Way to go Durkon!

[Gerrtt]

Just throwin' that out there. Even without lots of action or exposition, I loved today's comic! Go Big D!

[Rakoa]

....big D?

Sorry.

[Emulgator]

Yeah, still the same old D.

[F.Harr]

....big D?

Sorry.

Well, yeah. A big guy is "tiny". A little guy is "big" something. I had a boss who just topped five feet. And she was "Big P".

Oh, and GO DURKULA!!!!!!!!!

[goodyarn]

Yeah, still the same old D.

I love that he is back, but WHY is he back? Wasn't the board saying that vampires always view their old life as a waste? What has allowed Durkula to keep Durkon's soul?

[F.Harr]

The Board is not the Author. The Giant is the Author.

[NerdyKris]

I love that he is back, but WHY is he back? Wasn't the board saying that vampires always view their old life as a waste? What has allowed Durkula to keep Durkon's soul?

That's not RAW. That's fluff, dependent on the campaign world. All we know is Malack views his old life as seperate. But he has 200 years to change his mind.

We actually don't know the specifics in the OOTS setting. We're about to find out what they are, apparently.

[goodyarn]

The Board is not the Author. The Giant is the Author.

I am aware of that. But in my experience, the Giant tends to tell this story within the commonly accepted rules of D&D.

Perhaps I can get a more helpful answer if I phrase my question this way: "Is Durkula keeping Durkon's soul something which is explanable within the commonly accepted rules of D&D? Or is this an exception to those rules?"

[Talya]

Durkon rejoining the Order of the Stick is really inevitable, if I'm following The Giant's line of logic when writing this.

Think about it from the perspective of a gaming table:

The average person, playing a cleric, gets turned into a vampire. What's he going to do, become the antagonist? Or rejoin the party as a more evil and bloodsucking version of his former self?

[Nettlekid]

I am getting really tired of people complaining about what the rules should or shouldn't dictate the comic doing, especially when the rules in question are foggy Monster Manual statblocks that would normally be criticized for being too vague. And ESPECIALLY since the only matter is alignment and personality, not mechanic benefit. "Usually *Alignment*" or "Always *Alignment*" doesn't mean anything. I mean, animals are listed as Always Neutral. So Pelor forbid you want to play any animal with magically enhanced intelligence who also has a sense of morality, because it'll still be Always Neutral. OR, you could just play it by personality instead. I mean, even WotC has "broken da rules" regarding Always Alignment, by making that Succubus Paladin character in one of the online articles. I know that one's gotten a lot of attention and has been a key point in many alignment debates, but the point stands that if WotC does it, it's pretty much fair game.

You think that it would be more realistic for Durkon to be a one-dimensional bloocksucking Stupid Evil clot rather than, upon regaining control of his mind and actions, remembering his nature before death and holding to it despite the recent trauma he's been through? Like, this doesn't even come down to "durr the Giant is doing it because it's better for plot, even though he's wrecking the rules of D&D." For one, it is a webcomic, so that's something he'd be entirely allowed to do, but he's not even doing that! He's just writing out what makes sense for PC actions to be. Considering that the Giant does in fact pay attention to alignment subtypes and plays them up when they're appropriate (Qarr being Lawful and thus forced to help V as per the IFCC's backup plan, or even Sabine's description of how the different members of the IFCC work together and how the parts they play fit with their alignments) I think he does an excellent job at making it believable within the alignment system, and doesn't deserve all this scowling because Durkon's showing signs of remaining Good. For that matter, the fact that everyone automatically assumes that he no longer has Thor as a patron deity is also annoying to me. It's been shown on a couple of occasions that Thor passionately fights to claim the soul of anyone who died in battle, and Durkon certainly fits that criteria, despite now being a vampire. If he's still his Lawful Good self, as he has every reason to be with his mind restored, and calls out "O' Great Thor, lend me yer power ta smoosh my enemies!" do you think Thor would ignore the call of a life- and death-long devout follower by virtue of bad circumstances, or he'd be like "THAT'S the Dwarf dude I know! Here, have more Sonic damage from Control Weather cuz I like you, Dwarf dude."

Now, sorry to go off on a bit of a rant tangent, but I've been really fed up with people so pointlessly criticizing the Giant. What I REALLY came here to mention was a theory for what might happen in not-too-long (I expect people have already thought of it, but whatever.)
People have mentioned that Durkon doesn't know Protection From Daylight, and the staff's charges are probably running low since Malack spent so many on the mummies. He'll be alright for a couple of days, but after that he'll need to stay out of the sun. And that makes me think that it's the perfect chance for the MitD to pass over the umbrella to Durkon, and reveal himself once and for all. The comic feels like it's in its final stretch, and so that reveal can't be too far away. I think it would be a good chance for the MitD to help out Team Good, get into the light, and for general awesomeness to occur.

[Narren]

I am aware of that. But in my experience, the Giant tends to tell this story within the commonly accepted rules of D&D.

Yeah, he tends to. Except for when he sometimes doesn't.

[Fish]

I love that speculation.

Also, it occurs to me that

...an eternally dark umbrella is a perfect way to sneak up on Team Evil.

[luc258]

The Giant has been planning vampire Durkon for 10 years. There will be more than Durkon with pointy teeth and some inner conflict.

[goodyarn]

I am getting really tired of people complaining about what the rules should or shouldn't dictate

I do not think that is a fair characterization of what I wrote. Rather, I was asking for information. As I said, I read a previous discussion which claimed vampires cutting ties with their old life was the rule. So when Durkula reverted to Durkon, I found that confusing, and thought this would be a good place to go looking for an answer.

I do not know the rules. I was looking for information. It's truly not worth upsetting yourself over.

[Nettlekid]

I do not think that is a fair characterization of what I wrote. Rather, I was asking for information. As I said, I read a previous discussion which claimed vampires cutting ties with their old life was the rule. So when Durkula reverted to Durkon, I found that confusing, and thought this would be a good place to go looking for an answer.

I do not know the rules. I was looking for information. It's truly not worth upsetting yourself over.

It's not just you, a lot of people have been complaining about it lately, and to see it pop up again on where I wasn't expecting any contention took me by surprise, and greatly irritated me.

Also, don't tell me how to react to what you say. That's my decision. (Much like it's Durkon's decision to decide how he acts, not the MM statblock's.)

[Ridureyu]

Durkon chose to go down fighting against a team of elite wattiots who prepared and over-prepared for dealing with vampires. Well, at least he'll die in a blaze of glory!

[BroomGuys]

I do not think that is a fair characterization of what I wrote. Rather, I was asking for information. As I said, I read a previous discussion which claimed vampires cutting ties with their old life was the rule. So when Durkula reverted to Durkon, I found that confusing, and thought this would be a good place to go looking for an answer.

I do not know the rules. I was looking for information. It's truly not worth upsetting yourself over.

Sorry man, I think you're the unlucky recipient of some boiled-over frustration. There've been a few threads recently to the effect of "the story has lost all credibility because this character should be dumber/smarter," often with a reference to the rules. Those threads went on for very long and got very tiresome, and I'm afraid your request for information stepped on a land mine.

I think I can add something here, too: Durkon really doesn't like Nale. (I believe "jackass" was mentioned? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0071.html)) He probably will view his LG-ness from his life as a waste and consider himself above that sort of thing now, but he has reasons other than righteous indignation to decide that Nale is not worth working with at all. (See also: jackass).

[goodyarn]

It's not just you, a lot of people have been complaining about it lately

I was not "complaining." And if you look at this thread tomorrow with fresh eyes, I don't think you will be able to fairly say that I was "complaining" either.

I am quite the fan of the Giant. And I think if you look at the posts I have written over the years, you will see that for yourself.




Sorry man, I think you're the unlucky recipient of some boiled-over frustration. There've been a few threads recently to the effect of "the story has lost all credibility because this character should be dumber/smarter," often with a reference to the rules. Those threads went on for very long and got very tiresome, and I'm afraid your request for information stepped on a land mine.

Good to know. Thanks for that.

[The Recreator]

I am aware of that. But in my experience, the Giant tends to tell this story within the commonly accepted rules of D&D.

We seem to have differing experiences, then. As far as I can tell, the Giant has been pushing as many D&D's boundaries as he can. The only rule he strictly adheres by is Rule 0:

"The unwritten rule in tabletop role-playing games (such as Dungeons & Dragons) which grants the game master the right to suspend or override the published game rules whenever s/he deems necessary.”

The Giant has also stated before that he thinks "always Evil" alignment descriptions should only apply to supernatural entities - reanimated corpses, golems, and extraplanar beings. We may finally have our first solid test of that rule on our hands here: must Vampire Durkon be Evil?


Perhaps I can get a more helpful answer if I phrase my question this way: "Is Durkula keeping Durkon's soul something which is explanable within the commonly accepted rules of D&D? Or is this an exception to those rules?"

It is entirely possible that what we're seeing is merely an echo of the old Durkon. Same memories, same mannerism, but not the same soul. For instance, I don't think I can see the living Durkon calling anyone "tha same old *****".

(Oh look, we can't even say that word on the board.)


I read a previous discussion which claimed vampires cutting ties with their old life was the rule. So when Durkula reverted to Durkon, I found that confusing, and thought this would be a good place to go looking for an answer.

I like to use the d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) as a guideline for what to expect in the comic. My time spent on pen-and-paper D&D can be counted on my fingers, but it's helped me keep up with things.

That said, Rule 0 is always in effect here. For instance, Malack's homebrew spell to instantly vamp Durkon overrode the standard rules for vampire creation (creatures killed by a vampire's energy drain return as vampire spawn 1d4 days after burial).

I, for one, look forward to seeing Durkon grapple with reconciling his old and new identities.

[AshesOfOld]

@goodyarn: To give you the information you're looking for, according to RAW Vampires are "always evil (any)" and clerics are specifically mentioned in this way:
Vampire clerics lose their ability to turn undead but gain the ability to rebuke undead. This ability does not affect the vampire’s controller or any other vampires that a master controls. A vampire cleric has access to two of the following domains: Chaos, Destruction, Evil, or Trickery.

Whether this means that Burlew chooses to make Durkon evil or change his deity I can't really say. I certainly wouldn't be bothered either way; it's been a long time since he centered the story around rules and the comic has only become better since then.

[Muenster Man]

Durkon chose to go down fighting against a team of elite wattiots who prepared and over-prepared for dealing with vampires. Well, at least he'll die in a blaze of glory!

To be fair, Nale and Z were only planning on taking out one vampire. They weren't planning on another vampire of higher level, nor were they planning on having a pyramid blow up in their face. If they stick it out to fight, they'll probably die.

[Kish]

I love that he is back, but WHY is he back? Wasn't the board saying that vampires always view their old life as a waste? What has allowed Durkula to keep Durkon's soul?
The board doesn't speak with one voice. On any subject. Ever.

A few people claimed that Rich was "obviously" treating D&D vampirism as Buffy-style "you die and a demon sets up shop in your old house" vampirism. The first time or two I saw it, I told them I didn't think it was the way to bet; after that I shrugged and figured time would tell. Time is telling, and what it's telling is what was always far more likely. Whether Durkon still values his friendships with the rest of the Order, values innocent life in general, and values Thor, is up in the air...but certainly, Durkon is Durkon.

Ridureyu, for your sake, I hope this is one of your weird jokes. (Not that it's exactly inaccurate to call Nale a wattiot, I suppose.)

[Math_Mage]

Durkon chose to go down fighting against a team of elite wattiots who prepared and over-prepared for dealing with vampires. Well, at least he'll die in a blaze of glory!
Malack died in an inglorious blaze, but Durkon isn't going anywhere.

[ericgrau]

He is still evil, as he even hints at. The Giant mentioned it too when some rules lawyers were complaining about something else.

But at least he isn't stupid evil. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Predictions spoilered.

There may be some internal conflict, or at least decisions on how to deal with other potential enemies or allies or goals. One possible bargaining chip to remain as-is is that OotS has no way to change him back: that would require slaying and raising him. Maybe Durkon doesn't want doomsday at the hand of any evil team and will stop them anyway, or maybe he wants a slice of their pie and will strike a deal with a group. He might go to any team or to no team. Maybe he's pissed at the dwarves for sending him away and this is the prophecy of him returning to them "posthumously". Or the imp knows he's up for grabs.

[F.Harr]

The Giant has been planning vampire Durkon for 10 years. There will be more than Durkon with pointy teeth and some inner conflict.

One can only hope.


Sorry man, I think you're the unlucky recipient of some boiled-over frustration. There've been a few threads recently to the effect of "the story has lost all credibility because this character should be dumber/smarter," often with a reference to the rules. Those threads went on for very long and got very tiresome, and I'm afraid your request for information stepped on a land mine.



I'm sorry, too.

[Gerrtt]

Evil people still punch evil people in the face. Heck...good people can punch good people in the face. There's not even any rules saying that evil people and good people can't be friends...they just might not see eye to eye on some issues which for some people can be a line in the sand.

[Amphiox]

That's not RAW. That's fluff, dependent on the campaign world. All we know is Malack views his old life as seperate. But he has 200 years to change his mind.

We actually don't know the specifics in the OOTS setting. We're about to find out what they are, apparently.

Malack did not have to have viewed as old life as "separate" to have said what he said.

Imagine if someone said to you, at age 45, that they would kill you and resurrect you as your 15 year old self. The last 30 years of your life and all your personal growth and change in that time period would be erased. You may well say the same thing in response as Malack did.

With 200 years as a vampire, the majority of Malack's experiences, memories, and character growth occurred while he was a vampire.

[F.Harr]

Yup, that's so. Stimt. Ayup.

[Roland Itiative]

About Durkon's possible change... He himself says he's changed, agreeing with Nale. The fact he wanted to beat Nale and Z doesn't mean he's the same old Lawful Good Durkon, just that he still has no reason to like the Linear Guild.

The full extent of Durkon's new (or not) personality is yet to be seen, but there is nothing to say vampire Durkon will immediately turn on his old allies, which is what Nale assumed.

[Geezlewark]

It has been speculated in the forums that Durkon was probably a higher level than Malack. Malack just had a higher effective level due to being a vampire. If this is the case, then Durkon will likely be an even more powerful vampire than Malack ever was. By killing Malack, Nale and Zz'dri have released an even more dangerous enemy!

[ManuelSacha]

Yeah. Ok. Sure.
Durkon has changed. That's obvious.

Now that that's out of the way...
Where does he ever hint (or even flat out show) that he is evil?
Because I don't see any sign of it.

I only saw Durkon's characteristic speech pattern and calm, meditative attitude come back, as to indicate that Durkon's equally characteristic personality has come back.
Pounding on the Linear Guild was just an afterthought.

And of course, even if it shouldn't need to be said, being a vampire doesn't automatically make you evil.

Not in general lore.
Not in the Giant's world (since we've seen only one so far, which is not enough to set a trend, and he was evil before being vampirized, anyway).
Not even in D&D material! In fact, there's another short, armored, pointy-toothed guy in the Forgotten Realms setting, who's been fighting his urges and trying his best to behave like a good guy.

[Amphiox]

Yeah. Ok. Sure.
Durkon has changed. That's obvious.

Now that that's out of the way...
Where does he ever hint (or even flat out show) that he is evil?
Because I don't see any sign of it.

I only saw Durkon's characteristic speech pattern and calm, meditative attitude come back, as to indicate that Durkon's equally characteristic personality has come back.
Pounding on the Linear Guild was just an afterthought.

And of course, even if it shouldn't need to be said, being a vampire doesn't automatically make you evil.

Not in general lore.
Not in the Giant's world (since we've seen only one so far, which is not enough to set a trend, and he was evil before being vampirized, anyway).
Not even in D&D material! In fact, there's another short, armored, pointy-toothed guy in the Forgotten Realms setting, who's been fighting his urges and trying his best to behave like a good guy.


Largely, he hasn't, in fact, given much sign as to his current alignment, in actions, yet.

An evil character isn't contractually bound to do evil all the time and at every opportunity.

The only hint, thus far, is that he appears to have chosen to, as his first action, inflict injury on his enemies over helping his friends who are in dire danger. At least as far as we have seen. (Perhaps he already sent a mental command to his devil, which is supposed to be telepathic, to stop attacking the Order, but we haven't seen evidence of that yet)

That's the kind of action/choice that would lean more towards evil than towards good.

[primarch359]

....big D?

Sorry.

That just makes me think of Hunt for red October

[Komatik]

And of course, even if it shouldn't need to be said, being a vampire doesn't automatically make you evil.

To quote myself from another thread:

Uh, what's with all this "technically Evil, but actually Good" talk people?

Fact 1: "Technically Evil" would amount to having the [Evil] descriptior. Vampires don't have one.
Fact 2: Being Dominated doesn't change your alignment. Nor does a vampire thrall's slavish adoration for it's master.
Fact 3: Durkon is a nontheistic Cleric with leftover spells from the morning.
Fact 4: Durkon called a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally. A nontheistic cleric can only do that if he's Lawful Evil.

=> Durkon is Lawful Evil. That's a fact, and people need to **** accept that. Durkon may be evil, but that largely translates into "is more willing to stab someone to get things done" ("Disintegrate. Gust of Wind." Ring any bells?) and "less empathetic and unselfish, prone to darker urges", not "becomes an instant, gleeful proponent of cosmic Evil and forgets his old loyalties". He's still Durkon, which means Lawful with an Eiffel-size L. Which means he still hates Nale's guts. He also has at least some sympathy for the Order, if only for old friendships' sake, minimum.

Jerk =/= Evil
Nice guy =/= Good

Examples: Unsociable asperger guy who's trying to optimize something so people's lives get better. The smooth-talking psychopath of the not-murderous kind who just kinda slowly drains away people's will to live and otherwise manipulates them for his own benefit.

[Solse]

Jerk =/= Evil
Nice guy =/= Good


This. That might have been the best post on this thread (and possibly the forum) yet. I'm sig-ing it now.

Also, I think that people might want to read the TvTropes article on AffablyEvil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil).

[Silverionmox]

Largely, he hasn't, in fact, given much sign as to his current alignment, in actions, yet.

An evil character isn't contractually bound to do evil all the time and at every opportunity.

The only hint, thus far, is that he appears to have chosen to, as his first action, inflict injury on his enemies over helping his friends who are in dire danger. At least as far as we have seen. (Perhaps he already sent a mental command to his devil, which is supposed to be telepathic, to stop attacking the Order, but we haven't seen evidence of that yet)

That's the kind of action/choice that would lean more towards evil than towards good.
That's a tactical decision. Letting Nale and Z pummel the Order with distance spell at their leisure is a danger in itself.

[F.Harr]

That's a tactical decision. Letting Nale and Z pummel the Order with distance spell at their leisure is a danger in itself.

They're also a present danger to Dukula. You think Nale's going to like being turned down politely?

[Amphiox]

That's a tactical decision. Letting Nale and Z pummel the Order with distance spell at their leisure is a danger in itself.

At the bare minimum, though, he should have countermanded the prior order to his Devil to attack the Order.

Now it is possible he has done so telepathically, but we haven't seen any direct evidence of this, yet.

So if in the next strip or two we don't see such evidence, or we see the Devil still attacking the Order, then my argument would apply.

[F.Harr]

I don't think a strip or two could possibly develop enough evidence for us to be sure unless Durkula goes on a murdering frenzy or rescues a train of orphans or something. It'll take time for things to become clear. At least I hope so. I wouldn't want all that good drama potential to just go to waste.

Is Durkula good or evil? To find out, buy the next OotS volume, The Shortness of the Vampire.

Yes, I know that's a stupid title. I couldn't shake it.

[Komatik]

I think a single strip just gave us even more damn proof that all the wishywashies were wrong and that Durkon is, in fact, Lawful Evil.

[Klear]

Way to go Durkon!

[F.Harr]

I think a single strip just gave us even more damn proof that all the wishywashies were wrong and that Durkon is, in fact, Lawful Evil.

I'd like to think that Rich could stretch it out a bit better than that.