Dorkula's coffin

[pendell]

Something's been bothering me about this.

1) Durkon is "especially vulnerable" since he does not have a sarcophogus. I assume Malack, if he isn't staked ( a consummation devoutly to be wished) will make this a high priority.


Does this mean Durkon must return to the Dwarven lands in order to acquire the "home soil" necessary for a coffin? If so, is this a plot point that may serve to drive the story?


2) What happens if Durkon is reduced to 0 HP and forced into gaseous form now. He has no coffin. What happens when the 'timer' expires? Will V-durkon leave behind a body that can be resurrected? If not, does this mean the order must destroy Vampire Durkon in a very specific way, such as a stake through the heart, or they won't be able to bring their friend back? If so, does this pose additional risk to the order?

I'm asking, because we all assume they will raise Durkon if at all feasible. The lack of a cleric simply means they have to lug him to the nearest raise-u-while-u-wait in town and shell out soem gold. But it seems to me just getting Durkon's corpse back in a raiseable condition is going to be quite a feat, and they already have enough problems. For instance, they have to prevent Malack or some dumb bystander from pulling the stake out. Given these challenges, Is it feasible for them to get him back?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[rgrekejin]

I'm not sure I have any relevant input on the question being asked (I don't know that much about Vampire rules), but this thread should probably be titled "Durkula's Coffin".

[Kish]

I swear Vampire Durkon is going to step through the fourth wall and drain everyone who's called him something goofy before he gets resurrected.

[martianmister]

I swear Vampire Durkon is going to step through the fourth wall and drain everyone who's called him something goofy before he gets resurrected.

Eduwarkon Culldenhield
Durferakon
Durkith Shieldillith
Andurgonal
Sduriken

[Psyren]

I swear Vampire Durkon is going to step through the fourth wall and drain everyone who's called him something goofy before he gets resurrected.

Alukrud :smalltongue:

I took Malack's statement to mean they could whip something up for him back in Bleedingham. Though if he did indeed need to get soil from the Dwarven lands, that would explain why he would go there as a vamp (or more accurately, why Malack would want to take him.)

[ChaosOS]

Combine going back for home soil, with Durkon's two prophecies, it's pretty damn likely in my opinion that Vamp Durkon is heading back to the Dwarven lands

1. "posthumously", Yes, that does mean after he dies, not after something funny

2. "When he next returns home, he will bring death and destruction for us all" Death and destruction sounds like something buddy vampire clerics would do.

[Luzahn]

Oh wow that's a great point Psyren. And, if Durkon is still enthralled at the time, it could leave room for him to fulfill that prophesy without becoming evil once released.

[Themrys]

I guess Malack will give him a coffin in Bleedingham. "Home soil" usually refers to the soil the vampire was buried in. Durkon wasn't buried at all.

[Onyavar]

I'm asking, because we all assume they will raise Durkon if at all feasible.

You all assume they will rise Durkon?

Ha! Well, I don't.

Some clues:
- According to the oracle, Durkon will enter the dwarven lands in his state of undead. Look in the prophecy:
"How will I..." - "Posthumously"
Durkon had wanted to ask what he needed to do to return. The oracle (knowingly) misinterpreted him and told him the state in which he would return.

- Durkon just died. If the party destroys+raises him next comic (or in twenty, or hundred comics), the story hadn't advanced. Okay, a prophecy had been fulfilled. But why write that prophecy into the story in the first place?

I will preach until Durkon joins the order again: he is the one character that is fully suited to be a vamp OotS member: If anyone else had been turned into a vampire, Durkon would have opposed him.
But assuming that Malack teaches him basic things (sunblocker spell, a bit of restraint), free-willed Durkon can be a valuable and reliable party member.

So, this is character development. It's about time. The running gags - beer, trees, Thor, belkar calling him names - have become stale. Durkon has always been the same. That wasn't bad per se, but people noticed it for years.
This character makeover needs to be fully explored. How will evil Durkon interact with his friends? What will change in the group dynamics?

[pendell]

There are two assumptions in the preceding post that I find questionable:

1) That the OOTS will tolerate a vampire in their midst, as opposed to stake and resurrection.

2) That Vampire Durkon will WANT to be resurrected, and thus will hang out with the order.

I suspect it more likely that OOTS will go on a quest to recover the body of their friend which will move to the dwarven lands under its own volition. I suspect it won't happen in a strip or two, so they'll need a healer to help them until that happy time.

I forget who it was but someone else pointed out that Nergal -- Malack's god -- is the "god of death and destruction" -- does that mean Malack will accompany Durkon ot the dwarven lands? Why? I can see why Durkon would want to go there.

I'm curious whether he NEEDS to go there in order to get a proper sarcophogus, or whether he will go there just because A) it's what he's wanted to do since the origin of the PCs and B) the gate is somewhere near there.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Obscure Blade]

Given that Roy is lawful too, Malack and/or Vampire Durkon might force an oath from him to not stake Durkon as a condition of him going along. Although that might well result in a running gag of Belkar and Haley trying to ambush Durkon with a stake whenever Roy isn't looking.

As fro the prophecy saying he'll bring death and destruction, I think someone has mentioned that as a vampire he'll have access to certain domains of magic, which include Death and Destruction. I confess I didn't really understand the game mechanics involved though, since I last played back when D&D was called AD&D.

[rodneyAnonymous]

The similarity to "Dorkula" is another reason I dislike the name "Durkula".

[Shred-Bot]

There are two assumptions in the preceding post that I find questionable:

1) That the OOTS will tolerate a vampire in their midst, as opposed to stake and resurrection.

I think it's less an asumption of vampire tolerance and more an issue of "the vampire is the only one who can cast resurrection". Especially given the lack of high-level clerics around. I think if Durkon is still willing to travel with them, the order would prefer that to staking him and going sans-cleric.

[starwoof]

I would like to point out that even if Durkon gets raised and returns to the dwarven homelands it will still be posthumous, as he died at one point.

[Onyavar]

I would like to point out that even if Durkon gets raised and returns to the dwarven homelands it will still be posthumous, as he died at one point.

Then the oracle could also have said "after drinking tea" or "after next morning". The oracle (as I understand it) didn't answer a "when"-question, but a "how"-question.
For example, Roy is a very living person at this point in the story. If he wrote+published a book in-universe, would you say that this book was published "posthumously"?


There are two assumptions in the preceding post that I find questionable:

1) That the OOTS will tolerate a vampire in their midst, as opposed to stake and resurrection.

2) That Vampire Durkon will WANT to be resurrected, and thus will hang out with the order.
The second one is nothing I assumed. Vampire Durkon will consider his resurrection like a death of his new persona (just like Malack does). So he will hang out with the order under the premise that noone tries to resurrect him (which, by the way, isn't feasible since they're lacking clerics).

The first one however is something that I assume, yes. Why you think that this is questionable is beyond me.
I already showed Roys motive for doing so in my last post: They can't raise Durkon themselves, can they? But if he has the choice of either have a vampire cleric available that promises not to hurt/turn/suck them, or being utterly clericless, then I'm betting he takes option one.
Haley and Elan are chaotic good. They will not like it to have vampire Durkon around, but if Roy insists, they will agree.
V will also not like it, but he did too much damage himself, so it would be hypocritical of her to oppose that rational decision.
Belkar will goof around as always. He will find another evil party member awesome. He will compete with Durkon for the position of the "better" evil teammate, and fail. He might try to coax Durkon to turn him into a vampire (Durkon will refuse, stating that Belkar isn't mature enough).

With Durkon as a free-willed vampire, there won't be group hug scenes or something. But they will be able to tolerate him, and since he was their friend during life, why would he abandon them in unlife? As we have seen with Malack, it's possible for vampires to have long-going friendships with the living without always planning to kill them.



I forget who it was but someone else pointed out that Nergal -- Malack's god -- is the "god of death and destruction" -- does that mean Malack will accompany Durkon ot the dwarven lands? Why? I can see why Durkon would want to go there.

We don't know yet which gods will support vampire Durkon. It might be Nergal, so Malack can be truly dead and gone at the point when Durkon goes there. And Durkon wants to go there, yes of course.

[Flame of Anor]

The second one is nothing I assumed. Vampire Durkon will consider his resurrection like a death of his new persona (just like Malack does). So he will hang out with the order under the premise that noone tries to resurrect him (which, by the way, isn't feasible since they're lacking clerics).

If they found a cleric, though, they could resurrect him--because, once they stake the vampire Durkon, the resurrection spell will be querying his non-vampiric persona.

[Clertar]

At some point, during the current gate search,

Durkon will end up facing a strong dilemma, either after being freed by Malack or breaking out of his thrall because of it, probably concerning the OOTS members, and as a result will face Malack again and succeed at killing him. He will become a Vampire Lord, will rejoin the Order as an active member, and they will be headed to get Kraagor's gate.

Also, I've been seeing a lot of "the end of the comic is near", but just remember that Roy himself was completely dead and out of it for a full story arch, yet he still managed to come back to the Order.

[pendell]

If they found a cleric, though, they could resurrect him--because, once they stake the vampire Durkon, the resurrection spell will be querying his non-vampiric persona.

This. The fact that Durkon is the only one in the party who has access to resurrection doesn't mean they can't get it done at the local temple for a fee.

Also, while I think the Order will welcome back a resurrected Durkon I strongly question their willingness to take on a vampire cleric who is not clearly repentent. Replacing Durkon IS an option. "Loyalty to team-mates" does not mean "willingness to tolerate evil". Roy has already taken enough flack for keeping Belkar around. Keeping Belkar AND Durkon around for any purpose beyond getting him staked and resurrected is going to be a much harder sell. They can forget about any further alliance with Sapphire Guard paladins, which cannot knowingly associate with evil. For another thing, it puts them at risk of the Mikos of the world who detect evil/smite evil without thought. He's also vulnerable to Redcloak's Rebuke Undead, possibly even susceptible to turning if the Crimson Mantle gives some tremendous bonus to commanding undead.


Of course, right now we're just guessing based on the template and on Durkon's previous personality. How Durkon will actually react and how the party reacts to him will have to be shown in-comic. But I consider Vampire-Durkon's willingness to associate with them as peers, and Roy's/Elan's/Haley's willingness to accept him as a vampire on anything but the most temporary of bases, to be questionable.

Vampire Durkon is not the dwarf they knew. He is something else entirely now. Way I see it, they can neither accept him on the basis of what he used to be, nor can they simply reject him on the basis of his new template. Both, he, and they, need to know what sort of being he is NOW. The problem is, there's not much leeway when you're dealing with a potential liability with Vampire powers.


Still, some other observations:

1) We know from 879 a vampire does NOT need to drink a sapient to death to derive nourishment from him.

2) Based on the lack of obvious vampires in Bleedingham, and based on the implication that Malack has not created any children lately, this is probably standard operating procedure for Malack's own "meals" -- to drain those slated for execution to Con 1, then use inflict moderate wounds to finish them off. Otherwise the place would be crawling with vampire spawn, and that would tax even Malack's abilities. Even a Vampire Lord has a limit on the number of spawn they can enthrall at any time, yes?

3) If Malack ate his siblings and turned them all, this gives him 7 of the 15 "children" necessary to obtain Vampire Lord status.

4) Durkon will not be a vampire lord if he is freed from Malack. Becoming a Vampire Lord requires siring 15 other vampires. If Durkon becomes free of Malack, he will simply be a free-willed vampire.

5) We've seen in Malack's dealings with Nale how he deals with people he detests. He didn't attempt to drink Nales blood or save him for a midnight snack. No, he came in with the HARM + Quickened inflict combo, intending to kill him in one round. He had no interest in vamping Nale. All he wanted was for "NERGAL WILL EAT YOUR SOUL!"

6) Which sort of implies he has some kind of mixed emotions toward vamping. He considered the death of mortal durkon to be a tragedy, but in some strange way he also seems to have been his turning of Belkar and Durkon to be -- a kind of uplift? A kind of gift? At any rate, it was something he was willing to do to them that he was NOT willing to do for Nale. There would be no afterlife of servitude to Malack for Nale, simply soul-devouring at the hands of Nergal.

7) Yeesh. I wouldn't want my soul around Malack. Malack's treatment of souls seems to be shackling them to unholy bodies animated by Dark Magic (Durkon) or soul-devouring (Nale). Whatever happened to Rest In Peace?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Silverionmox]

It's totally plausible for Malack to get killed (in a conflict with team evil about the gate, perhaps), breaking Durkon's thrall. It remains to be seen to which extent vampirism changes one's personality (for dramatic purposes), but even assuming it makes Durkon evil, he's still lawful and loyal, and would probably be willing to rejoin the OOTS. The tricky part is that they can't stake-and-resurrect him without another cleric, so he'll have to stay a vampire until they find a cleric. And where else would they go look for one than in the Dwarven lands, where Durkon knows the priesthood and Kraagor's gate is to be found?

This conveniently puts raise dead out of their reach for a while, given plausible deniability for Belkar to die heroically, complete his character development towards Chaotic Neutral, but fail to be resurrected in spite of his sacrifice.

[allenw]

Roy has already taken enough flack for keeping Belkar around. Keeping Belkar AND Durkon around for any purpose beyond getting him staked and resurrected is going to be a much harder sell.

By the time Roy might have to decide whether or not to travel with Vampire-Durkon, I really, really doubt Belkar will be that kind of issue anymore. Unless he's *also* a vampire by then. In which case, I'm not sure the rest of the party could *stop* them from travelling with them.

Also, I can see Roy deciding to let Vampire-Durkon stay with them in the hope that it will eventually lead to an opportunity to fix him. Otherwise, the odds of doing so are even slimmer.

[SteveDJ]

Malack was able to hide his vamp-ness fairly well. Could it be that he teaches Durkon how to hide it, as well?

Then perhaps Durkon rejoins the party while disguising what has happened to him.

Oh, sure, Belkar (and only Belkar) knows -- but either Roy won't believe him, or (in keeping with prophecy possibilities), Durkon takes out Belkar, and then conveniently refuses to raise him (not as vamp, nor as Halfling) - he stays dead, so as to keep the vamp secret... well,... secret.

[Flame of Anor]

Oh, sure, Belkar (and only Belkar) knows -- but either Roy won't believe him, or (in keeping with prophecy possibilities), Durkon takes out Belkar, and then conveniently refuses to raise him (not as vamp, nor as Halfling) - he stays dead, so as to keep the vamp secret... well,... secret.

Durkon almost certainly won't have time to kill Belkar before Belkar gets back to Roy. And why wouldn't Roy believe Belkar? Is there a better explanation for why Belkar turns up almost completely Con-drained?

[KillianHawkeye]

If they found a cleric, though, they could resurrect him--because, once they stake the vampire Durkon, the resurrection spell will be querying his non-vampiric persona.

You watch too much TV. Staking doesn't kill D&D vampires, it only immobilizes them.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Staking doesn't kill D&D vampires, it only immobilizes them.

(That is effectively true, but the flavor text does say it's fatal. "Driving a wooden stake through a vampire’s heart instantly slays the monster. However, it returns to life if the stake is removed, unless the body is destroyed. A popular tactic is to cut off the creature’s head and fill its mouth with holy wafers (or their equivalent).")

[Flame of Anor]

You watch too much TV. Staking doesn't kill D&D vampires, it only immobilizes them.

TV? You think that staking vampires comes from TV?

[LuPuWei]

TV? You think that staking vampires comes from TV?

TV or not TV, that is the question.

[Starbuck_II]

Something's been bothering me about this.

1) Durkon is "especially vulnerable" since he does not have a sarcophogus. I assume Malack, if he isn't staked ( a consummation devoutly to be wished) will make this a high priority.


Does this mean Durkon must return to the Dwarven lands in order to acquire the "home soil" necessary for a coffin? If so, is this a plot point that may serve to drive the story?

It fits the Oracle's words.


2) What happens if Durkon is reduced to 0 HP and forced into gaseous form now. He has no coffin. What happens when the 'timer' expires? Will V-durkon leave behind a body that can be resurrected? If not, does this mean the order must destroy Vampire Durkon in a very specific way, such as a stake through the heart, or they won't be able to bring their friend back? If so, does this pose additional risk to the order?


He dies no restore, no stake needed, he just dissolves.
No, without a coffin he never goes out of gaseous form and dissolves into nothing.



I'm asking, because we all assume they will raise Durkon if at all feasible. The lack of a cleric simply means they have to lug him to the nearest raise-u-while-u-wait in town and shell out soem gold. But it seems to me just getting Durkon's corpse back in a raiseable condition is going to be quite a feat, and they already have enough problems. For instance, they have to prevent Malack or some dumb bystander from pulling the stake out. Given these challenges, Is it feasible for them to get him back?

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Stake paralyzes, you actually kill you need to decapitate after staking or kill them and deny them entry into a coffin.
Both are end cases for their case of undeath.

[Kish]

TV or not TV, that is the question.
TV's aren't, to my admittedly limited knowledge, made with nearly enough wood to stake a vampire.

[KillianHawkeye]

TV? You think that staking vampires comes from TV?

The act of staking does not, but I'm pretty sure having the stake turn a vampire to dust or otherwise kill them completely is a modern media convention.

[Rakoa]

The act of staking does not, but I'm pretty sure having the stake turn a vampire to dust or otherwise kill them completely is a modern media convention.

I can guarantee that it is not, but the idea of them burning in sunlight is.

Bram Stoker's Dracula novel ends with Dracula being staked and turned into dust. However, in life, the Count walked in broad daylight.

[Acrux]

You all assume they will rise Durkon?

Ha! Well, I don't.

Some clues:
- According to the oracle, Durkon will enter the dwarven lands in his state of undead. Look in the prophecy:
"How will I..." - "Posthumously"
Durkon had wanted to ask what he needed to do to return. The oracle (knowingly) misinterpreted him and told him the state in which he would return.

- Durkon just died. If the party destroys+raises him next comic (or in twenty, or hundred comics), the story hadn't advanced. Okay, a prophecy had been fulfilled. But why write that prophecy into the story in the first place?

I will preach until Durkon joins the order again: he is the one character that is fully suited to be a vamp OotS member: If anyone else had been turned into a vampire, Durkon would have opposed him.
But assuming that Malack teaches him basic things (sunblocker spell, a bit of restraint), free-willed Durkon can be a valuable and reliable party member.

So, this is character development. It's about time. The running gags - beer, trees, Thor, belkar calling him names - have become stale. Durkon has always been the same. That wasn't bad per se, but people noticed it for years.
This character makeover needs to be fully explored. How will evil Durkon interact with his friends? What will change in the group dynamics?

In addition, Durkon's statement that "Only the good die for good" aligns with the argument that he ain't coming back. Not that we don't all miss him terribly, but if characters keep dying and coming back in this story, what will the point of death be?

[KillianHawkeye]

I can guarantee that it is not, but the idea of them burning in sunlight is.

Bram Stoker's Dracula novel ends with Dracula being staked and turned into dust. However, in life, the Count walked in broad daylight.

According to a bit of research, in the novel Dracula is killed by having his throat cut and being stabbed in the heart with a knife, not a stake.

So I'd say my point still stands. Staking alone is not enough.

[Rakoa]

According to a bit of research, in the novel Dracula is killed by having his throat cut and being stabbed in the heart with a knife, not a stake.

So I'd say my point still stands. Staking alone is not enough.

Quite true, actually. I had forgotten about this, and broke out my own novel to double check. Several vampires throughout the novel are killed by staking, followed immediately by decapitation. In other words, the stake immobilized them, and the coup de grace finished the job.

It is not often I get my vampire lore incorrect. Nicely done.

[dps]

Durkon almost certainly won't have time to kill Belkar before Belkar gets back to Roy. And why wouldn't Roy believe Belkar? Is there a better explanation for why Belkar turns up almost completely Con-drained?

Well, as of 880, we have the answers to these questions, at least.

[Acrux]

You watch too much TV. Staking doesn't kill D&D vampires, it only immobilizes them.

I'm not so sure it works that way in OOTS-verse, depending on how to interpret 617 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0617.html).

[LuPuWei]

TV's aren't, to my admittedly limited knowledge, made with nearly enough wood to stake a vampire.

Well, not any more I suppose. In today's world that wood be quite a mis-stake... :smalltongue:

[pendell]

What would happen if you teleported one into a star's corona, or a planet's core? Would that do it? Or would it re-form after a period because it hadn't been terminated with the appropriate religious rituals? being instantly exposed to a star would almost certainly vaporize the creature in a painful manner, but gaseous form is a state a vampire can assume already without harm, isn't it?

Rsepectfully,

Brian P.

[The_Tentacle]

It depends on what gaseous form actually is. If we're talking science, the gas would burn or be sucked into the star for fusion. If it's purely magical, or something... wait. If you're next to a star, you have jsut been exposed to sunlight. This is bad. So you'd probably die no matter which way you put it. Plus it would take you forever to get back to your coffin, as well as being impossible to get to it (you'd need to go by the sun).


I'm not so sure it works that way in OOTS-verse, depending on how to interpret 617 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0617.html).

Wait, what does this have to do with anything? Never mind, I'm an idiot.

But yeah. That implies that they turn to ash upon being staked. But what are the chances that these two guys actually know what happens to a vampire when they're staked? It probably just means that they have heard lore or something.

[pendell]

If you're next to a star, you have jsut been exposed to sunlight. This is bad.


Starlight, technically, if the star doesn't have any planets. The vampire myths have never made clear whether it's something unique to Sol that kills them (unique signature?) or whether any starlight in sufficient quantity will do the job.

It's never really made a lot of sense. Moonlight is reflected sunlight, after all, but it doesn't bother a vampire.



So you'd probably die no matter which way you put it. Plus it would take you forever to get back to your coffin, as well as being impossible to get to it (you'd need to go by the sun).


Yes. I imagine escaping the gravity well would be a trick even if it didn't actually destroy your body instantly.



DIE, catgirls! DIE, DIE, DIE! :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

It's never really made a lot of sense. Moonlight is reflected sunlight, after all, but it doesn't bother a vampire.
It was Vampire: the Masquerade where the Followers of Set took double damage from sunlight, and normal (nonaggravated) damage from moonlight.

[hamishspence]

Very little UV is reflected off the moon though.

[Silverionmox]

Vampires are harmed by sunlight because it symbolizes life and truth, while vampires are dead, bringers of death, and deceptive sons of bitches that lurk about in darkness. That's it, no need to give it a pseudoscientific explanation.

[Obscure Blade]

Starlight, technically, if the star doesn't have any planets. The vampire myths have never made clear whether it's something unique to Sol that kills them (unique signature?) or whether any starlight in sufficient quantity will do the job.

It's never really made a lot of sense. Moonlight is reflected sunlight, after all, but it doesn't bother a vampire.
Sabrehagen's version of Dracula had the theory that vampires were in some fashion sustained by something in sunlight, and that while the reflected light from the Moon gave them just what they needed, direct sunlight overloaded them, which is why it burned them.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Vampires are harmed by sunlight because it symbolizes life and truth, while vampires are dead, bringers of dead, and deceptive sons of bitches that lurk about in darkness. That's it, no need to give it a pseudoscientific explanation.

It also relates to their vulnerability to healing herbs (not garlic in specific) and running water, also life symbols. The cross thing kind of got tacked on later due to Christian syncretizing.

[Corneel]

Vampires are harmed by sunlight because it symbolizes life <snip> ... in the culture(s) where vampires originated.

It's pretty funny that in the original Babylonian mythology the sun (or at least the summer sun) is associated with destruction in the figure of none other than Nergal...

I imagine that the hot desert sun gives you another perspective on how well the association between life and the sun works.

[Rogar Demonblud]

That also ties back into the Moon/Earth goddess worship, and some other things.

Sorry, working on grading midterms right now.

[Rakoa]

Vampires are harmed by sunlight because it symbolizes life and truth, while vampires are dead, bringers of dead, and deceptive sons of bitches that lurk about in darkness. That's it, no need to give it a pseudoscientific explanation.

That is a nice way to look at it. But really, it all goes back to good old Dracula. Not harmed by the sunlight, the Count enjoyed his afternoon walks in the park or whatever. However, during the filming of the movie, the actor for Dracula was unavailable for a short period of time. As a result, they got his stunt double or some such other guy to fill in, and had the sun come through a window with him throwing up his cape over his face to protect himself, hissing the whole while. From this day forward, Vampires hissed in fear of sunlight, when really the director just needed an excuse to cover the actor's face.

The idea of Vampires being killed by sunlight only came about in the 20th century.

[Scarlet Knight]

I believe Durkon could use a cask instead of a casket....

[pendell]

Can a Vampire's coffin be destroyed, thus rendering him vulnerable outside it? Since part of the vampire legend is a warning against improper burial practices, it should be possible to consecrate the coffin and thus make it useless to the vampire.

What if this happens? Can the vampire make himself another coffin? Or even have several spares?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

I remember in the Pool of Radiance computer game (the original Gold Box one, not that Ruins of Myth Drannor thing that wrecked people's computers), you could discover the vampire's coffin before you met the vampire. You could "Sanctify" it or "Overturn" in. Or do nothing to it, of course. Anyway, after you fought the vampire once, he'd turn into a cloud of mist and get away. Then you'd find him at the coffin; if you'd chosen the Sanctify option, he would not have regenerated and you'd have a significantly easier second battle with him.

I do not know what the letter of the rules states about vampires being allowed to have multiple coffins, but I doubt very much that Rich only lets his vampires have one coffin each. Such would be unprecedented in the D&D sources I know of. Malack evidently plans to somehow arrange for Durkon to have at least one coffin later, so it's not necessary for him to have rested in one before rising.