cleric, of dwarfish proportions, who happens to be wearing Durkon's face and name and wielding many (but not all) of his old powers. This entity will have Durkon's memories, including his time with the Order and his time in the Dwarven lands before that. But ultimately, that entity won't be Durkon, and will have no true connection or obligation to the team he once protected. The surest way the Giant can clue us into that is by changing Durkon's manner of speech - at least in "black-voice" - indicating he's not at all the creature he once was.

(Incidentally - the first time he yells something like "HEL'S MIGHT!!" I'm going to get chills.)

[Rorrik]

(Incidentally - the first time he yells something like "HEL'S MIGHT!!" I'm going to get chills.)

Indeed!

Do we know who Malack worshiped before becoming a vampire? Is it possible he felt spurned by Tiamat (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html)? Or did he always worship Nergal? As a barbarian shaman that doesn't sound outlandish either.

I think at the very least Count Durkon will maintain among his goals the protection of his friends. Whether or not that includes Belkar is anyone's guess.

[Kish]

Mm...Rich is not big on character mouthpieces. Particularly when the speaking character is someone as established-as-deluded as Redcloak, speaking on one of the subjects on which he is established as deluded ("Xykon is my tool, I am not his!").

[Raineh Daze]

I dislike that fact from Libris Mortis. It essentially makes the entire changeover essentially pointless. I think I saw something about the Giant saying Durkon was due some character development, which is kind of difficult when there is no Durkon. :smallannoyed:

[hamishspence]

Libris Mortis also allows for exceptions- and leaves it a bit grey as to how much influence the soul of the undead being has.

We also don't know if the Giant is using it, or if he's drawing heavily on a variety of vampire myths, not just the D&D rules.

[raphfrk]

If we're going by strict D&D - which we're not, but anyway - Libris Mortis implies that the vampire (or other spawned creature that contains the real soul) is its own being.

So, what happens Durkon's soul, is it trapped like after soul bind?

[Raineh Daze]

So, what happens Durkon's soul, is it trapped like after soul bind?

Trapped in the body or something with the spooky eeeeeeeeeeeeeeviiiiiiiiiiiiiiil intelligence.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Does anyone else think that this is the real reason Redcloak gave his little speech about the true nature of undead?

It is quite possible that Redcloak has this opinion because - with the exception of Xykon - the only undead he has dealt with is the unintellegent type.

So, he is used to unintellegent undead, and is simply projecting his existing experience on to Xykon (with suitable modifications, of course).

(Then again, he went through a phase of dealing with goblinoids in the same way - as tools and nothing more.)

[Rorrik]

So, what happens Durkon's soul, is it trapped like after soul bind?

Wow. Good question. If Durkon becomes evil by the act becoming a vampire and not by living life as an outcast after becoming a vampire, then is the soul really still present?

If the soul is in control of the body, then wouldn't we expect Durkon to remain good, and at least try to serve Thor, or even stake himself? What about the change causes a vampire to go evil.

In my personal lore, vampires can try to be good, but become jaded over time due to being outcasts of society and having to find blood to drink. I wonder what Rich will go with.

[Silverionmox]

In any case, if Malack can, he will retain control over vampiric Durkon. After all, "Our place is as an obedient slave to those who command us. Through service, we are rewarded. That is the true natural order."

I doubt that the former soul of Malack is hanging out in some afterlife separately either - it seems that vampires are not just animated corpses. Consequently, Durkon hasn't arrived at the Walhalla yet...

IMO he won't become evilly aligned straight away, that just doesn't fit with the "alignment is a result of the actions people take" (V, Belkar, Miko) theme the giant is running. Xykon didn't become more evil from lichification itself; the process just removed his last few remaining human inhibitions. So Durkon will now have to deal with both lust for blood ánd being under command by an evil vampire lord. He can only hope Malack meets the business end of a meteor swarm soon.

[Psyren]

It is quite possible that Redcloak has this opinion because - with the exception of Xykon - the only undead he has dealt with is the unintellegent type.

Not true - the "three Xykons" he created were all intelligent. His attitude towards them suggests that he was, if not versed with intelligent undead, at least not completely foreign to the concept and thus able to speak to the subject with some measure of authority.

Xykon is of course another matter entirely. He has made his career out of being underestimated, particularly by powerful spellcasters; Redcloak falling into this trap too is not unexpected. So far the only individual to not do so seems to be the Oracle.


I dislike that fact from Libris Mortis. It essentially makes the entire changeover essentially pointless. I think I saw something about the Giant saying Durkon was due some character development, which is kind of difficult when there is no Durkon. :smallannoyed:

As hamish pointed out, there can be some leeway here. Maybe there will be enough of Durkon left that he can seize control at a key moment. Or maybe his evil will only persist as long as Malack is around to direct him. But either way, I think the last panel of 878 means we'll have some Durkula antagonist to deal with, at least for awhile.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Not true - the "three Xykons" he created were all intelligent. His attitude towards them suggests that he was, if not versed with intelligent undead, at least not completely foreign to the concept and thus able to speak to the subject with some measure of authority.

Good point, well made. I had completely forgotten about them.