Durkon, Vampire, Lawful good

[Dante2001]

Well I think that's the phrase of the day. If he's still Durkon then he'll be good or at least it's what most likely appears. Anyone else sees him as a permanent member of the OotS? Do you think he'll feed on the blood of animals? I am still expecting a line in which he'll do something bad and Belkar will scold him (what with his character development :D)

Edit: Also if he's good, can he have Thor as his deity?

[Lamech]

No, he's evil. Just like Malack. He's attacking the linear guild because they just murdered his good friend and father. Just like Malack hated them for murdering his children. I really hope there is some death here for the Linear Guild. They deserve it. *******s.

[Calemyr]

Or he's evil, but simply doesn't like them.

Or he's evil, but still counts the Order as friends. Evil is allowed to have friends.

Or he's evil, but still believes the Order's "save the world" agenda is the best game going. Evil needs a world to live in, too.

Or he's evil, and remembers how many Guild members Nale has abandoned.

Or he's evil, and thinks he's too good to work for tweedle dumb and tweedle mute.

Or he's not sure what he is, and he's having a moment of personal identity crisis, and realizes that if he's sure of one thing - of only one thing in this great, wide universe of wizards and warriors and monkey ninjas - it's that there is no way in nine hells he is working for these two bozos.

[Sylian]

Nale seems to have underestimated Durkon's sense of loyalty. Being a vampire probably didn't make Durkon any less lawful, and he was already one of the most Lawful characters in the comic. I'm not really sure why Nale thought that Durkon would be friendly towards him, perhaps Nale figured that Durkon would be grateful for being "free". Durkon, however, does not seem to value his own personal freedom all that much, he'd probably value loyalty higher.

[Green and Red]

Its not impossible that hes good, even if its unlikely.
Now, the vampire template says that alignment is always evil. However, in some description somewhere i cant seem to find right now, it was mentioned that always dosent mean always. It means the vast majority are that, and exceptions are rare. We hvae confirmation of always not being absolute in comic, when V speculates about the rate of good to evil black dragons.

Now, of course undead are a different thing than dragons. Wether sentient undead are always evil or not is something any DM has to answer. However, alingments and assumptions thereover have been a theme of this strip from near the beginning (like with the goblins), so i doubt its suddenly absolute here.

Also, even if he is evil, that dosent have to mean too much. This dicussion was already had somewhere.

The bigger problem is food, but is there anything stopping a vampire cleric from heal/restoration/whatever his victims afterwards?

[RMS Oceanic]

I suppose the question we need to ask is: What counts as character development?

Rich has had this set up longer than any other plot hook, and it was his method of expanding Durkon's character. This is a classic form of character development: Being forced into a new form against your will, especially one you considered abhorrent, is a time honoured way of exploring what you are deep down, especially if it gives you dark impulses. Have these impulses robbed Durkon of his old alignment, or will his sense of duty allow him to stave it off?

On a personal level - and I admit this to be wishful thinking in part - I hope he's not evil. Being forced into a different form is good for character development, but I think that form changing your entire outlook in a day is almost replacing the character as much as being a thrall was. The "richards" crack is a possible hint for how he'll proceed: Still dedicated to the cause he was dedicated to this morning, and to the people he planeshifted with, but the makeover has rendered him a little more irritable, possibly a little more assertive.

[Morty]

I will be very surprised if, regardless of what alignment he ends up with, Durkon doesn't feel at least some vindication against Thor for rewarding him this way for years of faithful service.

[tomandtish]

Potentially one sign of a personality change in his use of language.


"But tha two of ye're still tha same old *****!"

Do we think old Durkon would have called anybody a d**k? (No matter how deserved)? I'd say that right there is a sign there's a change, and probably a big one. What it means? I suspect we'll need a few comics to tell us for sure.

Side note: Quoting Durkon directly makes my spell check throw up! :smalltongue:

[Sergeantbrother]

Just because Durkon is evil, even if he is evil, doesn't mean that his friends aren't still his friends and that his enemies aren't still his enemies. Durkon is on a quest to save the world with his friends the Order of the Stick, I don't see why being a vampire changes that.

My questions are if he can retain his status as a cleric of Thor and if he could actually kill Nale.

[Wulan]

The groups' integrity has been questioned before by outside parties. So far, the have been arrested by a lawful good country and (partly) welcomed by an evil country. Belkor is a convicted felon and Haley a known criminal. Durkon was the only real indicator to show that the party was good, I wonder how they will be received by others if he rejoins the party.

[Porthos]

Potentially one sign of a personality change in his use of language.


"But tha two of ye're still tha same old *****!"

Do we think old Durkon would have called anybody a d**k? (No matter how deserved)? I'd say that right there is a sign there's a change, and probably a big one. What it means? I suspect we'll need a few comics to tell us for sure.

Side note: Quoting Durkon directly makes my spell check throw up! :smalltongue:

Only against things he really hates. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0682.html) :smalltongue:

Which may or may not be a clue as to a change in attitude (i.e. who he really hates). :smallwink:

[NerdyKris]

Exactly. Belkar is a long term and valued member. Being evil doesn't mean he can't join the order.

That he's an undead abomination might cause problems. The fact that his friendship with Roy has just been irrevocably changed will matter. He isn't going to be accepted back as the same old Durkon.

But right now, he's one of the only two things that can save the Order right now. And they've been known to work with evil and fight paladins before. He might be an uneasy ally. But I don't think they'll turn on him right away if he comes in with an olive branch.

[Taelas]

Its not impossible that hes good, even if its unlikely.
Now, the vampire template says that alignment is always evil. However, in some description somewhere i cant seem to find right now, it was mentioned that always dosent mean always. It means the vast majority are that, and exceptions are rare. We hvae confirmation of always not being absolute in comic, when V speculates about the rate of good to evil black dragons.

There is no question that Durkon was Evil; he summoned an Evil outsider via planar ally. There is a possibility that he changed back to Good now, but I think that would risk cheapening the entire thing. He's probably still Evil.

Over time, he could possibly change back to Good, though I hope he won't. I hope we'll see an Evil Durkon, fully aware of his former outlook and consciously rejecting it to embrace his new vampiric nature -- though he'd still be a member of the Order.

[Gnoman]

I will be very surprised if, regardless of what alignment he ends up with, Durkon doesn't feel at least some vindication against Thor for rewarding him this way for years of faithful service.

Vindication is when you are proved right about something when most people doubted you. The word you apparently intended is "vindictiveness."


There is no question that Durkon was Evil; he summoned an Evil outsider via planar ally. There is a possibility that he changed back to Good now, but I think that would risk cheapening the entire thing. He's probably still Evil.

Over time, he could possibly change back to Good, though I hope he won't. I hope we'll see an Evil Durkon, fully aware of his former outlook and consciously rejecting it to embrace his new vampiric nature -- though he'd still be a member of the Order.

When Durkon cast that spell, he had no personality, and was totally under Malack's control. It's of absolutely no use in determining the alignment shift, if any, that vampirization has induced.

[F.Harr]

Well I think that's the phrase of the day. If he's still Durkon then he'll be good or at least it's what most likely appears. Anyone else sees him as a permanent member of the OotS? Do you think he'll feed on the blood of animals? I am still expecting a line in which he'll do something bad and Belkar will scold him (what with his character development :D)

Edit: Also if he's good, can he have Thor as his deity?

I see him returning to the OotS.

"Or he's not sure what he is, and he's having a moment of personal identity crisis, and realizes that if he's sure of one thing - of only one thing in this great, wide universe of wizards and warriors and monkey ninjas - it's that there is no way in nine hells he is working for these two bozos.
"

I like that.

[Bird]

On a personal level - and I admit this to be wishful thinking in part - I hope he's not evil. Being forced into a different form is good for character development, but I think that form changing your entire outlook in a day is almost replacing the character as much as being a thrall was. The "richards" crack is a possible hint for how he'll proceed: Still dedicated to the cause he was dedicated to this morning, and to the people he planeshifted with, but the makeover has rendered him a little more irritable, possibly a little more assertive.
I personally would be more interested to read about evil Durkon than slightly-altered Durkon with a new color pallet.

The thing is, I agree that his new form most likely makes him a different person. I feel like folks who are cheering "Hooray! Durkon's back!" are getting suckered by something superficial (an accent). As others have said, there's nothing about being evil that prevents you from talking with an accent and hitting some obnoxious people in the face. Sure, he may rejoin the OotS -- but that doesn't change the heart of the matter.

It's really hard to minimize how big of a change a conversion from LG to LE is. Durkon's goodness was at the very core of his character. Changing someone from being essentially selfless and benevolent to being evil makes him a different person. There's nothing else that would change the fundamental nature of Durkon as much.

(By way of comparison, Vaarsuvius seemed to have "going evil" in him all along. Durkon just didn't.)

[F.Harr]

I personally would be more interested to read about evil Durkon than slightly-altered Durkon with a new color pallet.

The thing is, I agree that his new form most likely makes him a different person. I feel like folks who are cheering "Hooray! Durkon's back!" are getting suckered by something superficial (an accent). As others have said, there's nothing about being evil that prevents you from talking with an accent and hitting some obnoxious people in the face. Sure, he may rejoin the OotS -- but that doesn't change the heart of the matter.

It's really hard to minimize how big of a change a conversion from LG to LE is. Durkon's goodness was at the very core of his character. Changing someone from being essentially selfless and benevolent to being evil makes him a different person. There's nothing else that would change the fundamental nature of Durkon as much.

(By way of comparison, Vaarsuvius seemed to have "going evil" in him all along. Durkon just didn't.)

That's not true. We also like watching Nale get hit in the head with a stick. I could watch that all day long.

:)

[Bird]

That's not true. We also like watching Nale get hit in the head with a stick. I could watch that all day long.

:)
Well, that's fair enough. :smallwink:

And I should hasten to add: I count myself among the folks who got a little "suckered." Of course it was an emotional moment to hear the "old" Durkon again.

I just feel like the Giant is pulling an emotional bait-and-switch. The vampirism will mean much suffering for the old Durkon's friends in the long run.

[Taelas]

When Durkon cast that spell, he had no personality, and was totally under Malack's control. It's of absolutely no use in determining the alignment shift, if any, that vampirization has induced.

It is absolutely useful. A cleric cannot cast [Evil] spells if they are Good, and summoning an Evil fiend makes planar ally an [Evil] spell. It is not merely a wish to avoid it, it is impossible for a Good cleric to cast an [Evil] spell.

Therefore, Durkon was Evil while casting the spell. That, coupled with the fact that vampires are "Always evil (any)", and the vampire entry specifically mentions vampires possibly losing class abilities due to alignment change, there's no question on the matter: becoming a vampire made Durkon's alignment Evil, period.

Malack's complete control over Durkon at the time is utterly irrelevant; such control does not affect alignment.

[Gnoman]

From all that we see, the thrall version of Durkon had very little Durkon in it. Completely different speech and behavior patterns aside, slavish obedience is not part of Durkon's personality. I'd put good money on Malack's alignment being the only one that mattered during the thralldom.

[hamishspence]

It is not merely a wish to avoid it, it is impossible for a Good cleric to cast an [Evil] spell.

Therefore, Durkon was Evil while casting the spell.

Technically Neutral clerics can cast the spell.

Still, "Thrall Durkula" as Evil seems most likely, even if "Free-willed Durkula" might have switched once he got his will back.

[WindStruck]

Or he's evil, but simply doesn't like them.

Or he's evil, but still counts the Order as friends. Evil is allowed to have friends.

Or he's evil, but still believes the Order's "save the world" agenda is the best game going. Evil needs a world to live in, too.

Or he's evil, and remembers how many Guild members Nale has abandoned.

Or he's evil, and thinks he's too good to work for tweedle dumb and tweedle mute.

Or he's not sure what he is, and he's having a moment of personal identity crisis, and realizes that if he's sure of one thing - of only one thing in this great, wide universe of wizards and warriors and monkey ninjas - it's that there is no way in nine hells he is working for these two bozos.

Or maybe he has the exact same personality, but was simply turned into a vampire mere hours ago.

[hamishspence]

Or maybe he has the exact same personality, but was simply turned into a vampire mere hours ago.
I wouldn't rule it out. D&D rules are flexible when it comes to OoTS.

[Gift Jeraff]

Technically Neutral clerics can cast the spell.

However, godless clerics always call a creature of their own alignment when using Planar Ally (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyLesser.htm) spells:
If you serve no particular deity, the spell is a general plea answered by a creature sharing your philosophical alignment.

So Durkon was, at that point, Lawful Evil.

[Psyren]

Bottom line is that we can't judge Durkula's alignment just yet. Heck, he might even have evil/base urges that he has to fight to control, yet still rejoin the order.

If he is evil though, it'll make healing them a lot harder.

[hamishspence]

However, godless clerics always call a creature of their own alignment when using Planar Ally (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyLesser.htm) spells:

So Durkon was, at that point, Lawful Evil.

Good point- hadn't thought about that bit.

[Taelas]

From all that we see, the thrall version of Durkon had very little Durkon in it. Completely different speech and behavior patterns aside, slavish obedience is not part of Durkon's personality. I'd put good money on Malack's alignment being the only one that mattered during the thralldom.

It doesn't matter how under Malack's thumb Durkon was. It is still his alignment that matters for the purposes of the spell, regardless of whether or not his personality was suppressed. Mental control does not affect the thrall's alignment. If Durkon's alignment was not changed by becoming a vampire, he would still be Lawful Good, and Malack's domination of him would not have changed that.

Since vampires are always evil, and Durkon could not have summoned the barbed devil as Lawful Good, Durkon must have become Lawful Evil when he became a vampire.

Of course, the Giant can always go in a different route if he wants to, but I think it was always his intention for Durkon to become Evil by becoming a vampire. The idea of a Durkon who is still clearly Durkon, but also clearly Evil is very interesting to me.

[Siosilvar]

Becoming a vampire makes him Evil. He doesn't have to stay evil, but there's the issue of a certain On The Origins-spoilery prophecy to deal with as well.

[KillianHawkeye]

From all that we see, the thrall version of Durkon had very little Durkon in it. Completely different speech and behavior patterns aside, slavish obedience is not part of Durkon's personality. I'd put good money on Malack's alignment being the only one that mattered during the thralldom.

It doesn't matter if obedience isn't part of his personality because he has no choice in the matter. He was a slave for as long as Malack was still alive. That's the meaning of being a thrall.

As others have said, however, being a thrall is not what changes Durkon's alignment. Becoming a vampire did that.

[molten_dragon]

Well I think that's the phrase of the day. If he's still Durkon then he'll be good or at least it's what most likely appears. Anyone else sees him as a permanent member of the OotS? Do you think he'll feed on the blood of animals? I am still expecting a line in which he'll do something bad and Belkar will scold him (what with his character development :D)

Edit: Also if he's good, can he have Thor as his deity?

I don't think that he's necessarily good. Becoming evil doesn't make you suddenly like people that you previously hated. He could certainly have turned evil and still want to kill the linear guild. Heck, it may even turn out worse for the linear guild that way, since he won't feel the same moral compunctions to spare them if he beats them. I'm hoping to see some of them killed.

I'd actually like to see new vampire Durkon rejoin the OOTS as he is.

[RMS Oceanic]

New baseless hypothesis: Instead of being good or evil, he's both!

Okay, explanation: As the D&D nerds may know the Book of Exalted Deeds has rules for redeeming "always evil" creatures, but more to the point there was an online article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) exploring a Succubus Paladin. For our purposes the important part is that while her personal alignment was lawful good, because of her subtypes she still registered as chaotic and evil for certain effects, including being unable to weild a Holy weapon without a negative level.

To bring this back to Stickworld, what if Durkon ends up in a similar situation: Mechanically evil regarding his abilities and how other effects affect him, but he still has a personal code of Lawful Good? At least before the urges start getting to him.

[Gray Mage]

New baseless hypothesis: Instead of being good or evil, he's both!

Okay, explanation: As the D&D nerds may know the Book of Exalted Deeds has rules for redeeming "always evil" creatures, but more to the point there was an online article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) exploring a Succubus Paladin. For our purposes the important part is that while her personal alignment was lawful good, because of her subtypes she still registered as chaotic and evil for certain effects, including being unable to weild a Holy weapon without a negative level.

To bring this back to Stickworld, what if Durkon ends up in a similar situation: Mechanically evil regarding his abilities and how other effects affect him, but he still has a personal code of Lawful Good? At least before the urges start getting to him.

Vampires don't have the evil subtype, though.

[RMS Oceanic]

Vampires don't have the evil subtype, though.

True, hence why I said "similar". :smalltongue:

[Arrowstorm122]

Becoming a vampire makes him Evil. He doesn't have to stay evil, but there's the issue of a certain On The Origins-spoilery prophecy to deal with as well.

He will bring his vampireism, and all the different sides in the race for the gate. That might count as a fulfillment.

[Siosilvar]

He will bring his vampireism, and all the different sides in the race for the gate. That might count as a fulfillment.

Yes it would, but I don't consider it particularly likely. We'll see what Rich has in store.

[pendell]

Well I think that's the phrase of the day. If he's still Durkon then he'll be good or at least it's what most likely appears. Anyone else sees him as a permanent member of the OotS? Do you think he'll feed on the blood of animals? I am still expecting a line in which he'll do something bad and Belkar will scold him (what with his character development :D)

Edit: Also if he's good, can he have Thor as his deity?

Ask me again in 5 strips. For now all we know is that there is something inhabited his body which has Durkon's memories and can imitate his speech pattern. We don't actually KNOW it's not a demon inhabiting his body -- if it has access to his brain it has access to all his memories and skills and can imitate him flawlessly -- and even if it IS the same Durkon , it's still a Durkon who's undergone a profound change.

What he wants and where he's going to go from here -- of mortal humans, only Rich knows. It maybe that the character himself has not yet figured out what his alignment et al are, or what his relationship to Malack is.

I still don't know if his thought process is:

"The evil bloodsucker who made me a monster is destroyed. Hooray!"

or

"My name is Durkon Malackivich Durkula. You Keel my father. PREPARE TO DIE! "

Or. "So I'm a vampire. This sucks. "

...


Sorry about that last. SOMEONE had to say it.

At any rate, all we've established is that the being inside the shell has access to Durkon's memories and personality. Nothing else about alignment, motivations , or goals as yet. As I said, ask me again in 5 strips.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Calemyr]

Or maybe he has the exact same personality, but was simply turned into a vampire mere hours ago.

Actually, that post was meant to point out that there a good dozen reasons for attacking Nale and Z beyond loyalty to Malack, without even talking about him being anything but evil.

Personally, I don't think even he knows what his alignment is right now. Old memories and new thirsts and ancient faith and stingingly fresh betrayal are all sloshing around in his dwarven skull. It's not like OotS characters have some kind of switch that you flip and suddenly they're dark side alter-egos. This is still Durkon, and he's still got a lot of the same old baggage. But he's also got a lot of brand new baggage as well. The end result will be a new equilibrium, a new perspective on things.

I look forward to seeing the new Durkon, and hope he'll return to the Order. I wonder what role he'd play this time. I hear there's an opening coming up for a vertically challenged killing machine...

[Arcanist]

We don't actually KNOW it's not a demon inhabiting his body -- if it has access to his brain it has access to all his memories and skills and can imitate him flawlessly -- and even if it IS the same Durkon , it's still a Durkon who's undergone a profound change.

For the love of God, this is not Buffy the flipping vampire slayer :smallannoyed:

[Perseus]

The thing about D&D "always evil" is that it actually means "well 90% of the time they are evil".

Actually a Vampire could easily become LG if they so choose to become such an alignment. There is nothing, absolutely nothing stopping them. So while Durkon may now be Evil due to the energy sustaining him, he could easily atone and work toward being lawful good.

There is a Good Aligned Lich in 3.5 soooo yeah...A good vampire isn't that much of a stretch.

[Taelas]

For the love of God, this is not Buffy the flipping vampire slayer :smallannoyed:

That never happened in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. :smallconfused:

[pendell]

In BTVS a vampire is an undead shell inhabited by a demon NOT The living person. Angel is unusual in that he is a "souled" vampire and therefore has an actual conscience.

I believe the DND manuals are ambiguous on the matter. So I advance it as a possibility in OOTSworld until proven otherwise. I think it highly unlikely from a dramatic standpoint, as "and then an evil demon took over his body and walks around for the rest of the story" hardly constitutes character development, and the Giant HAS said he writes the stories for emotional impact which this would not have. But it's still a viable premise, though not a likely one.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Skarn]

Edit: Also if he's good, can he have Thor as his deity?
Debatable. Simply being a vampire may exclude him, both for the fact of being an undead(if that was religiously motivated rather than Durkon's thing), and being unable to digest alcohol as a normal person would(though that's totally speculation on my part :smalltongue:).

However, based on current knowledge, I'm just about convinced that Thor is Lawful Neutral at this point, so his alignment itself may not pose an issue. He'd still be within the 1-step rule, if I'm correct.

The bigger problem is food, but is there anything stopping a vampire cleric from heal/restoration/whatever his victims afterwards?No, but to my knowledge there is no penalty for not feeding. If I remember correctly, Vampires can (and in fact need to) eat normal food as well.


I will be very surprised if, regardless of what alignment he ends up with, Durkon doesn't feel at least some vindication against Thor for rewarding him this way for years of faithful service.
I think if he were bothered by that, it would've been apparent before he died. He was running on the assumption that this was all part of Thor's plan, and presumably knew he was going to be vamped before it happened.

If anything, this technically gave him a bonus he wasn't expecting. He knew he would never live to see his homeland again, so why not unlive to see it? :smallbiggrin:

Of course it was an emotional moment to hear the "old" Durkon again.
I would consider it to be the "real" Durkon. I'm now convinced that he wasn't in control of his actions at all (rather than simply being unable to defy Malack). Unless Malack ordered him to not use an accent off-panel, there's no reason for him to have changed after the release.


It doesn't matter if obedience isn't part of his personality because he has no choice in the matter. He was a slave for as long as Malack was still alive. That's the meaning of being a thrall.
It just depends. It may have just been his helpful personality coming back to bite him, but other than that I doubt he would have consciously suggested that he send his planar ally after the Order.

Yes, they have to do what they're told, but I don't think they have to come up with ideas of their own, especially not ones that run against their previous interests.

[Taelas]

In BTVS a vampire is an undead shell inhabited by a demon NOT The living person. Angel is unusual in that he is a "souled" vampire and therefore has an actual conscience.

Not quite: a vampire is an undead shell influenced by a demon. The demon itself is actually mindless; this is made evident in an episode of Angel. It has no personality of its own, beyond being evil. It merges with the person to form the vampire. It is a hybrid; a mix of demon and human.

In BTVS, the lack of a soul for a vampire means lack of conscience, feeling no guilt, and having fewer inhibitions--the restoration of Angel's soul provides ample proof of that. The soul itself ceases to exist, or at least, it does not have a consciousness apart from the person. This is not true for people who are not turned into vampires -- for example, Buffy was in heaven at one point, and there are ghosts around as well.

If vampires were not the persons they were, Angel's entire dramatic arc would have no point. He'd know that his soul was innocent of the demon's wrong-doings. But no: he is aware that he did those things, and that is what his conscience wrestles with in the entire series.

Sorry for the tangent.


No, but to my knowledge there is no penalty for not feeding. If I remember correctly, Vampires can (and in fact need to) eat normal food as well.

They are undead, so they do not breathe, eat or sleep.

Libris Mortis has additional rules for undead that need to feed (including vampires). I believe vampires have both an "inescapable craving" (for the victim's "life force", which is what they drain via their energy drain ability) and are "diet dependent" (on blood, without which they eventually lose nearly all mobility). There's a variant rule for handling "undead hunger".

But unless the Giant decides to incorporate those rules or similar ones, there is no real "requirement" for a vampire to use his abilities, at least in Core.

[Skarn]

The thing about D&D "always evil" is that it actually means "well 90% of the time they are evil".

Actually a Vampire could easily become LG if they so choose to become such an alignment. There is nothing, absolutely nothing stopping them. So while Durkon may now be Evil due to the energy sustaining him, he could easily atone and work toward being lawful good.

There is a Good Aligned Lich in 3.5 soooo yeah...A good vampire isn't that much of a stretch.
Well the thing about it is, there is no "always evil" because Vampire (in this context) isn't a creature, it's a template that happens to say "when you take this template, set alignment to evil". And Durkon hasn't really had enough time to change that fact, assuming he is capable of doing so. That would require massive character development all over again.

Not quite: a vampire is an undead shell influenced by a demon.
That isn't what we have here, so I think no further discussion is necessary. :smalltongue:

They are undead, so they do not breathe, eat or sleep.
Oops, forgot that little tidbit. Been reading too many homebrew variants lately I guess. :smallbiggrin:

[BroomGuys]

Or. "So I'm a vampire. This sucks. "


*Applause*

More seriously, I'm inclined to think his thought process thus far has been "These two *******s are dumb enough to put themselves in melee range? Staff to the face X 2!"

[Mammal]

I feel like it would be kind of cheap, from a narrative perspective, if Durkon were to rejoin the Order. It just seems like a waste of all his development in this arc to go "okay, well, he's a vampire now, but everyone's down with it." To me, it would feel like a Deus ex Machina, as he's acquired some shiny new powers as a result of his vampirization.

And even if he is behaving in a more Durkon-ish way, I don't think that is Durkon. Like Malack said, "resurrecting me is a complex way of destroying the man I am today." Even if the vampire has many things in common with Durkon (right down to the same body), he [I]isn't/I] Durkon. That man is dead.

[KillianHawkeye]

More seriously, I'm inclined to think his thought process thus far has been "These two *******s are dumb enough to put themselves in melee range? Staff to the face X 2!"

My reading of the latest strip is that Durkon, having regained control over himself for the first time, is simply in shock at what he has become. Notice how he stood stark still with a blank expression on his face until Nale finished his sales pitch and prompted Durkon for an answer.

It wasn't a clever ploy to trick them into getting close.

[erikun]

Side note: Quoting Durkon directly makes my spell check throw up! :smalltongue:
Durkon is now stuck with two speech ticks: the stereotypical dwarven speech, and the stereotypical vampire speech. Good luck trying to understand a lengthy conversation from him now. :smalltongue:

[Bird]

Durkon is now stuck with two speech ticks: the stereotypical dwarven speech, and the stereotypical vampire speech. Good luck trying to understand a lengthy conversation from him now. :smalltongue:
Would you expand on the "stereotypical vampire speech" point?

[archon_huskie]

the colored speech bubbles.

[SavageWombat]

the colored speech bubbles.

Oh, I thought you expected him to go all Bela Lugosi.

[Drachasor]

Personally, I don't think even he knows what his alignment is right now. Old memories and new thirsts and ancient faith and stingingly fresh betrayal are all sloshing around in his dwarven skull. It's not like OotS characters have some kind of switch that you flip and suddenly they're dark side alter-egos. This is still Durkon, and he's still got a lot of the same old baggage. But he's also got a lot of brand new baggage as well. The end result will be a new equilibrium, a new perspective on things.

I think this is the most interesting way to go as far as story potential.

[erikun]

Would you expand on the "stereotypical vampire speech" point?
Perhafs his speech haf changed ah bit becaus of hif longer teef?

[Balain]

Not sure if this was mentioned, but I seem to recall some D&D rules for good liches and good vampires. So it is possible He is still good. I think not very likely but a slim chance.

[Hytheter]

No, but to my knowledge there is no penalty for not feeding. If I remember correctly, Vampires can (and in fact need to) eat normal food as well.

Well, according to Libris Mortis they need blood to survive

Also, in one scene in OoTS (the dinner when they first met Tarquin) it was explicitly noted that Malack was not eating any food, and that he would have his own meal later; something about a "special diet" on account of his "condition". If he needed actual food he would've eaten then.


I feel like it would be kind of cheap, from a narrative perspective, if Durkon were to rejoin the Order. It just seems like a waste of all his development in this arc to go "okay, well, he's a vampire now, but everyone's down with it." To me, it would feel like a Deus ex Machina, as he's acquired some shiny new powers as a result of his vampirization.

That's a rather narrow perspective. Presumably, even if he's evil, Durkon still considers the order his friends and probably still thinks saving the world is a good idea. BUT travelling with the order doesn't automatically mean they go back to how it was +fancyvampirepowers. It could have an impact on his interactions with the group, and the group's interactions with others.

Roy: "Dude come one the celestials are already judging me for travelling with Belkar ffs"

Village: "You're travelling with a VAMPIRE?! AAAARGHHSKFHLSKJDGFSLKJ"

Durkon: "Hey guys... I'm... getting hungry..."

[Porthos]

I feel like it would be kind of cheap, from a narrative perspective, if Durkon were to rejoin the Order. It just seems like a waste of all his development in this arc to go "okay, well, he's a vampire now, but everyone's down with it." To me, it would feel like a Deus ex Machina, as he's acquired some shiny new powers as a result of his vampirization.

And even if he is behaving in a more Durkon-ish way, I don't think that is Durkon. Like Malack said, "resurrecting me is a complex way of destroying the man I am today." Even if the vampire has many things in common with Durkon (right down to the same body), he [I]isn't/I] Durkon. That man is dead.

The problem with this is Durkon can't get any character development from being vamped, by your definition. After all, you said it yourself. That character is dead. And I tend to think Rich did this precisely for character development reasons.

As for Malack's statement? Don't forget, he's been a vampire far longer than he was not. So of course he would consider that to be more of who he really was.

IMO there is a middle ground between "Durkon's a vampire and everyone's down with it" and "whatever that thing is, it isn't Durkon". And that middle ground is: Exploring just what it means when your best friend becomes something he hates against his will. As well as: Exploring what it means to become what you hate.

[Starwaster]

Or he's evil, but simply doesn't like them.

Or he's evil, but still counts the Order as friends. Evil is allowed to have friends.

Or he's evil, but still believes the Order's "save the world" agenda is the best game going. Evil needs a world to live in, too.

Or he's evil, and remembers how many Guild members Nale has abandoned.

Or he's evil, and thinks he's too good to work for tweedle dumb and tweedle mute.

Or he's not sure what he is, and he's having a moment of personal identity crisis, and realizes that if he's sure of one thing - of only one thing in this great, wide universe of wizards and warriors and monkey ninjas - it's that there is no way in nine hells he is working for these two bozos.

I think I will go with answer #1....

No, wait! Answer #2....

No, wait! Answer #3....

No, wait! Answer #4....

No, wait! Answer #5....

No, wait! Answer #6....

[ZerglingOne]

No free willed being can -EVER- be forced into an alignment.

That goes against everything D&D is about. Period.

[Taelas]

No free willed being can -EVER- be forced into an alignment.

That goes against everything D&D is about. Period.

Yes, they can. There are a lot of effects which forcibly change your alignment, including at least one spell (sanctify the wicked from BoED), a cursed item (helm of opposite alignment) and too-numerous-to-name templates.

They can change their alignment later, of course, but several of them indicate a contentment with the new status quo--they wouldn't want to change back.

[The Pilgrim]

It would have been pointless from a storytelling perspective to have turned Durkon into a Vampire if that wasn't going to alter his perspective on the world.

I mean, he is Evil.

[archon_huskie]

I feel like it would be kind of cheap, from a narrative perspective, if Durkon were to rejoin the Order. It just seems like a waste of all his development in this arc to go "okay, well, he's a vampire now, but everyone's down with it." To me, it would feel like a Deus ex Machina, as he's acquired some shiny new powers as a result of his vampirization.

I think you mean out of characterization for the Order.

[Skarn]

I feel like it would be kind of cheap, from a narrative perspective, if Durkon were to rejoin the Order. It just seems like a waste of all his development in this arc to go "okay, well, he's a vampire now, but everyone's down with it." To me, it would feel like a Deus ex Machina, as he's acquired some shiny new powers as a result of his vampirization.
I don't think they necessarily need to be "down with it" in order to work with him.

As it is, Xykon is now pretty far ahead of them(which is bad if you consider no one in the Order can teleport), they don't have time to stop and look for an ideal solution. If Durkula (or whatever he'll call himself) is willing to help, they can't afford to be picky right now.

Also, getting vamped has its downsides. Given that he was the party healer, turning Evil will limit his spell options greatly since he now has to prepare cure spells in advance. Also, several of his favorite spells (Thor's Might, Thor's Lightning) are now probably unusable. It's also possible that he gave up one or more cleric levels in exchange for the template.

[Bulldog Psion]

On the other hand, I'd say his general power level and durability has just shot up quite a bit. Possibly enough to go toe-to-toe with Team Evil, assuming a bit of help.

[Bird]

On the other hand, I'd say his general power level and durability has just shot up quite a bit. Possibly enough to go toe-to-toe with Team Evil, assuming a bit of help.
More durable and powerful for sure. And we know that defeating T.E. is going to have to do more with character development than mechanical bonuses. Still, on a purely mechanical level, you have to like the folks with the large spellcasting advantage over the guy with the fun template.

[ZerglingOne]

Yes, they can. There are a lot of effects which forcibly change your alignment, including at least one spell (sanctify the wicked from BoED), a cursed item (helm of opposite alignment)

Well now, that's not free will, now is it?

All Durkon is right now, is a being powered by Negative Energy. Given that neutral clerics have the option of channeling it, it's not inherently evil.

He's not part devil or demon which are at their very core, evil, and are often under the control of some higher-up making them, again, not free willed.

Lawful Good is definitely unlikely, but LN is certainly not out of the question, especially with how he probably still feels towards his friends. No matter how evil he is on the outside, if he's doing good deeds, he's at the very least neutral.

[Mammal]

I guess I'm just pessimistic, re:Narrative Possibilities of Vamp!Durkon. I'm curious to see what direction his arc will go in, but I have my reservations about it. This is more a reflection of what I've seen rather than the comic itself, but most works of fiction don't handle late-game power upgrades well, even if the new abilities are intended as a curse, rather than a blessing.

However! OotS is not most works of fiction, and since Rich has gone on record saying "this has literally been coming since the start of the strip" I'm sure it will be handled very well. I just personally think it would be more interesting if Durkon did something else rather than rejoining the Order immediately. What if he considers himself a danger to them? I'm not 100% on how vampirism works in the D&D world, but having a new-minted vampire could be more of a liability than just "great, the townsfolk are going to hate/fear us," if they're unable to control their thirst for blood.

Still, I'm sure I'll be eating more words sooner rather than later. Such is the nature of the Giant.

[Nohar]

OK, let's see:

Vampires are always evil. However, "always" means "90% +/-" in the D&D universe.
Durkon, while being a Thrall, called a Demon when using Planar Ally. That feat is impossible if the character is Good.
Durkon was freed of his Thrall condition when Malack died. This restored is accent. It may or may not have had an influence on his alignment.
Durkon attacked Nale and Drizzt. It's still unknown if he did it because he wanted to protect the Order, avenge his "father", or just because those two d**** really pissed him off.


Now, let's take into account the amount of time Durkon spent as a vampire. He's been turned for just a few hours, then was freed from Malack's influence.
I don't see him have a complete personality change just because he was turned. If he had been turned for several years, I wouldn't been surprised if his personality would have evolved/changed. Right now, I think he's still the same Durkon... albeit he's a vampire now. Roy and the other members of the OOTS are still his friends (minus Belkar), and everything he did until now, he did it for them. I don't think that being turned into a vampire changed that. If anything, I think he will still be lawful to them, because they are his friends, and he cares about them.

However, he's a vampire now. Even if Durkon considers himself still LG, what does the universe thinks about this? How will Durkon deal with having to feed off blood in order to survive (feeding off blood isn't really a good act, and Durkon just became his own antithesis)? Will he want to off himself rather than staying something he hates, and if he does we can be pretty sure Roy will want to convince him otherwise? Will he return "posthumously" to his country as an undead corpse, or as a dead-dead corpse (my money on undead corpse, because the Order still need him, and he wants to help them)?

Even if he wants to act "good", he will have to struggle with his "evil" nature and urges. Since he didn't spend too much time as a thrall and didn't do any evil act yet (well, he did suck Belkar's blood... Yummy?), I'm pretty sure he could still be regarded as a Lawful Good character if he wants to act like one. However, he may have to compromise, and struggling with his new nature may send him into the "Lawful Neutral" territory depending on how he deals with it.

Also, I think that Durkon will become more assertive now. I wouldn't be surprised to see him go as far as to threaten to turn Belkar into his thrall if Belkar pisses him off (after all, if Durkon was turned into a vampire in the first place, it was partly Belkar's fault).

[davidbofinger]

That's not true. We also like watching Nale get hit in the head with a stick. I could watch that all day long. :)

It's traditional: when an evil person offers another evil person a job, and the second evil person wants to decline, the first person gets hit in the face (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html) with something.

[Talya]

Durkon is now Lawful Evil. Or, at least Evil. Vampirism has no effect on the law-chaos axis, but then again, it also doesn't say they can't change it. I, however, feel safe in assuming Durkon is still lawful.

Durkon rejoining the Order of the Stick is really inevitable, if I'm following The Giant's line of logic when writing this... because the Order of the Stick are the PCs. Everyone else are the NPCs. The fact that there are no players, but the characters themselves are sentient and thinking doesn't matter. The Order are the PCs. So with that said, 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? The Alignment Shift doesn't change the fact that you're still a PC.

While this argument is somewhat "Meta", so is the whole comic. That's the point.

Now, for an in-comic reason that doesn't play around with Genre-savviness, Durkon is likely still Lawful. That means he will still feel bound by his commitments and promises.

Vampire Durkon is no less likely to assist the Order than Living Durkon was. And at this stage, I'm fairly confident that no matter what happens to the rest of the party, Durkon will remain Unliving and Bloodsucking through to the end of the story, when he finally returns to his homeland in the coffin he travels in, fulfilling his prophecy.

Sadly, he's not likely to level again. He's already ECL 22.

[Dalek Kommander]

I feel like it would be kind of cheap, from a narrative perspective, if Durkon were to rejoin the Order. It just seems like a waste of all his development in this arc to go "okay, well, he's a vampire now, but everyone's down with it." To me, it would feel like a Deus ex Machina, as he's acquired some shiny new powers as a result of his vampirization.

And even if he is behaving in a more Durkon-ish way, I don't think that is Durkon. Like Malack said, "resurrecting me is a complex way of destroying the man I am today." Even if the vampire has many things in common with Durkon (right down to the same body), he [I]isn't/I] Durkon. That man is dead.

It would be incredibly cheap from a narrative perspective if Durkon the lawful good cleric who just happened to have been turned into a vampire rejoined the order, and everyone is down with it.

But if Durkula the lawful evil vampire who just happened to be a walking perversion of the memory of Durkon rejoined the party, the narrative potential for exploring all the ways the party WASN'T completely down with it would be mind-boggling.

[BrometheusJones]

Durkon will struggle between what he knows is right, and what his vampire nature wants him to do.

His technical alignment is "evil".

Thats not going to matter in the end, though. Durkon will persevere, and show that at its core, it is a willful decision to be one thing over another, and that control of ones destiny is in the hands of the individual, and not the circumstances they have been born into.

Itll get all those who are seriously OCD about rules up in arms, and itll be hysterical to watch :smallbiggrin:

Itll also make for great story, above all else. The struggle is where the story is going to be, for Durkon.

And my bet is that Durkon triumphs over his circumstances, and transcends his nature to become the master of his own fate, and will eventually return to the path of righteousness he was on before, no matter what he is now, and show the world, and himself, that the decision is always yours, and your only a victim of circumstance if you allow yourself to be.

[F.Harr]

Not sure if this was mentioned, but I seem to recall some D&D rules for good liches and good vampires. So it is possible He is still good. I think not very likely but a slim chance.


It would have been pointless from a storytelling perspective to have turned Durkon into a Vampire if that wasn't going to alter his perspective on the world.

I mean, he is Evil.


Durkon will struggle between what he knows is right, and what his vampire nature wants him to do.

His technical alignment is "evil".

Thats not going to matter in the end, though. Durkon will persevere, and show that at its core, it is a willful decision to be one thing over another, and that control of ones destiny is in the hands of the individual, and not the circumstances they have been born into.

Itll get all those who are seriously OCD about rules up in arms, and itll be hysterical to watch :smallbiggrin:

Itll also make for great story, above all else. The struggle is where the story is going to be, for Durkon.

And my bet is that Durkon triumphs over his circumstances, and transcends his nature to become the master of his own fate, and will eventually return to the path of righteousness he was on before, no matter what he is now, and show the world, and himself, that the decision is always yours, and your only a victim of circumstance if you allow yourself to be.

If anyone can overcome their evil inclinations, it's the iron-willed Durkula. Also, he doesn't have to DO anything evil for others to treat him that way. So the struggle and the attempt to deal with a world that WILL treat him differently is going to be interesting.

That and I approve of any time Nale gets hit with something.

[Suvar]

Well, he still has to stay pretty close to his deity's alignment or he loses his spellcasting, right? Like, within one step in any direction, I think? So consider this:

In 847 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0847.html), Durkon mentions that he doesn't prepare Detect Magic, but in 894 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0894.html), he casts that very spell.

Since a few hours (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0890.html) passed between those two moments, we can assume that Durkon performed his daily prayers (which I guess are mid-day prayers) and got a big "OK" from his deity on replenishing his allotment, despite being an negative-energy-powered, blood-sucking creature.

He can't be TOO far away from Thor's alignment, or he wouldn't be able to get (or maybe even *use*) his spells.

[Taelas]

Well, he still has to stay pretty close to his deity's alignment or he loses his spellcasting, right? Like, within one step in any direction, I think? So consider this:

In 847 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0847.html), Durkon mentions that he doesn't prepare Detect Magic, but in 894 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0894.html), he casts that very spell.

Since a few hours (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0890.html) passed between those two moments, we can assume that Durkon performed his daily prayers (which I guess are mid-day prayers) and got a big "OK" from his deity on replenishing his allotment, despite being an negative-energy-powered, blood-sucking creature.

He can't be TOO far away from Thor's alignment, or he wouldn't be able to get (or maybe even *use*) his spells.

The Giant has admitted he forgot Durkon said he hadn't prepared detect magic. He needed Durkon to cast a divination spell and chose detect magic because he specifically was low on higher-level spells.

He has also clarified that Durkon, as a vampire, is now a non-theistic cleric; he no longer gets spells from Thor.

[ChristianSt]

Here are the relevant quotes (brought to you by the The Index of the Giant's Comments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220195)):


I forgot about that strip when I assigned which character would cast which divination spell. I tried to give Durkon the lowest-level spell specifically because he said in #875 that he had no spells above 4th level except for Thor's Might and Planar Ally. So he couldn't have had True Seeing, and Locate Object is not a cleric spell.

In other words, I remembered the more plot-critical spell issue from three months ago rather than the throwaway line from a year ago.
Tell you what, you read the vampire template entry, particularly the part where it explicitly says that vampire clerics can still cast spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) just with different domain access, and you tell me where it says anything about gods or temporary loss of access there. It doesn't. Vampire clerics do not need to worship a god to cast spells, because NO cleric needs a god to cast spells. The rules specifically allow for "non-theistic" clerics, and explains exactly what the effects of turning into a vampire has on a cleric: Rebuke instead of Turn, different domains.

Technically he didn't really said that Durkon didn't get his spells from Thor (or from where he gets them now) - but he said that he doesn't need to get them from Thor (or any other god).

But yeah, "non-theistic" Durkon is the safest bet.

[Emmerlaus]

Or he's evil, but simply doesn't like them.

Or he's evil, but still counts the Order as friends. Evil is allowed to have friends.

Or he's evil, but still believes the Order's "save the world" agenda is the best game going. Evil needs a world to live in, too.

Or he's evil, and remembers how many Guild members Nale has abandoned.

Or he's evil, and thinks he's too good to work for tweedle dumb and tweedle mute.

Or he's not sure what he is, and he's having a moment of personal identity crisis, and realizes that if he's sure of one thing - of only one thing in this great, wide universe of wizards and warriors and monkey ninjas - it's that there is no way in nine hells he is working for these two bozos.

My thoughts exactly... I do think that Nale was right in killing Mallack too (and surprised he succeded in doing so).

Im really glad we can see Nale having a small victory... but then again, he always will be a fool (well at least a smart guy doing foolish choices) and overestimating his chances.

As for Durkon... Im really wondering what will happen now. I REALLY doubt he is lawful Good, most likely Lawful Evil.

[DaggerPen]

New baseless hypothesis: Instead of being good or evil, he's both!

Okay, explanation: As the D&D nerds may know the Book of Exalted Deeds has rules for redeeming "always evil" creatures, but more to the point there was an online article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) exploring a Succubus Paladin. For our purposes the important part is that while her personal alignment was lawful good, because of her subtypes she still registered as chaotic and evil for certain effects, including being unable to weild a Holy weapon without a negative level.

To bring this back to Stickworld, what if Durkon ends up in a similar situation: Mechanically evil regarding his abilities and how other effects affect him, but he still has a personal code of Lawful Good? At least before the urges start getting to him.


Durkon will struggle between what he knows is right, and what his vampire nature wants him to do.

His technical alignment is "evil".

Thats not going to matter in the end, though. Durkon will persevere, and show that at its core, it is a willful decision to be one thing over another, and that control of ones destiny is in the hands of the individual, and not the circumstances they have been born into.

Itll get all those who are seriously OCD about rules up in arms, and itll be hysterical to watch :smallbiggrin:

Itll also make for great story, above all else. The struggle is where the story is going to be, for Durkon.

And my bet is that Durkon triumphs over his circumstances, and transcends his nature to become the master of his own fate, and will eventually return to the path of righteousness he was on before, no matter what he is now, and show the world, and himself, that the decision is always yours, and your only a victim of circumstance if you allow yourself to be.

My money's one some combination of these two. I feel like being powered by dark magic probably leads to some very evil temptations, and would affect alignment-specific spells, but wouldn't prevent a sufficiently headstrong vampire from behaving in a good or at least neutral manner.

[Viladin454]

As much as I love vampire Durkula, I think somehow Durk is gonna get resurrected back to his former self.

[Mighty_Chicken]

In D&D, "Always Evil" doesn't Always mean Evil. Yet, here's something from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm):


Vampires are always evil, which causes characters of certain classes to lose some class abilities. In addition, certain classes take additional penalties.

Clerics
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.

Time for fascinating grammatical analysis. The phrase "Vampires are always evil, which causes etc." is a sign that turning from Good or Neutral into Evil is a necessary part of vampiric transformation. The are always evil part, without capitalization, informs us that evil is part of the Vampire's lore, not just their mechanics. This is followed by the word which and the alignment-related consequences being an inherent part of the process.

So maybe a Succubus can be born Evil and turn Good, or just be born Good and remain like that. That fits in the definition of "Always Evil". But characters who go through a transformation into Vampiredom get an Evil alignment. The question that remain is, are they as magically compelled to stay Evil as they are to get Evil?

[GloatingSwine]

As much as I love vampire Durkula, I think somehow Durk is gonna get resurrected back to his former self.

Maybe, but probably not quickly.


Also, regarding Durkon's alignment, he's always seemed to place more emphasis on the Lawful part of Lawful Good. That's not likely to have changed, so even if he is Lawful Evil now his character and motivations might not change all that much, just the acts he is willing to take in line with those motivations.

Also, him being Lawful Evil gives the party a new axis of tension between him and Belkar, straight along the law/chaos spectrum.

[Porthos]

In D&D, "Always Evil" doesn't Always mean Evil. Yet, here's something from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm):



Time for fascinating grammatical analysis. The phrase "Vampires are always evil, which causes etc." is a sign that turning from Good or Neutral into Evil is a necessary part of vampiric transformation. The are always evil part, without capitalization, informs us that evil is part of the Vampire's lore, not just their mechanics. This is followed by the word which and the alignment-related consequences being an inherent part of the process.

So maybe a Succubus can be born Evil and turn Good, or just be born Good and remain like that. That fits in the definition of "Always Evil". But characters who go through a transformation into Vampiredom get an Evil alignment. The question that remain is, are they as magically compelled to stay Evil as they are to get Evil?

Yes, there have been good vampires in D&D canon.

[Komatik]

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.

[F.Harr]

The question that remain is, are they as magically compelled to stay Evil as they are to get Evil?

That's interesting. If anyone can be good by sheer force of will, it's Durkon.

[JBiddles]

It doesn't matter how under Malack's thumb Durkon was. It is still his alignment that matters for the purposes of the spell, regardless of whether or not his personality was suppressed. Mental control does not affect the thrall's alignment. If Durkon's alignment was not changed by becoming a vampire, he would still be Lawful Good, and Malack's domination of him would not have changed that.

Since vampires are always evil, and Durkon could not have summoned the barbed devil as Lawful Good, Durkon must have become Lawful Evil when he became a vampire.

Of course, the Giant can always go in a different route if he wants to, but I think it was always his intention for Durkon to become Evil by becoming a vampire. The idea of a Durkon who is still clearly Durkon, but also clearly Evil is very interesting to me.


Thrall Durkula was under Malack's utter control. Durkula, whoever he is now, had no say in the matter. His alignment may have been Lawful Evil, because that was his pseudo-personality while under Malack's control, but that has no bearing on what it is as a free-willed vampire. Thrall Durkula was hooked up to the Negative Energy Plane and his consciousness was simply along for the ride, and could not possibly make a meaningful alignment choice. To paraphrase the Giant, "a child should not be presumed Evil due to race unless explicitly stated", and Thrall Durkula had less agency than a child.



The idea of a Durkon who is still clearly Durkon, but also clearly Evil is very interesting to me.

(All of this assumes that Durkula has Durkon's soul, and isn't just Johnny Evil-Spirit inhabiting his body and taking imprints of Durkon's personality and quirks.)

There is no such thing. A very clear theme of OotS is that race does not dictate alignment - for a free-willed, conscious being, alignment is always a choice, even if it is difficult and influenced by outside factors (e.g. social pressures, trauma, instincts etc.). A Durkon who is just suddenly Evil for no internal reason isn't Durkon, just a vaguely similar character in Durkon's body, and we've already seen a character in the afterlife. Xykon does Evil because he doesn't care about others, and enjoys their suffering. Redcloak is Evil because he thinks he's doing Good, and thinks he is justified in responding to Evil with worse Evil. Roy is Gokd because he values other people's wellbeing. All of those are personal choices, based on a character's own thoughts and feelings and experiences and memories - NOT because their race magically makes it so.

"Always Evil" races, then, are almost always Evil because that's how they were raised, and/or they have no sense of empathy, and/or they cannot resist the lure of Evil. It's exceptionally difficult to overcome innate Evil, but it can be done. Durkon, however, was not created Evil. He became a creature that is supposedly almost Always Evil when encountered by PCs - but why? If I had to guess, I'd say that it's a combination of shunning by society, leading to bitterness and hatred; Evil urges to feed indiscriminately on innocents; and perhaps connection to the Negative Energy Plane.

Personally, I'd much, much rather read about how the good and honest Durkon slowly became what he most hated due to his uncontrollable urges - or how he managed not to - and the effects that had on his character, than what a character who closely resembles Durkon but is Evil does.


TL;DR : If Right-Eye can be True Neutral despite being raised from birth in an Evil society, with Evil instincts, then Durkon can be a Lawful Good vampire - at least at first.

[Komatik]

That implies you could Dominate someone and suddenly he could summon Barbed Devils, which makes no damn sense. It's a huge stretch to assume Durkon is not Evil when the rules say he turns Evil and then has summoned a Barbed Devil. Moreover, the Vampire template says a Vampire turns Evil upon being vamped. It doesn't say a Vampire is forced to remain or become Evil slowly. The opposite scenario - Durkon Evil now, turns Good later is much more plausible for now than the opposite.

The next comic could prove us wrong, but currently everything says Durkon is Evil but still Durkon.

[WindStruck]

It is not "a fact" that he is evil. He summoned that thing when he was a thrall, which was when he had no free will of his own, so he was basically an extension of his master, Malack. And Malack was lawful evil.

This really isn't rocket science, and Rich has already stated till he is blue in the face that what the d&d rules say doesn't really matter. Trying to rules lawyer this is inane.

[Komatik]

It is not "a fact" that he is evil. He summoned that thing when he was a thrall, which was when he had no free will of his own, so he was basically an extension of his master, Malack. And Malack was lawful evil.

This really isn't rocket science, and Rich has already stated till he is blue in the face that what the d&d rules say doesn't really matter. Trying to rules lawyer this is inane.

Uh, being Dominated doesn't change your alignment. Durkon is a nontheistic cleric. For a nontheistic cleric to summon a Barbed Devil they have to be Lawful Evil. The Vampire template says the initial turning process turns the base creature Evil. Rich has specifically referenced some text from said template to explain some of what Durkon has done.

All the evidence points to "Durkon is Evil." There is not a single shred of it pointing otherwise. Vampires are magical beings, and the turning process especially is magical. Rich is fine with those kinds of beings having innate predilections for certain alignments.

That's the issue. Could Rich disregard the rules? Sure he could, not the first time he's done so. But currently that's the only argument in favour of Durkon, Good Vampire: "Because Rich might do it." The other side has that, plus the rules. The only post-Thralldom thing we know about Durkon strictly from the comics is "He's still Durkon." I could just as well say "Durkon will be a fervent Banjoist prophet of sillyness" and it'd have nearly the same weight as "Good Durkon".

I mean, Rich could do it.

[WindStruck]

You have no evidence. All you have is a rulebook and the fact that Durkon summoned a devil while he was enthralled. I'm sure any devil would think the call was legit.

[Rakoa]

You have no evidence. All you have is a rulebook and the fact that Durkon summoned a devil while he was enthralled. I'm sure any devil would think the call was legit.

You've contradicted yourself. He has a rulebook, and he has the fact that Durkon summoned a devil. That is evidence. What you're saying is not.

[Komatik]

Plus the fact that Rich seems to be following the template from his quotes thus far.

[WindStruck]

Ok, fine, go ahead and nitpick. Sure it's some circumstantial "evidence" but it is by far and large not a strong case, in my opinion.

[Rakoa]

Ok, fine, go ahead and nitpick. Sure it's some circumstantial "evidence" but it is by far and large not a strong case, in my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

[Komatik]

D&D rules in a D&D comic, indication of the author following said rules both in storytelling and forum posts, plus said thing making narrative sense? I fail to see how it isn't strong. I mean, it's not 100% airtight because Rich admittedly could just houserule things. But apart from Deus Ex Giant it's pretty damn foolproof.

[Liliet]

I see a possibility right there...
If we assume that an alignment change is gradual, not instant.
If we assume that there is some sort of "Karma meter" that measures your alignment based on what you did in the past, not only your current outlook.
If we assume that Rich values his characters and won't rip Durkon apart and replace with a new character and call it "development".
Then it is possible that Durkon's personality and "official" "magical" alignment right now don't match. It is possible in D&D, and is specifically mentioned as what happens with redeemed fiends. So, right now Durkon counts as Evil for all magical purposes, and until he proves himself Good again to the forces of the universe - which can be kinda hard with the whole bloodsucking business, although being a high-level cleric helps - he will be Evil.

His change in language does indicate a change in personality, but I say that being turned into a vampire, mind-enslaved and forced to drain your ally will do that to someone as rigid as Durkon used to be.

[Komatik]

The bloodsucking itself is relatively unproblematic. I mean, precious few creatures can live without ever having to kill another living being.

The Con DRAIN* is problematic. Never, ever understood how vampire bites deal ability drain instead of ability damage.

*Restoration shenanigans excepted.

[Sunken Valley]

According to the Srd, Durkon gets his choice of Evil, Destruction and Trickery. Trickery gives Durkon Disguise Self. Durkon has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to maintain his old form.

[Scow2]

Thrall Durkula was under Malack's utter control. Durkula, whoever he is now, had no say in the matter. His alignment may have been Lawful Evil, because that was his pseudo-personality while under Malack's control, but that has no bearing on what it is as a free-willed vampire. Thrall Durkula was hooked up to the Negative Energy Plane and his consciousness was simply along for the ride, and could not possibly make a meaningful alignment choice. To paraphrase the Giant, "a child should not be presumed Evil due to race unless explicitly stated", and Thrall Durkula had less agency than a child.




(All of this assumes that Durkula has Durkon's soul, and isn't just Johnny Evil-Spirit inhabiting his body and taking imprints of Durkon's personality and quirks.)

There is no such thing. A very clear theme of OotS is that race does not dictate alignment - for a free-willed, conscious being, alignment is always a choice, even if it is difficult and influenced by outside factors (e.g. social pressures, trauma, instincts etc.). A Durkon who is just suddenly Evil for no internal reason isn't Durkon, just a vaguely similar character in Durkon's body, and we've already seen a character in the afterlife. Xykon does Evil because he doesn't care about others, and enjoys their suffering. Redcloak is Evil because he thinks he's doing Good, and thinks he is justified in responding to Evil with worse Evil. Roy is Gokd because he values other people's wellbeing. All of those are personal choices, based on a character's own thoughts and feelings and experiences and memories - NOT because their race magically makes it so.

"Always Evil" races, then, are almost always Evil because that's how they were raised, and/or they have no sense of empathy, and/or they cannot resist the lure of Evil. It's exceptionally difficult to overcome innate Evil, but it can be done. Durkon, however, was not created Evil. He became a creature that is supposedly almost Always Evil when encountered by PCs - but why? If I had to guess, I'd say that it's a combination of shunning by society, leading to bitterness and hatred; Evil urges to feed indiscriminately on innocents; and perhaps connection to the Negative Energy Plane.

Personally, I'd much, much rather read about how the good and honest Durkon slowly became what he most hated due to his uncontrollable urges - or how he managed not to - and the effects that had on his character, than what a character who closely resembles Durkon but is Evil does.


TL;DR : If Right-Eye can be True Neutral despite being raised from birth in an Evil society, with Evil instincts, then Durkon can be a Lawful Good vampire - at least at first.

If he were a Goblin, Minotaur, Mind Flayer, Etc, then yes, he has a choice in his alignment.

However, The Giant has also repeatedly stated at least TWO big exceptions to "Race does not equal alignment" - Namely, those that are the very embodiment of an alignment, and The Undead. To Rich, all intelligent creatures not animated by negative energy or created by Pure Evil are funny-looking humans. A goblin is a short, green-skinned person with a few warts driven to desperation from being on the recieving end of a LOT of discrimination. A vampire, on the other hand, is an undead horror, perversion of life, and thoroughly despicable monster of the night, who's very body is powered by the foulest of forces. There's a BIG difference there.



Also - while Durkon may have been thoroughly under control of Malack, by RAW, he still had his own will (Except when that will contradicted that of his master). His thirst for blood, eagerness to conjure fiends, and desire to kill the order - although clouded by Malack's influence, were still his own (un)natural inclinations.

[Mighty_Chicken]

According to the Srd, Durkon gets his choice of Evil, Destruction and Trickery. Trickery gives Durkon Disguise Self. Durkon has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to maintain his old form.

:roy: So... weren't you a vampire now?

:durkon: ... I got better.

[Lizard Lord]

Hmmm so Vampires can choose between Chaos,Destruction, Evil and Trickery. I strongly believe he chose Evil and Destruction in that case.

I could be wrong but I believe a non-theistic cleric's domains are indicative of their personality and/or personal philosophy. As such, if we are to believe that vampire Durkon is still Durkon but evil, I find a hard time believing that he would choose the chaos or trickery domains.

[RickDaily12]

My two cents- Probably Lawful Evil, and the following reasons why:

1. Malack is DEFINITELY an evil man. The treatment of Elan beforehand, his hand with Tarquin's plans and his own for divine sacrifices make this point nearly indisputable. But, as demonstrated here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html) even an evil undead abomination, like the Vampire Malack, can have compassion for living things they consider friends. In other words, Evil people can still have friends they care about, and I think Durkon demonstrated with Planar Ally his alignment. But to this end, Durkon probably does consider Roy a friend if he bases a desire to maintain friendship on the positive memories of him, as he maintained hostility toward the LG based on the negative memories. His ability to make/keep friends/enemies has no bearing on his alignment.

2. As Roy died, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0443.html) he proceeded to the afterlife (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html) as himself, and his actual being was kept separate from his body until resurrection. Even after his body became an undead construct, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0578.html) the actual Roy was never part of that construct's thinking patterns (I mean, really, trying to kill your girlfriend?). So as Durkon has now passed on, his true self is probably completely independant of this new undead construct resembling him. Granted, Durkon is now an intelligent undead, however there is this point...

3. What Redcloak says about the undead, and proves to Tsukiko in this moment here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html) The Undead are simply weapons that can be used in the OOTSiverse, that you just point at other people, because they are only meant to serve. They don't really have a basis to love other people. While Malack may have loved his "family", the point where he called Durkon "thrall" throws the sincerity I have for that viewpoint into question...


Based on the above, I expect Durkula to be a Lawful Evil, completely separate being from the old Durkon, however, with nothing but the desire to return to a party likely to want his return and the mutual goal of saving the world.

[hamishspence]

3. What Redcloak says about the undead, and proves to Tsukiko in this moment here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html) The Undead are simply weapons that can be used in the OOTSiverse, that you just point at other people, because they are only meant to serve.

This I see as Redcloak lying to himself- based on his own servitude to Xykon- he wants to convince himself that he's the master, and Xykon only an upstart servant.

[RickDaily12]

This I see as Redcloak lying to himself- based on his own servitude to Xykon- he wants to convince himself that he's the master, and Xykon only an upstart servant.

Indeed, but I was more driving at the idea Redcloak brings forward: the undead are not capable of actually loving anything. In an instant, they can kill whom they were created by, regardless of their sentient or intelligent nature. They are violent, not loving.

[RMS Oceanic]

My two cents- Probably Lawful Evil, and the following reasons why:

1. Malack is DEFINITELY an evil man. The treatment of Elan beforehand, his hand with Tarquin's plans and his own for divine sacrifices make this point nearly indisputable. But, as demonstrated here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html) even an evil undead abomination, like the Vampire Malack, can have compassion for living things they consider friends. In other words, Evil people can still have friends they care about, and I think Durkon demonstrated with Planar Ally his alignment. But to this end, Durkon probably does consider Roy a friend if he bases a desire to maintain friendship on the positive memories of him, as he maintained hostility toward the LG based on the negative memories. His ability to make/keep friends/enemies has no bearing on his alignment.

This is a fair point, and if Durkon is evil I do see that he will still have loyalty to Roy.


2. As Roy died, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0443.html) he proceeded to the afterlife (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html) as himself, and his actual being was kept separate from his body until resurrection. Even after his body became an undead construct, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0578.html) the actual Roy was never part of that construct's thinking patterns (I mean, really, trying to kill your girlfriend?). So as Durkon has now passed on, his true self is probably completely independant of this new undead construct resembling him. Granted, Durkon is now an intelligent undead, however there is this point...

Constructs != Undead. Both involve animating things that either never moved before or have finished moving according to life's great plan, but the methodology is different, so I don't think you can use it as evidence. Also as a rebuttal: For undead with souls, I refer you to the Ancient Black Dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html).


3. What Redcloak says about the undead, and proves to Tsukiko in this moment here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html) The Undead are simply weapons that can be used in the OOTSiverse, that you just point at other people, because they are only meant to serve. They don't really have a basis to love other people. While Malack may have loved his "family", the point where he called Durkon "thrall" throws the sincerity I have for that viewpoint into question...

It's not the first time Redcloak has taunted someone with flaws that he himself has (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0372.html). It may be that the universe is as he describes it, but it's also possible he was just goading Tsukiko with what she loved most, while at the same time being a bit generous about his relationship with Xykon.

[MtlGuy]

Well I think that's the phrase of the day. If he's still Durkon then he'll be good or at least it's what most likely appears. Anyone else sees him as a permanent member of the OotS? Do you think he'll feed on the blood of animals? I am still expecting a line in which he'll do something bad and Belkar will scold him (what with his character development :D)

Edit: Also if he's good, can he have Thor as his deity?

He's likely gone from lawful good to lawful evil. I think he will be able to work with the OotS, I think they will want to see his condition as medical and reversible. They've tolerated Belkar this whole time, why not Durkon? He probably now orships whomever Malack worshipped.

The only thing Durkon really wanted was to go home, so much that he even took comfort from being told by the Oracle that he would go home posthumously. I think a trip to his homelands and a reckoning with whoever he believes responsible for casting him out is close at hand. If the next gate happens to be in or close to Dwarf lands, we can expect the OotS to accompany him.

[Taelas]

He probably now orships whomever Malack worshipped.

I see this sentiment all over the place, and it baffles me. Why on Earth would Durkon start worshiping a different pantheon? :smallconfused: If he no longer believes that the Northern deities are worthy of worship, I frankly don't see why he'd start worshiping any deity.

In my opinion, if he begins worshiping again, he'll probably start a church of Hel (or join an already-existing secret one).

[Gift Jeraff]

Plus Rich already implied he was a nontheistic when he conjured up the barbed devil. If he wasn't a worshipper of Nergal under Malack's influence, I fail to see why he would worship Nergal as a free-willed vamp.

Though I'm a fan of the idea that he'll become Hel's first cleric.

[nephtis]

Now, the vampire template says that alignment is always evil. However, in some description somewhere i cant seem to find right now, it was mentioned that always dosent mean always.

I think that was a Ravenloft thing in AD&D? Was it van Richten's Guide to vampires?
I think in there, when a charcter got turned there was a percentage role (really low, a 1% chance I think) that they would keep their alignment despite becoming a vampire.

But then Ravenloft was a setting that allowed a lot of darker characters and scenarios.

[MtlGuy]

I see this sentiment all over the place, and it baffles me. Why on Earth would Durkon start worshiping a different pantheon? :smallconfused: If he no longer believes that the Northern deities are worthy of worship, I frankly don't see why he'd start worshiping any deity.

In my opinion, if he begins worshiping again, he'll probably start a church of Hel (or join an already-existing secret one).

Well the following leads me to conclude what I did:

1. Thor is good, so he probably doesn't accept evil followers/worshippers.

2. Durkon's planar ally was wholly evil instead of the lawful good being he was planning on summoning to defend the gate.

3. Malack was looking for bromance, so if he converted Durkon into an undead being, is that that much further to turn him on to his religion as well?

He's now a Lawful Evil (probably) Vampire Cleric, and has his free will. Whereas during his brief thrallship to Malack he was likely compelled to worship Malack's deity, now he may in fact have a choice. (but so did Malack and he chose the god of death did he not?).

[Kish]

But then Ravenloft was a setting that allowed a lot of darker characters and scenarios.
I don't know why so many people think that.

Ravenloft is, and has always been, a setting where being evil is explicitly forbidden for PCs and being anything but a pure-hearted hero puts you on a greased slide to NPC-dom.

[Sky_Schemer]

Though I'm a fan of the idea that he'll become Hel's first cleric.

Hear, hear!

I would love it if this happened. Aside from being kind of cool, just think of the new spin it would put on the Thor-Hel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) jokes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html). :)

[rodneyAnonymous]

Ok, fine, go ahead and nitpick. Sure it's some circumstantial "evidence" but it is by far and large not a strong case, in my opinion.

"Nitpicking" and "circumstantial"?! No, it's not a strong case; it's ironclad. If dominate person affected alignment, any non-LG wizard could make a paladin Fall with a 5th-level spell.

Durkon cast a spell (greater planar ally) whose effect varies by the alignment of the caster. He is Lawful Evil. It doesn't matter that he was Malack's slave at the time.

[Skarn]

1. Thor is good,

Debatable. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html) I see him as more Lawful than Good, personally.

[Arcanist]

Hear, hear!

I would love it if this happened. Aside from being kind of cool, just think of the new spin it would put on the Thor-Hel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) jokes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html). :)

Hel, or as I'd like to call her "the Goddess of RAW", would be an interesting Deity for Durkon to worship. I don't think the Giant will do it because of a small number of panels featuring Thor and Hel together arguing, but it would be fairly interesting to say the least. It is highly unlikely that this is the same Hel described in Deities and Demigods, but if it is (at least Dogma wise) Undead would be on her A-okay list.

It is also possible that Hel does have an organized church (or cult pending on size) that Durkon isn't aware of due to low ranks in Knowledge (Religion).

[luc258]

Debatable. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html) I see him as more Lawful than Good, personally.
Really? I always thought he was quite chaotic, with his messing with the rules for when people go to hel or not, or his creative interpretation of weather control.

[Porthos]

*reads latest strip*

Yeah, he's evil. :smalltongue:

[WindStruck]

...yes. The fact that he just snapped poor Z's neck like that. THAT is ironclad proof. :smalleek:


Poor Z... :smallfrown:

[Golden-Esque]

Not sure why this thread is titled the way it is, after all, this conversation happens:

ROY: Durkon, you're not Evil?
DURKIN: Not any more than Belkar, I'd wager.

Not any more than BELKAR.

BELKAR.

Belkar is most certainly not Lawful Good material, even after "character growth."

[Rakoa]

...yes. The fact that he just snapped poor Z's neck like that. THAT is ironclad proof. :smalleek:


Poor Z... :smallfrown:

There's something we can agree on... Z will be sorely missed...

[Porthos]

Not sure why this thread is titled the way it is, after all, this conversation happens:

ROY: Durkon, you're not Evil?
DURKIN: Not any more than Belkar, I'd wager.

Not any more than BELKAR.

BELKAR.

Belkar is most certainly not Lawful Good material, even after "character growth."

This thread's been up for a few days. :smallwink:

[nocker]

Durkon's new alignment should be LE, in particular because he outright admitted on 908 that "he's not more evil than Belkar". If he was still good, his forthright personality would make he answer that question with "nay, I'm still good".

Once he adapts to actually preparing healing spells instead of counting on spontaneous conversion and to the new and limited domain list available to vampire clerics he can resume being a valuable member of the party, with one interesting caveat: He became fragiler against Redcloak. Not only Disintegrate is a vampire destroyer spell (Durkon now lacks the constitution bonus on his fort save) but Redcloak can also try to rebuke or even control Durkon now.

[Dark Matter]

Chaos, Destruction, Evil, or Trickery.He can't have Chaos since he's Lawful. Of the three others... Destruction seems a shoe in, Trickery seems the biggest reach, but certainly do-able.

[Fishman]

Durkon is Evil now. Period. He just broke a dude's neck on a casual whim and flat out admitted that at least he's not any worse than Belkar.

So what of it? It is not as if being Evil means that your every action is now motivated For the Evulz or anything. Even Xykon doesn't want the world destroyed: He keeps all his stuff there.

[Dante2001]

Well yeah, this post is old. But I have a question:

Is it possible for a lawful evil being to pursue a lawful good objective/mission?

[Rakoa]

Well yeah, this post is old. But I have a question:

Is it possible for a lawful evil being to pursue a lawful good objective/mission?

Of course it is. Evil is about motivation as much as method.

[Thrair]

Once he adapts to actually preparing healing spells instead of counting on spontaneous conversion and to the new and limited domain list available to vampire clerics he can resume being a valuable member of the party, with one interesting caveat: He became fragiler against Redcloak. Not only Disintegrate is a vampire destroyer spell (Durkon now lacks the constitution bonus on his fort save) but Redcloak can also try to rebuke or even control Durkon now.

But the flip side is he's probably stronger against Xykon himself. Seeing as Xykon has a habit of just spamming energy drain at targets until they fall over rather than use proper tactics. And, as an Undead, Durkon's now immune/healed by negative energy, depending on the nature of the exact spell.

To those who say Xykon wouldn't cast Energy Drain on an undead (assuming Durkon wasn't disguising his status), I give you this example of his Tactical Brilliance. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html)

[primarch359]

Does this mean that the Order is now half evil? (Duron, Belkar, V?) vs (Nale, Haley, Roy)

And how is he going to deal with Haley and Nale coming back to see him standing over the Limp form of Roy.

[Talya]

Does this mean that the Order is now half evil? (Duron, Belkar, V?) vs (Nale, Haley, Roy)

And how is he going to deal with Haley and Nale coming back to see him standing over the Limp form of Roy.

V is not evil.

[Psyren]

Well yeah, this post is old. But I have a question:

Is it possible for a lawful evil being to pursue a lawful good objective/mission?

Let me answer your question with a question:

What does Durkon gain by letting the Snarl/Tarquin/Xykon win?

[Lizard Lord]

But the flip side is he's probably stronger against Xykon himself. Seeing as Xykon has a habit of just spamming energy drain at targets until they fall over rather than use proper tactics. And, as an Undead, Durkon's now immune/healed by negative energy, depending on the nature of the exact spell.

To those who say Xykon wouldn't cast Energy Drain on an undead (assuming Durkon wasn't disguising his status), I give you this example of his Tactical Brilliance. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html)

But that was rules for something that doesn't apply to himself (incorporeal). I assume Xykon knows what he is immune to. Besides he didn't energy drain on Soon (possibly because he believed that Soon was undead and thus immune.)


Does this mean that the Order is now half evil? (Duron, Belkar, V?) vs (Nale, Haley, Roy)

And how is he going to deal with Haley and Nale coming back to see him standing over the Limp form of Roy.
Nale is evil. :smallwink:

Elan on the other hand....

[nocker]

V isn't evil. The order now should have one member in each one of the "extreme" alignments (LG, CG, TN, LE, CE) besides the NG Elan. It's still an overall good party, in particular because Durkon doesn't seem changed and Belkar is a team player now.

Finally, "breaking a dude's neck on a casual whim" isn't "evil" if the dude is an amoral spellcaster working for an evil mastermind. That's how heroism in D&D actually looks like.

[Lizard Lord]

V isn't evil. The order now should have one member in each one of the "extreme" alignments (LG, CG, TN, LE, CE) besides the NG Elan. It's still an overall good party, in particular because Durkon doesn't seem changed and Belkar is a team player now.

Finally, "breaking a dude's neck on a casual whim" isn't "evil" if the dude is an amoral spellcaster working for an evil mastermind. That's how heroism in D&D actually looks like.

I thought the Giant confirmed that Elan was CG? :smallconfused:

[Bird]

I thought the Giant confirmed that Elan was CG? :smallconfused:
Pretty sure he did. Don't have the link on me, but in any case, Elan confirmed it himself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html) (see the text overlaying panel 8, with Vaarsuvius).

[nocker]

Pretty sure he did. Don't have the link on me, but in any case, Elan confirmed it himself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html) (see the text overlaying panel 8, with Vaarsuvius).
Indeed! Then it's possible I'm not remembering Haley's alignment correctly. Is she "CN with good tendencies" or "CG with neutral tendencies"?

[JennTora]

"Nitpicking" and "circumstantial"?! No, it's not a strong case; it's ironclad. If dominate person affected alignment, any non-LG wizard could make a paladin Fall with a 5th-level spell.

Durkon cast a spell (greater planar ally) whose effect varies by the alignment of the caster. He is Lawful Evil. It doesn't matter that he was Malack's slave at the time.

Why do you assume that a vampire thrall works in exactly the same way as a dominated person? It may well be that the universe sees an enthralled undead as an extension of its masters will and it is therefore treated as having the same alignment. A dominated person on the other hand, still has its will, it is merely subjugated. Note that a dominated person receives a new will save if they are commanded to do anything against their. Durkon, as a newly awakened vampire didn't get a will save. It wasn't that malack's will was stronger, but that Durkula didn't even have a will of his own until malack died. With all this in mind it's not ridiculous that durkon would be treated as an extension of malack.

[Bird]

Indeed! Then it's possible I'm not remembering Haley's alignment correctly. Is she "CN with good tendencies" or "CG with neutral tendencies"?
She's CG, confirmed by her own words in 393 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0393.html). Translation of her cryptograms here (http://www.mrphlip.com/haley.php?show=393).

(thanks to the geekery (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282328) thread)

[nephtis]

I don't know why so many people think that.

Ravenloft is, and has always been, a setting where being evil is explicitly forbidden for PCs and being anything but a pure-hearted hero puts you on a greased slide to NPC-dom.

It was also a place where you could not rescue everyone and some choices were... in a gray area.
Least of two evils choices. And it made it really tempting to justify any non-good act by claiming it helped to fight an even bigger evil. I think it was one of the most difficult worlds for DM and player.
If done right, interesting roleplaying and plot but could go bad really easy.

Sorry for getting off topic here.

[Komatik]

Why do you assume that a vampire thrall works in exactly the same way as a dominated person? It may well be that the universe sees an enthralled undead as an extension of its masters will and it is therefore treated as having the same alignment. A dominated person on the other hand, still has its will, it is merely subjugated. Note that a dominated person receives a new will save if they are commanded to do anything against their. Durkon, as a newly awakened vampire didn't get a will save. It wasn't that malack's will was stronger, but that Durkula didn't even have a will of his own until malack died. With all this in mind it's not ridiculous that durkon would be treated as an extension of malack.

Enslaved intelligent undead are just that - enslaved intelligent beings. Like, dunno, a certain vampiric dwarf that's totally Lawful Good because he smacked Nale. Skeletons and Zombies ought to be TN, too, with what being mindless and all. The Zombies may be out to eat your brains just as the wolf is out to eat your leg, doesn't mean either makes any moral decisions about it. They're just hungry.

[Edhelras]

I think this strip (908) eloquently illustrates one important aspect of alignments in DnD that some people seem to overlook: That Good and Evil aren't ONLY about "how your character acts" or "what your character feels when acting". Alignment is ALSO a fundamental part of game mechanics, as this shows: Durkon can no longer spontaneously cast Cure spells, rather his spells are now Inflict, since he's turned to Evil.

I think this is fully in line with the "Vampires always Evil" description in the manual, and in line with the principle that undead are fuelled by negative energy.

Now, Durkon is an Intelligent Undead - which means that he can retain his understanding of what is at stake (pun intended...), with the Gates and all. And he remembers his former life and history. His loyalties and bonds of friendship remains. Just as before - with Belkar - a party or fellowship may contain people with different alignments who might even be "friends" or at the very least continue to live peaceful collaboration and support each other. Even V and Haley illustrates that - despite their alignment differences (which were not "irreconcilable"...) V dedicated himself to rescueing Haley after the fall of Azure City.

But Durkon will find that things have changed. He is now an Evil person, and if Rich is going to make any real use of this change, the Evil alignment will start influencing Durkon in so many ways. Like, for instance, the gleeful (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html) killing of Zdditri. And the Inflict spell he cast on Roy. I think Durkon will still heal his party members, but he shouldn't (IMO) any longer do it with the tenderness and compassion he's showing Kazumi in this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0598.html).

There will be a time where Durkon will have to learn how his new alignment works, and he may be somewhat surprised by it. That's not in conflict with his alignment being a powerful and somewhat inescapeable factor governing his actions. As an intelligent, free-willed character, he may still be able to perform a long list of acts that aren't directly evil or harmful to others, and he may consciously decide to act in a way that contributes to the common good (as a side effect of contributing to his OWN good).
His formerly very strong tendency of Loyalty is also something that should stick, despite his alignment change and change in outlook.

But - if Durkon, during the remainder of the comic, continues to be a kind, gentle-hearted and rather virtous character, I mean, if he continues to act like a Good person would act - then I think it would be bad writing and really an omission of character development. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure Rich will show us a number of ways an Evil alignment influences a character's actions. The wicked smile while killing defenseless Z'dditri was just the first example of that (hey - my own characters are usually so goodly that they frequently get into vast amounts of trouble with what to do with surviving enemies - killing off defenseless and subdued enemies seems too harsh for them).

One interesting aspect is how Durkon shall now renew his spells. I cannot understand how he can go on getting spells from Thor after this. Perhaps he could turn to Hel.

[Aquillion]

He became fragiler against Redcloak. Not only Disintegrate is a vampire destroyer spell (Durkon now lacks the constitution bonus on his fort save) but Redcloak can also try to rebuke or even control Durkon now.Rebuke, maybe, control, no. You need to be twice the undead's HD to even attempt to control them, and Durkon is well above level 10 -- Redcloak would need to be epic level to even have a chance.

Even Rebuking is hard, because vampires have +4 turning resistance, meaning that Durkon's HD is counted as four levels higher (meaning he counts as at least level 19, and you'd need to be level 38 to control him.) Redcloak is probably level 17. He might succeed at a rebuke on a really good roll, but it would generally be a waste of an action to attempt it when Redcloak's spells are much more likely to succeed.

[Komatik]

Durkon is a nontheistic cleric and draws his magical mojo directly from the Negative Energy Plane, for now. And no, getting your spell slots form somewhere else doesn't have some deep psychological impact. Casting aside his old faith may. But not the spell slots.

[Diadem]

In the #908 comic thread people were asking why Roy was damaged by Durkon's heal. Others explained that Durkon now channels negative energy because he's evil.

Rich however responded by saying that Durkon now channels negative energy because he's a vampire. He very clearly deliberately left out the word 'evil' there.

This may be Rich just toying with us. But he's clearly keeping the option of good open.

I myself am still not convinced he's evil. Snapping Z's neck is not evil, Z is a villain, killing villains is what heroes do. Killing a villain in this way is unexpected for a hero, but it falls more under 'chaotic' than 'evil'.

Helping out the order is something an evil character could do, evil characters can care about others as well, but it's also something a good character would be more likely to do.

[Edhelras]

I myself am still not convinced he's evil. Snapping Z's neck is not evil, Z is a villain, killing villains is what heroes do.

But that wicked, gleeful smile while snapping it betrayed his Evil alignment, IMO.

[Mike Havran]

This may be Rich just toying with us. But he's clearly keeping the option of good open.

You cannot summon a devil with Planar Ally unless you are Lawful Evil or worship a Lawful Evil deity.

Durkon is clearly Lawful Evil.

[Diadem]

You cannot summon a devil with Planar Ally unless you are Lawful Evil or worship a Lawful Evil deity.

Durkon is clearly Lawful Evil.
But Durkon did not summon that devil, Malack's thrall did. Are you arguing those are the same person?

[Komatik]

I myself am still not convinced he's evil. Snapping Z's neck is not evil, Z is a villain, killing villains is what heroes do. Killing a villain in this way is unexpected for a hero, but it falls more under 'chaotic' than 'evil'.

Helping out the order is something an evil character could do, evil characters can care about others as well, but it's also something a good character would be more likely to do.

Please.

Vampire template => Base creature turns Evil (any). By Rich's comments and in-comic happenings, he is using the standard Monster Manual template.
Is a nontheistic Cleric by logic AND Word of Giant.
Summoned a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally -> a nontheistic Cleric can only do this if he's Lawful Evil.
Happily snapped Z's neck.
Spontaneously casts Inflict spells.
Makes comments as to not being any more evil than Belkar is.

What do you have to offer as counterpoints? Vain hope, as usual?

[Mike Havran]

But Durkon did not summon that devil, Malack's thrall did. Are you arguing those are the same person?

Yes. His personality was suppressed by the enthrallment but it was there. The enthrallment didn't bring new person into Durkon's body.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Why do you assume that a vampire thrall works in exactly the same way as a dominated person?...

I did refer to the dominate spell by name, but I meant to imply that type of effect. As far as I know, no temporary mind control effect causes the target to inherit the alignment of the caster.

[Skarn]

Really? I always thought he was quite chaotic, with his messing with the rules for when people go to hel or not, or his creative interpretation of weather control.
Thor never broke the rules though, only bent them by arguing technicalities. To me that indicates he does value whatever agreement he may have with Hel, though he does seem want to keep as many souls away from her as possible. At any rate I always found their exchanges to be very... Lawyerly.

Now, I suppose it would be easier to argue for Thor as Good if Hel were Evil, but I don't know enough about Norse myth to argue for or against that. If anyone else wants to, feel free. :smallamused:

[Bulldog Psion]

But Durkon did not summon that devil, Malack's thrall did. Are you arguing those are the same person?

It's still obeying his orders, so that says a lot right there.

[Diadem]

I did refer to the dominate spell by name, but I meant to imply that type of effect. As far as I know, no temporary mind control effect causes the target to inherit the alignment of the caster.
But Thralldom is not a temporary mind control effect. It's both inherent and permanent. Durkula was a thrall from the moment he was raised, and was always going to be a thrall unless released. Not even epic magic could have changed that.

I'm not arguing that thralldom changed Durkula's alignment. I'm arguing that he never had one in the first place. He never had a free will. You can't have an alignment without free will. The entire concept makes no sense.

None of that fits very well with the RAW. But the deconstruction of the RAW rules surrounding alignment is one of the major themes of this comic, so yeah.

[Bulldog Psion]

Another point, though, is that he now spontaneously casts inflict spells, not cure spells. Mechanically, at least, he's evil.

[Komatik]

But Thralldom is not a temporary mind control effect. It's both inherent and permanent. Durkula was a thrall from the moment he was raised, and was always going to be a thrall unless released. Not even epic magic could have changed that.

I'm not arguing that thralldom changed Durkula's alignment. I'm arguing that he never had one in the first place. He never had a free will. You can't have an alignment without free will. The entire concept makes no sense.

None of that fits very well with the RAW. But the deconstruction of the RAW rules surrounding alignment is one of the major themes of this comic, so yeah.

Thralls have a personality of their own. They just have a Dominate effect plus some slavish adoration for their sire slapped on top. Also:


Please.

Vampire template => Base creature turns Evil (any). By Word of Giant and in-comic happenings, Rich is using the standard Monster Manual template.
Is a nontheistic Cleric by logic AND Word of Giant.
Summoned a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally -> a nontheistic Cleric can only do this if he's Lawful Evil.
Happily snapped Z's neck.
Spontaneously casts Inflict spells.
Makes comments as to not being any more evil than Belkar is.

What do you have to offer as counterpoints? Vain hope, as usual?

Everyone's arguments for "Not Evil" has thus far amounted "Please, don't be such a stickler about all these icky printed rules here. And forget that the comic is consistent with the rules and that Rich has referred to them as explanation for what's happened to Durkon/Malack."

It's nothing but stubborn refusal to accept the obvious, wilful ignorance of a mountain of sound evidence in favour of a thing or two that don't absolutely have to be so, yet are infinitely less plausible than the alternative with more evidence in support of it.

What's next, the sky is in fact red because we could just all be colourblind in a specific way and all the scientific instruments just malfunction identically?

[Kish]

Snapping Z's neck is not evil, Z is a villain, killing villains is what heroes do.
So when Vaarsuvius disintegrated Kubota, that wasn't an evil act? Pretty sure Rich disagrees with you there.

I remember in Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tales, Durkon--and only Durkon--insisting on striking for nonlethal against the 4ed invaders even after 4ed-Durkon insulted 3ed-Thor...and 4ed-Durkon twitching about killing 3ed-Durkon's summons. And now, Durkon casually killed an incapacitated member of a group of enemies whom everyone in the Order except Belkar has always gone out of their way to take prisoner rather than killing, and strongly implied that he intended to kill Nale as well. If you want an actual change in Durkon's behavior to point to, rather than the goofy "Durkon doesn't swear!" thing several people have claimed, here it is, in a big way.

[nocker]

Don't people remember the circumstances here and there? Taking the Linear Guild prisoners kind of made sense when there were nearby non-evil governments and time. There was a hope then that the villains could be taken care of in a decent way if turned to the authorities. This is not the case now.

[eras10]

Another point, though, is that he now spontaneously casts inflict spells, not cure spells. Mechanically, at least, he's evil.


What's next, the sky is in fact red because we could just all be colourblind in a specific way and all the scientific instruments just malfunction identically?

Some people here really need to go spend time with the "Stuff Rich said" thread. I'm not going to bother to dig out the exact quotes, but the bottom line is that Rich doesn't care about D&D rules or mechanics if they get in the way of his story, period. People assuming that Durkon is now evil may be right, or may be wrong, but they're definitely overconfident. Not only can Rich make Durkon any alignment he wants, but Rich is also both willing and totally down for doing it if it's the best story. Rich wants Durkon to be a Lawful Good vampire who spontaneously casts Negative Energy spells, then that's how it will be.

I think there's a perfectly good argument that the evil-ish default capabilities are for Rich to show that Durkon is physically an undead vampire, and he'll definitely be an undead vampire whatever his alignment is, but the theme of this whole story is that living beings have free will and can be whatever alignment they want.

I don't believe Durkon is under any kind of psychic influence until I hear otherwise. He's choosing what his alignment will be every minute, just like he always has. That's just what I believe, but it would be unwise to count that possibility out.

The "what is Durkon's behavior since he was freed telling us about Rich's intentions" debate is... a different debate altogether, really. There's some possible evidence that Durkon is now no longer good from that angle, but I think it's too early to say for sure.

What makes this the most interesting is that undead are, perhaps, in this gray area for Rich's general themes about moral free will in a D&D verse. Redcloak calls them nothing more than complex weapons aimed at people by living things. There's no free will in that. The question is whether he's wrong.
I think with sentient undead, he is. Xykon isn't obligated to be evil either, he just likes it. A power like a negative energy aura is just that, a power, like owning a gun. Alignment is how you use it, and "free-willed" undead means just that, at least in OOTS-verse.

I think.

[Niknokitueu]

I don't know why so many people think that.

Ravenloft is, and has always been, a setting where being evil is explicitly forbidden for PCs and being anything but a pure-hearted hero puts you on a greased slide to NPC-dom.
Hmmm...
The version of Ravenloft I ran had penalties for both being too good and too evil.

If you were too good, the land 'marked' you. Killing a Lord, for example, gave you a 'boon'.
If you did an evil act, the land 'marked' you. Killing a PC or an innocent, for example, also gave you a 'boon'.

The only way to apparently prosper in Ravenloft was to try to survive without doing too much good and no evil. My campaign ended after just one mission when one of my players looked around at a terminally weakened party and worked out that he had a good chance of reaching Lordhood if he PvP'd the rest of the party. The campaign got abandoned by mutual consent.

(Edit):
Durkula does appear to be evil both by his admission ("Not any more'n Belkar, I'd wager") and by his acts (his expression in panel 3, the obvious dissapointment aired to nobody in panel 5). He no doubt remains Lawful (with as big an 'L' as you can imagine) and is no doubt trying to do good deeds ("Cure Mod'rate Wounds!").

Whether he ends up becoming a LG vampire, or just does what he can to help the party whilst remaining LE, is up to Rich. My hope is that he will remain LE and do 'good', often with nasty results. A bit like a negative reflection of how Belkar used to be. Evil and trying to be Good instead of B's Evil and constrained to not do Evil.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[Komatik]

Some people here really need to go spend time with the "Stuff Rich said" thread. I'm not going to bother to dig out the exact quotes, but the bottom line is that Rich doesn't care about D&D rules or mechanics if they get in the way of his story, period. People assuming that Durkon is now evil may be right, or may be wrong, but they're definitely overconfident. Not only can Rich make Durkon any alignment he wants, but Rich is also both willing and totally down for doing it if it's the best story. Rich wants Durkon to be a Lawful Good vampire who spontaneously casts Negative Energy spells, then that's how it will be.

I think there's a perfectly good argument that the evil-ish default capabilities are for Rich to show that Durkon is physically an undead vampire, and he'll definitely be an undead vampire whatever his alignment is, but the theme of this whole story is that living beings have free will and can be whatever alignment they want.

I don't believe Durkon is under any kind of psychic influence until I hear otherwise. He's choosing what his alignment will be every minute, just like he always has. That's just what I believe, but it would be unwise to count that possibility out.

The "what is Durkon's behavior since he was freed telling us about Rich's intentions" debate is... a different debate altogether, really. There's some possible evidence that Durkon is now no longer good from that angle, but I think it's too early to say for sure.

What makes this the most interesting is that undead are, perhaps, in this gray area for Rich's general themes about moral free will in a D&D verse. Redcloak calls them nothing more than complex weapons aimed at people by living things. There's no free will in that. The question is whether he's wrong.
I think with sentient undead, he is. Xykon isn't obligated to be evil either, he just likes it. A power like a negative energy aura is just that, a power, like owning a gun. Alignment is how you use it, and "free-willed" undead means just that, at least in OOTS-verse.

I think.

He isn't under influence anymore. Probably. But the transformation changed him, that much is fact. Rich follows the standard Vampire template, which Evilizes the base creature.

Though I guess this is one of those things where Durkon will have to Godwin before some people finally accept that yes, he's Evil.

[Kish]

Hmmm...
The version of Ravenloft I ran had penalties for both being too good and too evil.

If you were too good, the land 'marked' you. Killing a Lord, for example, gave you a 'boon'.
If you did an evil act, the land 'marked' you. Killing a PC or an innocent, for example, also gave you a 'boon'.

The only way to apparently prosper in Ravenloft was to try to survive without doing too much good and no evil. My campaign ended after just one mission when one of my players looked around at a terminally weakened party and worked out that he had a good chance of reaching Lordhood if he PvP'd the rest of the party. The campaign got abandoned by mutual consent.
Would you be offended if I said that I don't think your anecdote (particularly the last two sentences) is a good advertisement for the house rules you describe?

[Taelas]

But Thralldom is not a temporary mind control effect. It's both inherent and permanent. Durkula was a thrall from the moment he was raised, and was always going to be a thrall unless released. Not even epic magic could have changed that.

I'm not arguing that thralldom changed Durkula's alignment. I'm arguing that he never had one in the first place. He never had a free will. You can't have an alignment without free will. The entire concept makes no sense.

None of that fits very well with the RAW. But the deconstruction of the RAW rules surrounding alignment is one of the major themes of this comic, so yeah.
None of his actions while enthralled would have an effect on alignment. But he still had one, and since he summoned a devil...

[pendell]

Remember when I said "ask me again in five strips"?

After 908, it is now settled in my mind that Durkon is alignment lawful evil. His personality and goals remain intact, but he is quite willing to be more brutal than he used to be , less scrupulous in achieving his ends. He also doesn't deny being evil, just pointing out that evil is not a disqualification for membership in OOTS.

This brings up two additional points: How close is OOTS to becoming Evil *as a party*? When the strip started it had one evil member. Now it has two evil members and a third -- Vaarsuvius -- who has at least been on the very dark side of gray before popping back.

So at this point we have almost as many evil members as we do good members (Elan, Roy, Haley). So while OOTS is still light side, their light is dimming.

Another question is how this will affect their relationship with the Sapphire Guard. A vampire in the party guarantees no Paladin travelling with them. Will it have other problems as well. Will the OOTS have to team up with evil characters to save the world, and be opposed by good guys on principle ?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Edhelras]

Some people here really need to go spend time with the "Stuff Rich said" thread. I'm not going to bother to dig out the exact quotes, but the bottom line is that Rich doesn't care about D&D rules or mechanics if they get in the way of his story, period. People assuming that Durkon is now evil may be right, or may be wrong, but they're definitely overconfident. Not only can Rich make Durkon any alignment he wants, but Rich is also both willing and totally down for doing it if it's the best story. Rich wants Durkon to be a Lawful Good vampire who spontaneously casts Negative Energy spells, then that's how it will be.

I think there's a perfectly good argument that the evil-ish default capabilities are for Rich to show that Durkon is physically an undead vampire, and he'll definitely be an undead vampire whatever his alignment is, but the theme of this whole story is that living beings have free will and can be whatever alignment they want.

I don't believe Durkon is under any kind of psychic influence until I hear otherwise. He's choosing what his alignment will be every minute, just like he always has. That's just what I believe, but it would be unwise to count that possibility out.

The "what is Durkon's behavior since he was freed telling us about Rich's intentions" debate is... a different debate altogether, really. There's some possible evidence that Durkon is now no longer good from that angle, but I think it's too early to say for sure.

What makes this the most interesting is that undead are, perhaps, in this gray area for Rich's general themes about moral free will in a D&D verse. Redcloak calls them nothing more than complex weapons aimed at people by living things. There's no free will in that. The question is whether he's wrong.
I think with sentient undead, he is. Xykon isn't obligated to be evil either, he just likes it. A power like a negative energy aura is just that, a power, like owning a gun. Alignment is how you use it, and "free-willed" undead means just that, at least in OOTS-verse.

I think.

I realize the author may call me wrong on this, but I disagree with you here.
In my experience, it seems like Rich actually does adhere quite a bit to the DnD rules, perhaps because they make the ground for the good story. Those rules are, after all, designed to make good stories. And one important part of a "good story", one fundamental aspect that in my head is derived very much from JRR Tolkien's version of "a good story", is internal consistency. Much because this facilitates suspension of disbelief, which is even more important for a story that's set in an imaginary world, that in itself strains suspension of disbelief.
So, by adhering either to the DnD rules, or to some consistent modification of those rules that he himself has made as the "DM" of this story, Rich makes it easier for us to immerse ourselves in his story.

As for your other point here, that "the theme of this whole story is that living beings have free will and can be whatever alignment they want" - that may be true, and it might even be Rich's personal motivation behind this comic (I even think I've read something like that, from him) - but STILL that's not how I view this story. I mean, if that's Rich's point (proving that you are free to pick your own alignment) - it's not very well done as yet. Mostly, this story is a superbly told fairy-tale about a group of heroes struggling against mighty adversaries and a possibly world-ruining threat. A classical fantasy novel, in other words.

What we've seen so far (to be true - mostly in the off-web background comis) is that the "Lawful Good" of the paladins of Azure City may be far from Good, if coupled with the kind of racism seen in the slaughter of goblins, just because they're goblins. We've seen masterfully described the possible tension between Law and Good in the LG alignment. And we've seen how goblin society can be just that - a society, not just a bunch of monsters. Redcloak is truly Evil, take for instance his murdering of the Resistance and how he dealt with Tsukiko (I mean, he let her be eaten by her own wights), but his ulterior motives - making a place in the world for goblinkind to live in peace with their neightbours - is rather goodish. But not least - the comic describes how "Good" and "Evil" are very much a matter of perspective - what's "good" for me is bad for my enemies etc.

Importantly for gamers, I think Rich has shown us that simply attacking any "red-colored" monster is a shallow form of roleplaying - a more intelligent approach might be to try to talk to them, role play, and perhaps discover that not all monsters from the monster manual are hostile and will kill you, without provocation. This is particularly true for the great host of goblins we've met - who appear to be far more diverse alignment-wise than commonly depicted, and who are described by Rich as being much like the other humanoids: A mix of different alignments.

But apart from these aspects, I think one might just as well say that the characters in the OOTSverse usually "play" according to their alignment. This is true for undead too. AND it makes a good story, in my view.

[WindStruck]

Let's just be clear on one thing... whenever Rich bothers to explain what happened in the comic in terms of d&d rules, he's only doing so to spare the forums from being inundated by posts related to rules lawyering, as invariably there would be lawyers on different sides, and they never shut up.

Yes, this is a comic based on its own d&d setting, but let's also not forget that d&d rules were originally designed to emulate various aspects of real life, and other parts like magic should at least be consistent and make sense. Also most importantly, they take a back seat to the story telling and common sense, unless they're on the butt end of a joke.

Actually, now that I think about it, killing Z seemed to have been the fastest and most efficient way to get rid of Nale and the lobster daemon, and thus help his friends. Although yes, he did seem to enjoy it. Which is why I was leaning towards him being evil now. Non of my reasons are based on rules pedantry. However, one could also make the case that maybe Durkon is only "Neutral" now, as killing a bad guy that's a major thorn in your side in cold blood might still be justified.

And yeah, neutral clerics can also channel negative energy. But again, from a common sense perspective, as a vampire, he may not have a choice in the matter, whether his heart may have been pure still or not.

[JennTora]

Why does everyone think Durkon is certain of his alignment? He said "not more evil than belkar" last time I checked that could mean anything from "still lawful good" to "another helper for death." He just got turned into a vampire.


He's probably a tad confused. Heck he may have even thought durkula would be a distinct being from himself. For the record, I don't think he's still good, but I do think neutral is a possibility. He may also still be good but different in other ways. We'll have to wait and see, but I know I'm getting a little sick of the Durkon is evil crowd's arrogance and rude behavior.

[Klear]

This brings up two additional points: How close is OOTS to becoming Evil *as a party*? When the strip started it had one evil member. Now it has two evil members and a third -- Vaarsuvius -- who has at least been on the very dark side of gray before popping back.

I think that while the fiends viewed V's possible change towards evil as a bonus, it kinda backfired a bit. After being confronted with the results of the familicide and thanks to Blackwing's influence, I believe the elf has more of a tendency to swing towards good right now, rebounding of the atrocity in the past...

[Taelas]

The sheer amount of willful disbelief people engage in... :smallsigh:

[DeliaP]

Obviously there are three things that would settle this 100%:

1) Durkon intentionally performs an act/espouses a point of view that would make the hypothetical offspring of Sauron and Cruella de Ville curl up and whimper;

2) Some in comic effect happens that hangs a sign on Durkon saying "Hey, I'm Evil!" (though note that some people might be willing to argue that even showing up Evil on a Detect Evil does not necessarily mean you are Evil, thanks to the Miko/crown confusion...);

3) Giant says so.

Absent such occurrences we look at what is shown in comic for a balance of probabilities type argument.

1) Casts inflict spells. No, because that is due to his being a vampire.

2) Swears. No, he swore before.

3) Summons a LE devil as a planar ally. As a non-theistic priest he gets a planar ally who matches his alignment.

Only get outs here are:
- Durkon was a thrall so may have no/have Malack's alignment;
- That's a D&D RAW interpretation and Giant ignores them if it makes better stories;

4) Vampirization applies a template which makes you evil.

Only get outs here are:
- That's a D&D RAW interpretation and Giant ignores them if it makes better stories. He has a track record of objecting to "Always Evil" ideas.

Counterargument: Giant has said Outsiders can be Evil, for sure, being literally incarnations of Evil.

I think some people have said Giant said this about undead also. Did anyone track that down?

5) The look on Durkon's face when he kills Z. The fact that his reaction after Nale DD's out indicates he wasn't bluffing when he said he was going to drink Nale's blood. The way he gets the attention of Z's daemon by throwing Z's dead corpse at it.

Get outs: killing members of the LG is what the heroes need to do. Showing the daemon Z was dead was necessary.

The counterarguments here is that Durkon's behaviour is clearly different. He has changed. Can anyone seriously suggest that the Durkon-that-was would have smiled like that while snapping someones neck with his bare hands? Can anyone seriously suggest that the Durkon-that-was would have used someone's corpse in that way?

He's changed, and the way he's changed is: he's now behaving a lot more like an Evil character would behave and a lot less like the Good Durkon-that-was would behave. And given that he's undergone a recent transition that is associated with a Good-to-Evil alignment change, isn't the most natural reading of those changes that he's undergone a Good-to-Evil alignment change?

6) When directly asked if he's evil, he doesn't respond "No". He says he's not more evil than a well-established evil party member.

The get outs: well, neither is O'Chul. Maybe Durkon is confused and unsure about where he is. Maybe he thought that will persuade Roy better than saying "No", in a hurry.

OK, so, none of those 6 are actually "that's quite as clear as settle it 100%". But still, at least four strong points that require you to argue that the obvious way of reading what happened isn't the way it actually happened.

Now, what are the positive arguments for Durkon still being good? Positive reasons to try and argue away all that evidence?

1) Durkon got his accent back.
2) Durkon attacked Nale and Z
3) Durkon doesn't want to end the world
4) Durkon still seems to like Roy

1) and 3) don't even need refuting. 2) and 4) are countered by the Giant's well known tendency to show "personality =/= alignment".

So, on the one hand a big pile of evidence (not 100% conclusive, but strong balance of probabilities) that Durkon is Evil.

On the other hand? Nothing but arguments that "Well, you haven't shown it's 100% conclusive that Durkon is Evil. So it's still too early to tell."

No. There is a big difference between "I don't know for 100% certain" and "I don't know anything one way or another".

[F.Harr]

I mentioned this in another thread. But I think it's important. The barbed devil Durkon hired when thralled didn't so-much try to kill Elan as try to cuddle him at an inopportune moment.

I don't think Durkula's alignment is going to be so simple.


Durkon is Evil now. Period. He just broke a dude's neck on a casual whim and flat out admitted that at least he's not any worse than Belkar.

So what of it? It is not as if being Evil means that your every action is now motivated For the Evulz or anything. Even Xykon doesn't want the world destroyed: He keeps all his stuff there.

I still don't think killing Z is an evil act. And there was nothing whimsical about it.

I'm not saying Durkon ISN'T evil, but rather, I don't think Durkula's alignment is going to be so cut-and-dry. He's a main character, after all.

[Komatik]

I mentioned this in another thread. But I think it's important. The barbed devil Durkon hired when thralled didn't so-much try to kill Elan as try to cuddle him at an inopportune moment.

I don't think Durkula's alignment is going to be so simple.

Durkon's current alignment is very, very simple, as far as slotting it into one of the 9 boxes goes. All the nuances of it, though, and eventual change in one direction or another? That's the interesting part, and something the Giant is superb at.

[F.Harr]

Durkon's current alignment is very, very simple, as far as slotting it into one of the 9 boxes goes. All the nuances of it, though, and eventual change in one direction or another? That's the interesting part, and something the Giant is superb at.

We'll see.

:D

[JennTora]

I found a giant quote proving that he considers assuming vampires are evil to be racism.

www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14785214&postcount=197

It doesn't win the thread, but it suggests the possibility of non-evil vampires. It at least kills the vamps are automatically evil Part of the argument.

[Komatik]

I found a giant quote proving that he considers assuming vampires are evil to be racism.

www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14785214&postcount=197

It doesn't win the thread, but it suggests the possibility of non-evil vampires. It at least kills the vamps are automatically evil Part of the argument.

Vampirization turns the victim Evil. This is part of the standard Vampire template which Rich is using. It's a one-time change, though, and depending on what undeath does to your ability to feel empathy, a vampire (especially a cleric) can make arrangements to meet his needs in a non-Evil way and be of a different alignment - at least Neutral, perhaps even Good.

They're free-willed like any normal person with a couple caveats due to diet and possible empathy issues. But they're not made of cosmic evil like fiends are.

[hamishspence]

Fiends aren't so much "made of evil" as "contain Evil due to being created on an Evil-aligned plane"

They can change alignment, or have their alignment changed by something like a Helm of Opposite Alignment.

[JennTora]

Vampirization turns the victim Evil. This is part of the standard Vampire template which Rich is using. It's a one-time change, though, and depending on what undeath does to your ability to feel empathy, a vampire (especially a cleric) can make arrangements to meet his needs in a non-Evil way and be of a different alignment - at least Neutral, perhaps even Good.

They're free-willed like any normal person with a couple caveats due to diet and possible empathy issues. But they're not made of cosmic evil like fiends are.

The template doesn't even adequately explain why their alignment changes, so who cares, take the part of the template that says that and burn it at the stake because it's silly.

[Liliet]

Well yeah, this post is old. But I have a question:

Is it possible for a lawful evil being to pursue a lawful good objective/mission?
It's not a lawful good objective, it's as True Neutral as it gets: pure, unadultered self-preservation. Even Xykon would fight to save the world, as Evulz-villainy as he is.
Of course it's also mixed up with heroism, as in "why does it have to be me while it's in everyone's best interest?", but heroism in that sense has nothing to do with alignment, you can be Good and still a wimp.


The template doesn't even adequately explain why their alignment changes, so who cares, take the part of the template that says that and burn it at the stake because it's silly.
Yep.
You don't even have to "burn in at a stake". You just have to do what you have to do in any case: interpret it so that it makes sense. "Turning Evil" for the sake of magical effects makes a lot of sense.

Of course, we also do see that Durkon's personality has changed, so this point is moot. But nothing says he won't struggle to get his former alignment back. He has a lot of reasons to do so even now, maybe not the smallest of them being pride... at least, every character I'd ever play would struggle with any forcible alignment change just on principle to keep their self intact. Durkon may not think so, but he's stil Lawful and his code of conduct so far was following Dwarven rules and teachings of Thor that are both Good. That's a reason to struggle to keep that alignment for a cleric as faithful and Lawful as he is.
Yet another reason is that his party is Good and he might still be very attached to them - they have been his only friends for last 20 years. Trying to retain his old alignment for their sake is possible, too...

I want to hear that story told by Rich!

[Doug Lampert]

2) Some in comic effect happens that hangs a sign on Durkon saying "Hey, I'm Evil!" (though note that some people might be willing to argue that even showing up Evil on a Detect Evil does not necessarily mean you are Evil, thanks to the Miko/crown confusion...);


Eh? Undead EXPLICITELY always detect as evil regardless of actual alignment.

It's in the detect evil spell description. Detect evil tells us nothing about Durkon's actual alignment.

That said, he's evil, if you object, get over it.

[hamishspence]

Of course, we also do see that Durkon's personality has changed, so this point is moot. But nothing says he won't struggle to get his former alignment back. He has a lot of reasons to do so even now, maybe not the smallest of them being pride... at least, every character I'd ever play would struggle with any forcible alignment change just on principle to keep their self intact. Durkon may not think so, but he's stil Lawful and his code of conduct so far was following Dwarven rules and teachings of Thor that are both Good. That's a reason to struggle to keep that alignment for a cleric as faithful and Lawful as he is.
Yet another reason is that his party is Good and he might still be very attached to them - they have been his only friends for last 20 years. Trying to retain his old alignment for their sake is possible, too...

I want to hear that story told by Rich!
This makes a great deal of sense.

[Komatik]

This makes a great deal of sense.

It doesn't necessarily. A creature can like his new alignment, like a victim of a Helm of Opposite Alignment does, or apparently Durkon does. Remember an alignment change is a change in moral outlook and personal philosophy, not a mind control effect.
It literally affects how the creature thinks and reasons out it's actions, like naturally discovering a radically new philosophy that basically completely alters how you see the world. The way the old you thought can feel VERY alien.

If it is simply a change in innate impulses then yes, personal philosophy can be used to rein in and perhaps revert the change. But that's not an alignment change, that's a compulsion effect.

[SavageWombat]

You know, in addition to seeming strangely violent for Durkon - he also didn't seem to blink at being undead any more. He used to HATE undead, passionately - fate-worse-than-death level hatred. But we don't seem much of an "oh dear Thor, what's happened to me?" reaction. It's like, once you're a vampire, you don't mind any more.

[JennTora]

You know, in addition to seeming strangely violent for Durkon - he also didn't seem to blink at being undead any more. He used to HATE undead, passionately - fate-worse-than-death level hatred. But we don't seem much of an "oh dear Thor, what's happened to me?" reaction. It's like, once you're a vampire, you don't mind any more.

In the middle of a fight is not the best time for that kind of thing, but he probably thought intelligent undead were twisted evil beings distinct from their living predecessors. If he is still durkon(Which i think he is) then he now knows through empirical observation that this is not the case.

[KillianHawkeye]

the theme of this whole story is that living beings have free will and can be whatever alignment they want.

Wow, that is a really good point! But have you noticed that Durkon is not a "living being" anymore? :smallannoyed:


I mentioned this in another thread. But I think it's important. The barbed devil Durkon hired when thralled didn't so-much try to kill Elan as try to cuddle him at an inopportune moment.

It's a devil covered in spiky barbs. It kills people by hugging them.

[The Pilgrim]

Killing an unconscious, unharmed opponent settles the issue very much. Durkon is evil.

It also doesn't help his case that he himself admited his evilness by comparing his aligment to Belkar's and he spontaneously casting Inflict Wounds.

[Komatik]

It also doesn't help his case that he himself admited his evilness by comparing his aligment to Belkar's and he spontaneously casting Inflict Wounds.

This is actually pretty weak evidence - the template doesn't really cover whether the negative energy channeling is a result of turning evil or turning into a vampire - both happen at the same time and are plausible causes. All the other things: gleeful murder and summoning a barbed devil and the rules of the game, those are the strong stuff.

[Psyren]

I found a giant quote proving that he considers assuming vampires are evil to be racism.

www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14785214&postcount=197

It doesn't win the thread, but it suggests the possibility of non-evil vampires. It at least kills the vamps are automatically evil Part of the argument.

That's not what that quote says at all. The Giant is saying there that evil creatures don't automatically deserve to be killed, not that they aren't evil.

For example, say Malack did nothing more than stay out of Tarquin's way while Tarquin ran the very brutal and bloody empire. He profits from this by getting all the blood he can drink from the people who are wrongfully convicted/sentenced to death. Profiting from their misery is an evil act, but killing Malack would do nothing to change any of it. Tarquin would be the one to go after in that scenario, and even then, killing him would be a last resort if you could not permanently remove him from power in some other way.

[JennTora]

Killing an unconscious, unharmed opponent settles the issue very much. Durkon is evil.

It also doesn't help his case that he himself admited his evilness by comparing his aligment to Belkar's and he spontaneously casting Inflict Wounds.

Stop using that quote as evidence. Durkon may not be certain of his alignment for the millionth time. If you have to keep every other one, at least stop interpreting that quote to automatically mean "yep, I'm evil" because it could just as easily have meant "I'm still good" or "I'm neutral" or even "I'm not sure, but can I really be any worse than belkar?"

[JennTora]

That's not what that quote says at all. The Giant is saying there that evil creatures don't automatically deserve to be killed, not that they aren't evil.

For example, say Malack did nothing more than stay out of Tarquin's way while Tarquin ran the very brutal and bloody empire. He profits from this by getting all the blood he can drink from the people who are wrongfully convicted/sentenced to death. Profiting from their misery is an evil act, but killing Malack would do nothing to change any of it. Tarquin would be the one to go after in that scenario, and even then, killing him would be a last resort if you could not permanently remove him from power in some other way.

Is there any reason, other than the stupid template, that you assume all vampires are evil, or start out evil, or whichever view you espouse?

[The Pilgrim]

Stop using that quote as evidence.

I'll use that Quote as evidence as much as I like, thank you.

[JennTora]

I'll use that Quote as evidence as much as I like, thank you.

You're quite welcome.And thank you for completely ignoring my explanation of why you shouldn't use it as evidence. :smalltongue:

[The Pilgrim]

This is actually pretty weak evidence - the template doesn't really cover whether the negative energy channeling is a result of turning evil or turning into a vampire - both happen at the same time and are plausible causes. All the other things: gleeful murder and summoning a barbed devil and the rules of the game, those are the strong stuff.

It was a "Inflict Wounds" spell, not an Energy Drain.

So, mmmhh... let's see... he used an "Inflict Wounds" spell when he was attempting to use a "Cure Wounds" one.

You know, it looks just like he attemped to spontaneously cast a Cure spell, like Good-Aligned clerics do, but he got a spontaneous Inflict spell, like Evil-Aligned clerics do.

Hence, the pun.


You're quite welcome.And thank you for completely ignoring my explanation of why you shouldn't use it as evidence. :smalltongue:

You are welcome.

And debating that Durkon is EVIL right now is as pointless as past debates about the evilness of Belkar or Tarquin. I'm sure the Giant will take delight in show him perform greater and greater acts of villany from now on until the time in which he is restored back to a person (if ever). After all, he has to bring Death and Destruction to his dwarven pals.

[BroomGuys]

Stop using that quote as evidence. Durkon may not be certain of his alignment for the millionth time. If you have to keep every other one, at least stop interpreting that quote to automatically mean "yep, I'm evil" because it could just as easily have meant "I'm still good" or "I'm neutral" or even "I'm not sure, but can I really be any worse than belkar?"

It definitely doesn't mean "I'm still good" or "I'm neutral" by its implications; that interpretation is only technically possible. We're really not looking to prove his alignment right now--just to say what is the most likely. The past two strips do not read as though Durkon is confused about his alignment: he is malicious, and he does not at all seem to be troubled by the fact that he is malicious. For Durkon not to be evil, I would argue that these two strips would have to be a misdirection in tone, and it strikes me as very unlikely that that's what's going on.

There is such a thing as evidence that isn't ironclad, and it isn't utterly worthless, you know.

[Taelas]

Vampire clerics explicitly channel negative energy, Pilgrim. The entry doesn't go into details as to how this happens; it could be either that it's something intrinsic to the vampire template, or because they are now Evil-aligned. Considering it is redundant to mention both that they are Evil and that they channel negative energy, it is easy to argue that even Good-aligned vampire clerics would channel negative energy.

I personally am of the opinion that it's because they are Evil, but the other argument does have merit.

There are other convincing factors proving Durkon is Evil, though.

[luc258]

You're quite welcome.And thank you for completely ignoring my explanation of why you shouldn't use it as evidence. :smalltongue:

That is probably because your explanation is pure wishful thinking, similar to what we had AFTER Tarquin had written in 20 feet flaming letters that he was evil.

[The Pilgrim]

Really, the joke "I'm an evil cleric now so I spontaneously cast inflict wounds instead of cure wounds" is pretty straightforward.

[DeliaP]

I found a giant quote proving that he considers assuming vampires are evil to be racism.

www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14785214&postcount=197

It doesn't win the thread, but it suggests the possibility of non-evil vampires. It at least kills the vamps are automatically evil Part of the argument.

OK, this is a fair strengthening of the objection to:

(4) Vampirization applies a template which makes you evil.

Trying to be fair about this argument:

- The natural reading seems to indicate that vampires (at least) should be included within the creatures where the "Usually/Always Evil" rules should not be taken literally. Unlike Evil outsiders. Good. I'd seen a few posts claiming Undead had been explicitly lumped with Evil outsiders, but hadn't been able to find an actual Giant quote. Reckon we can assume no such quote exists now, but feel free to produce one (anyone?)

- It's not quite saying that vampires aren't always evil. Rather it's saying attacking someone just because they are a vampire (and with no other reason) is wrong. (I'm not actually sure attacking someone just because they register on detect evil isn't also wrong. Would Miko immediately attempting to kill Belkar have been OK if he had dropped the lead sheet?)

- It's also appearing in a context where Durkon was getting a lot of flak from Malack supporters. The primary point the Giant was clarifying that Durkon wasn't attacking Malack just because he was a vampire: Malack had demonstrated he'd joined the Linear Guild and was also snacking down on Belkar.

But a counterargument is that it is also consistent with the idea that vampirisation turns you evil, but you can then, through struggle, become good again.

So, I'd say strong arguments for Durkon being Evil is now down from 4 to 3 (although Vampirisation makes you Evil is still not ruled out, merely has been downgraded to a weaker argument)

On the "being-fair" side, I'd say there is also now (finally!) a case for there being a positive argument for Durkon being good:

5) The Giant has in the past produced a post that says it's not OK to attack a vampire just for being a vampire. And, when posting about why Durkon's spontaneous spellcasting produced Inflict, rather than Cure, spells, he said it was because Durkon was a vampire, and not because Durkon was evil.

It's kind of a meta-argument here: both posts allow the possibility that a vampire may be non-evil, although neither post explicitly endorses the idea. The argument has to be that if vampires are always evil, the Giant could easily have said so explicitly in either case, and it wouldn't have changed anything at the time. There must be a reason the Giant didn't, and that is most likely that vampires can be good. And why would the Giant need to avoid squishing the idea that vampires can be good? Because he has been planning a Good vampire (Durkon)!

(The dog that didn't bark? :smallwink:)

An obvious counter-argument, same as noted above, is that even allowing all that, it just means that vampires could, in principle become good. Not that Durkon is good.

I wouldn't call this a strong argument for Durkon being good: it involves no reference to in-comic actions, and is based pretty much on a meta-reading of the Giants comments.

Counting a weak argument as 0.5 points, the current score, in my book is:

Durkon is Evil: 3.5 points.
Durkon is Good: 0.5 points.

Still balance of probability is that Durkon is Evil. But at least Durkon is Good actually has some kind of argument now!

[JennTora]

It definitely doesn't mean "I'm still good" or "I'm neutral" by its implications; that interpretation is only technically possible. We're really not looking to prove his alignment right now--just to say what is the most likely. The past two strips do not read as though Durkon is confused about his alignment: he is malicious, and he does not at all seem to be troubled by the fact that he is malicious. For Durkon not to be evil, I would argue that these two strips would have to be a misdirection in tone, and it strikes me as very unlikely that that's what's going on.

Why does Durkon doing evil things automatically make him aware of his evilness? His alignment has been affected to some extent, that does not mean he's gone all the way to evil. For what it's worth, I'll admit that he may be evil.


He could be neutral, Yes I am and always have been ignoring what the template says on that one because as I've stated before, what the template says is asinine. You are a vampire now so you're randomly evil for no reason. If Durkon continues to behave evilly over the next few strips, then I guess I'll have been wrong. But until then, I'm not really willing to take an ill thought phrase from a template, a devil, and an offhand comment as particularly good evidence.

Snapping Z's neck gleefully, I can consider evidence.

[The Pilgrim]

Well, I'm not the most versatile person in the English language since it's not my native. But when someone asks me if I'm evil, and my answer is "so is Belkar" - instead of, "I don't know" or just "no"- that translates as me admiting that I consider myself as Evil.

Not that commanding Lawful Evil devils actually helps my case, of course.

[JennTora]

Well, I'm not the most versatile person in the English language since it's not my native. But when someone asks me if I'm evil, and my answer is "so is Belkar" - instead of, "I don't know" or just "no"- that translates as me admiting that I consider myself as Evil.

Not that commanding Lawful Evil devils actually helps my case, of course.

I d on't Think "I don't know" would have gotten Roy in as much of an accepting mood, as the answer Durkon gave.

[BroomGuys]

Why does Durkon doing evil things automatically make him aware of his evilness? His alignment has been affected to some extent, that does not mean he's gone all the way to evil. For what it's worth, I'll admit that he may be evil.

My argument is more that he really really seems evil here. The phrase "aware of his evilness" is interesting, since it implies that he might be Evil but not have figured it out yet. But look at the confidence in his actions. Things are not troubling him right now, and to me that strongly suggests that he is Evil, since he doesn't have to worry about any o' them pesky morals any more.


He could be neutral, Yes I am and always have been ignoring what the template says on that one because as I've stated before, what the template says is asinine. You are a vampire now so you're randomly evil for no reason.

I agree that Rich isn't going to follow the template blindly. But the concept that becoming a vampire automatically turns you evil doesn't have to be asinine in the hands of a Good Storyteller (I looked up "Good Storyteller" in the monster manual, and I'm pretty sure that's what we're dealing with here :smallbiggrin:). What is a person like when you keep his personality the same, except you flip the "Evil" switch on? There are some fascinating (and also hilarious) things you can do with that, and I think that's what's at play here.


If Durkon continues to behave evilly over the next few strips, then I guess I'll have been wrong. But until then, I'm not really willing to take an ill thought phrase from a template, a devil, and an offhand comment as particularly good evidence.

Again, I agree with you that Rich is not going to be beholden to the template to the point that Durkon must be evil. But it is very feasibly a source of inspiration for what to do with the character, and I believe the signs that that's what he's doing, such as


Snapping Z's neck gleefully, I can consider evidence.

indicate pretty strongly that this is the case.

[Komatik]

OK, this is a fair strengthening of the objection to:

(4) Vampirization applies a template which makes you evil.

Trying to be fair about this argument:

- The natural reading seems to indicate that vampires (at least) should be included within the creatures where the "Usually/Always Evil" rules should not be taken literally. Unlike Evil outsiders. Good. I'd seen a few posts claiming Undead had been explicitly lumped with Evil outsiders, but hadn't been able to find an actual Giant quote. Reckon we can assume no such quote exists now, but feel free to produce one (anyone?)

- It's not quite saying that vampires aren't always evil. Rather it's saying attacking someone just because they are a vampire (and with no other reason) is wrong. (I'm not actually sure attacking someone just because they register on detect evil isn't also wrong. Would Miko immediately attempting to kill Belkar have been OK if he had dropped the lead sheet?)

An obvious counter-argument, same as noted above, is that even allowing all that, it just means that vampires could, in principle become good. Not that Durkon is good.


Nobody on the "Durkon is Lawful Evil, period" camp has, from what I've seen, tried to say that a Vampire could never be nonevil. Just that all evidence thus far is consistent with "Durkon is Lawful Evil" without any twisting of anything.

A free Vampire is a moral actor where any other with a couple of exceptions (Con drain on sentient beings => Restoration solves, probably empathy issues => No problems being Neutral). Newly-minted Vampires just seem to like being Evil - after all that's what their alignment is. Means that they're also likely to stay Evil. But that doesn't mean a rare few can't change.

But "Durkon is good/neutral atm" is a line of thinking with no support other than wishful thinking and people feeling icky about liking an Evil character. It's "Belkar is CE" and "pre-Godwin Malack is LN despite all this high priest of death and destruction and co-ruler of comically evil empire stuff"

It's nonsense. Nonsense doesn't need to be and shouldn't be afforded legitimacy.

[Komatik]

Why does Durkon doing evil things automatically make him aware of his evilness? His alignment has been affected to some extent, that does not mean he's gone all the way to evil. For what it's worth, I'll admit that he may be evil.


He could be neutral, Yes I am and always have been ignoring what the template says on that one because as I've stated before, what the template says is asinine. You are a vampire now so you're randomly evil for no reason. If Durkon continues to behave evilly over the next few strips, then I guess I'll have been wrong. But until then, I'm not really willing to take an ill thought phrase from a template, a devil, and an offhand comment as particularly good evidence.

Snapping Z's neck gleefully, I can consider evidence.

You can be of the opinion that the template is asinine. That is fine.
But this goddamn story works by using the standard template, Giant having made references to it and everything in-comic thus far being consistent with it. Thus we deal with the template's idiosyncracies, one of which is that Durkon is now Lawful Evil. Even if we wish things were different.

I could say that acid melting things is asinine, and that it shouldn't be so. That doesn't stop the world from being an asinine one in which acid melts things.
That doesn't stop conclusions predicated on "Not Melty (tm) Acid" being completely wrong.

[B. Dandelion]

I think the whole idea that "there exists magic in the world which can suddenly change somebody's entire moral outlook without their consent and make them like it" is pretty horrifying. I could potentially see an author react to it by saying "that is repugnant and makes no sense" and have it never make an appearance where one would expect it to.

On the other hand, there's a lot of potential drama in the idea if you were to play it out realistically.

Durkon's evil now. He's recognizably himself, but he's evil. He also likes being evil. Remembering the Durkon who was, one cannot help but look at him now and think Malack committed an atrocity against him. Durkon himself won't see it that way, but his friends will. To see their trusted friend like this will pain them every day. They'll want to help him... but how can they, when he doesn't want to be saved? The Order will struggle to come to terms with what has happened to Durkon, try to find a way to make it work, try to hold out for hope there's a way to change him back, and wonder in the back of their minds whether they may eventually have to kill him for what he's become now... kill him for what he is through no fault of his own.

Yes, that does sound horrifically unjust. But the world hasn't seemed particularly just ever since Start of Darkness gave us whole sapient races of beings who existed for no other reason than to be killed for the convenience of others. The ramifications of some of the rules are pretty horrific if you really think about them. Letting that play out fully is an idea worth merit.

It won't necessarily go that way. I'm pretty bad at predicting the plot, honestly. But exploring the horror behind that idea seems a bit more unique to me than exploring the concept of a would-be heroic vampire who struggles to resist his base impulses and maintain his good alignment. It's, you know. Been done. A few times. :smallwink:

[SavageWombat]

But "Durkon is good/neutral atm" is a line of thinking with no support other than wishful thinking and people feeling icky about liking an Evil character. It's "Belkar is CE" and "pre-Godwin Malack is LN despite all this high priest of death and destruction and co-ruler of comically evil empire stuff"

It's nonsense. Nonsense doesn't need to be and shouldn't be afforded legitimacy.

See, that's the problem. It's not "wishful thinking" - it's the question of what makes the best story. Durkon automatically having his personality altered to the point where he is functionally no different than Tarquin is not as interesting as a character with a predisposition of LG being given a trait that draws him to LE.

Saying "he's evil - end of story" is obviously not true because Rich WANTS there to be a story. And it hasn't ended yet.

I've tried multiple times to point out that Rich has clearly shown a dichotomy between, say, the alignment the character has on his sheet and the way he actually acts - this is just another example.

P.S. If alignment were as obvious as you suggest, there wouldn't be this many arguments about it on this website - let alone for the entire freakin' history of D&D.

[JennTora]

Nobody on the "Durkon is Lawful Evil, period" camp has, from what I've seen, tried to say that a Vampire could never be nonevil. Just that all evidence thus far is consistent with "Durkon is Lawful Evil" without any twisting of anything.

A free Vampire is a moral actor where any other with a couple of exceptions (Con drain on sentient beings => Restoration solves, probably empathy issues => No problems being Neutral). Newly-minted Vampires just seem to like being Evil - after all that's what their alignment is. Means that they're also likely to stay Evil. But that doesn't mean a rare few can't change.

But "Durkon is good/neutral atm" is a line of thinking with no support other than wishful thinking and people feeling icky about liking an Evil character. It's "Belkar is CE" and "pre-Godwin Malack is LN despite all this high priest of death and destruction and co-ruler of comically evil empire stuff"

It's nonsense. Nonsense doesn't need to be and shouldn't be afforded legitimacy.

Actually quite a few people have ridiculed the idea of non-evil vampires for a while now, likening the concept to twilight for some reason, despite the fact that twilight being terrible has nothing to do with Edward being good and everything to do with him being subservient to bella, whiny, annoying, and bella being a dreadfully boring and irritating xharacter.

[Komatik]

P.S. If alignment were as obvious as you suggest, there wouldn't be this many arguments about it on this website - let alone for the entire freakin' history of D&D.

We've had people seriously argue that Belkar is not Evil. Or that Malack, co-ruler of a comically Evlulz empire and high priest of a god of death and destruction was not Evil. I don't know if there were any left after the Godwin, though. I dearly hope not.


Also, ? at:

I've tried multiple times to point out that Rich has clearly shown a dichotomy between, say, the alignment the character has on his sheet and the way he actually acts - this is just another example.

Rich has thus far played alignments pretty straight. Not bland or shallow, but straight. They're given actual depth, that's not contrary characterization. An alignment is not a straitjacket.

[Taelas]

See, that's the problem. It's not "wishful thinking" - it's the question of what makes the best story. Durkon automatically having his personality altered to the point where he is functionally no different than Tarquin is not as interesting as a character with a predisposition of LG being given a trait that draws him to LE.
I don't think anyone is saying Durkon's personality has made him "functionally no different than Tarquin". I personally am saying he's recognizably Durkon, and he's also recognizably Evil, which--to me--is much more interesting than a yet another "heroic" vampire "struggling" against his "Evil nature".

But even if that was what the Giant was doing, I'd trust him to do it well, and to tell a good story with it.


Saying "he's evil - end of story" is obviously not true because Rich WANTS there to be a story. And it hasn't ended yet.
He's Evil... right now. No one says he can't change later.


I've tried multiple times to point out that Rich has clearly shown a dichotomy between, say, the alignment the character has on his sheet and the way he actually acts - this is just another example.
What? :smallconfused: No, he hasn't. We've seen a bit of wavering from Roy, and as far as I can recall, that's it. Maybe Haley was more of a Neutral bent in the beginning of the comic, but that's character development for you.

I think what you mean to say that Rich has shown that merely being of a race with a certain alignment associated with it does not imply that that being is of that alignment, and that treating every single being of that race as being of that alignment is nothing short of racism.


P.S. If alignment were as obvious as you suggest, there wouldn't be this many arguments about it on this website - let alone for the entire freakin' history of D&D.
People can be idiots. :smalltongue: Alignment is a murky pool, but in this particular situation, we've been rather hammered with evidence that Durkon is Evil.

[Komatik]

I think the whole idea that "there exists magic in the world which can suddenly change somebody's entire moral outlook without their consent and make them like it" is pretty horrifying. I could potentially see an author react to it by saying "that is repugnant and makes no sense" and have it never make an appearance where one would expect it to.

On the other hand, there's a lot of potential drama in the idea if you were to play it out realistically.

Durkon's evil now. He's recognizably himself, but he's evil. He also likes being evil. Remembering the Durkon who was, one cannot help but look at him now and think Malack committed an atrocity against him. Durkon himself won't see it that way, but his friends will. To see their trusted friend like this will pain them every day. They'll want to help him... but how can they, when he doesn't want to be saved? The Order will struggle to come to terms with what has happened to Durkon, try to find a way to make it work, try to hold out for hope there's a way to change him back, and wonder in the back of their minds whether they may eventually have to kill him for what he's become now... kill him for what he is through no fault of his own.

Yes, that does sound horrifically unjust. But the world hasn't seemed particularly just ever since Start of Darkness gave us whole sapient races of beings who existed for no other reason than to be killed for the convenience of others. The ramifications of some of the rules are pretty horrific if you really think about them. Letting that play out fully is an idea worth merit.

It won't necessarily go that way. I'm pretty bad at predicting the plot, honestly. But exploring the horror behind that idea seems a bit more unique to me than exploring the concept of a would-be heroic vampire who struggles to resist his base impulses and maintain his good alignment. It's, you know. Been done. A few times. :smallwink:

*clapclapclap*

It is horrible. And I hope Rich will make something delicious out of it. Like those Paladins who became interior decorations or paid attention to the bouncing ball :3

[DeliaP]

Nobody on the "Durkon is Lawful Evil, period" camp has, from what I've seen, tried to say that a Vampire could never be nonevil. Just that all evidence thus far is consistent with "Durkon is Lawful Evil" without any twisting of anything.


And I hope I am clearly in the "all evidence thus far is consistent with "Durkon is Lawful Evil" without any twisting of anything" camp.

But here's where I think we diverge:



It's nonsense. Nonsense doesn't need to be and shouldn't be afforded legitimacy.

Until you fairly try to examine an argument you have no basis to say it's nonsense. I'm just trying to fairly examine the arguments. Rather than just jump up and down shouting at them: "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong."

(You know, you could just walk away from this thread if that's how you feel?)



I've tried multiple times to point out that Rich has clearly shown a dichotomy between, say, the alignment the character has on his sheet and the way he actually acts - this is just another example.

I'd rather say the Giant has shown "personality =/= alignment". but he has been pretty consistent in saying alignment is not something you are, it's what you do. So there can't actually be any dichotomy between the way you act and what your alignment is: your alignment is, no more no less, than a descriptor of your moral and ethical behaviour.

(Which is, incidentally, the reason why I take Durkon's behaviour in: taking obvious vicious delight at snapping Z's neck with his bare hand; planning to drain Nale's blood; and throwing Z's corpse at the daemon; as the strongest argument that Durkon has changed, and changed to Evil)

[SavageWombat]

I think what you mean to say that Rich has shown that merely being of a race with a certain alignment associated with it does not imply that that being is of that alignment, and that treating every single being of that race as being of that alignment is nothing short of racism.

No, that's not what I mean to say.

Rich has shown very clearly that everyone in the OotS world has a defined alignment, which they are aware of. (Even if Haley waffles about it.) Roy very clearly has Lawful Good on his "character sheet". He told us so. At the same time - he is capable of acting NOT Lawful Good. That's the point the angel was making - that it was about him trying to live up to that standard.

In most early D&D games, being a particular alignment constrained your actions - "you can't do that, you're LG" - or alignment shifted based on your actions - "you did that, so you're CE." Neither model fits (a) Roy's afterlife trial, or (b) Miko's whole story arc. It's at the core of the "is V evil now" debate.

If Roy is LG because he chooses to be, then Durkon is capable of being LG because he chooses to be. All the templating in the world wouldn't change that.

If being LG governs Roy's actions, and makes him act a certain way, then Durkon is going to have radically different actions than he would have taken prior to his transformation. (A + point for the "more violent" argument.) It would effectively limit his actions in the same way being LG limits Roy's.

What I'm saying is that Durkon is - or at least Rich can write him as - simultaneously (a) LE because the rules/laws of physics make him be evil AND (b) LG because he still holds the same values he did before. And these two natures are now in conflict, that will be resolved through his story arc.

Do you really want Durkon's story to be a Dark Willow "bwahaha magic has made me evil" plot point? Or do you think Durkon should struggle between the person he was and what circumstances have made of him?

People who argue that "Durkon is now LE" are trying to reduce a complicated character to a check box on a character sheet.

[archon_huskie]

Dear dnd rules lawyers

Creature type and alignment are two different things.

Even if Durkon is now both Evil and LE, as the new strip shows Durkon the vampire still cares about the world being in danger. And he is still on the OotS's side. Just like the other undoubtably CE character Belkar.

[Taelas]

:smallsigh:

No one has argued that alignment is a straight-jacket. Of course you are not restricted to acting solely in accordance with your current alignment -- if that were the case, alignment changes would never happen naturally.

I do not think that Durkon becoming Evil means that he cannot have struggles with his conscience, nor have I ever said anything of the sort. I don't think it's the most interesting route to take, but that's not up to me: it's not my story.

But claiming there is a dichotomy between a person's alignment and their actions literally makes no sense, because their actions directly influence their alignment. An alignment can only be assigned in the context of a person's actions and their personal beliefs.

It is not possible for Durkon to be both Lawful Evil (mechanically) and still think of the world in terms of Lawful Good morality. There is a way for this to happen in D&D, but it involves the [Evil] subtype, which he does not have, and even then, it does not have any effect on your actual alignment: only on effects which function based on alignment. A Lawful Good Succubus registers as Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good at the same time, but her outlook is Lawful Good.

[DeliaP]

Dear dnd rules lawyers

Creature type and alignment are two different things.

Even if Durkon is now both Evil and LE, as the new strip shows Durkon the vampire still cares about the world being in danger. And he is still on the OotS's side. Just like the other undoubtably CE character Belkar.

Erm, I'm not sure at this point anyone is trying to argue against that??

[SavageWombat]

It is not possible for Durkon to be both Lawful Evil (mechanically) and still think of the world in terms of Lawful Good morality. There is a way for this to happen in D&D, but it involves the [Evil] subtype, which he does not have, and even then, it does not have any effect on your actual alignment: only on effects which function based on alignment. A Lawful Good Succubus registers as Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good at the same time, but her outlook is Lawful Good.

If you say that Durkon is now LE, and this prevents him from holding a LG morality - then he's not capable of change. Of choosing to be otherwise. Becoming a vampire wiped him of his memories of previous beliefs and opinions and filled them with the desire for blood and violence. You couldn't HAVE a LG Succubus because the mechanistic nature of her being CE prevents her from being able to have her moral view of the universe changed to LG.

[BroomGuys]

Do you really want Durkon's story to be a Dark Willow "bwahaha magic has made me evil" plot point? Or do you think Durkon should struggle between the person he was and what circumstances have made of him?

Begging your pardon, but I thought the whole Dark Willow thing was really good. It was quite the experience to be rooting for her to whoop up on the baddies and then :smalleek::smalleek::smalleek::smalleek: what did she just do?!

The situation's a little different here, but the dramatic effect is the same: character on the side of the good guys turned evil and paying that evil unto evil. The only reason this hypothetical story direction sounds uninteresting, in my opinion, is that you're deliberately making it sound uninteresting. Again, we're dealing with a Good Storyteller here.


People who argue that "Durkon is now LE" are trying to reduce a complicated character to a check box on a character sheet.

We most certainly ain't. The check box on a character sheet is a very brief summary of the character's morality/ethics, and we're arguing that that summary seems pretty darn likely to be Lawful Evil. But that very brief summary says only the bare bones about him.

[JennTora]

You can be of the opinion that the template is asinine. That is fine.
But this goddamn story works by using the standard template, Giant having made references to it and everything in-comic thus far being consistent with it. Thus we deal with the template's idiosyncracies, one of which is that Durkon is now Lawful Evil. Even if we wish things were different.

I could say that acid melting things is asinine, and that it shouldn't be so. That doesn't stop the world from being an asinine one in which acid melts things.
That doesn't stop conclusions predicated on "Not Melty (tm) Acid" being completely wrong.

You do realize that there's actually a difference between looking at a fantasy webcomics and saying that things should not work this way and doing the same thing in real life. Further, there is a HUGE GIGANTIC MONSTROUS COLOSSAL BROBDINGNAGIAN IMMENSE MASSIVE ENORMOUS difference between denying something when it is easily explained why it works, and denying something that is ridiculous and has no sound explanation on why it occurs whatsoever.

@ savagewombat: There have been several lawful good succubi in d&d canon. Even outsiders have free will apparently.

[DeliaP]

Becoming a vampire wiped him of his memories of previous beliefs and opinions .

Nope.


and filled them with the desire for blood and violence.


Yep.

Oh wow, and the result being dramatic conflict? Whatever could the Giant be thinking?

There are basically 4 ways this could go:

- Being vamped doesn't change Durkula at all. He's LG and stays that way. It's pretty unsatisfying. It doesn't explain why most vampires are Evil. It gives him a bunch of extra munchkin abilities at no real cost.

- Being vamped doesn't immediately change Durkula, but the ongoing draw of the need to feed turns him evil over time. Yes, dramatic potential as he struggles with his new urges (and possible starvation). LG turns to LE.

- Being vamped fills him with overwhelming desires for blood and violence, which he sates, showing he has become Evil. But over time he, being free-willed, may resist such desires and struggle to regain his goodness. Yes, dramatic potential as he struggles with his new urges (and possible salvation). Becomes LE but could turn to LG.

- Being vamped fills him with overwhelming desires for blood and violence, which he sates, showing he has become Evil. And being Evil he sees no need to change. Dramatic potential? Complexity of interaction with teammates (plus Azurites, TE etc.)

Storytelling rules out the first. In comic evidence is what tells against the second.

[Demolator]

Nope.



Yep.

Oh wow, and the result being dramatic conflict? Whatever could the Giant be thinking?

There are basically 4 ways this could go:

- Being vamped doesn't change Durkula at all. He's LG and stays that way. It's pretty unsatisfying. It doesn't explain why most vampires are Evil. It gives him a bunch of extra munchkin abilities at no real cost.

- Being vamped doesn't immediately change Durkula, but the ongoing draw of the need to feed turns him evil over time. Yes, dramatic potential as he struggles with his new urges (and possible starvation). LG turns to LE.

- Being vamped fills him with overwhelming desires for blood and violence, which he sates, showing he has become Evil. But over time he, being free-willed, may resist such desires and struggle to regain his goodness. Yes, dramatic potential as he struggles with his new urges (and possible salvation). Becomes LE but could turn to LG.

- Being vamped fills him with overwhelming desires for blood and violence, which he sates, showing he has become Evil. And being Evil he sees no need to change. Dramatic potential? Complexity of interaction with teammates (plus Azurites, TE etc.)

Storytelling rules out the first. In comic evidence is what tells against the second.

Oooh, this is good. I question if he'll take route 3 though, because honestly, right now he doesn't seem that bad to begin with. He's still trying to help the Order, tries to heal Roy, and got his planar ally to stop attacking Elan. Part of me thinks he'll become even more evil down the line, and maybe he'll get exiled from the Order or something (this part is far less likely).

[allenw]

Further, there is a HUGE GIGANTIC MONSTROUS COLOSSAL BROBDINGNAGIAN IMMENSE MASSIVE ENORMOUS difference between denying something when it is easily explained why it works, and denying something that is ridiculous and has no sound explanation on why it occurs whatsoever.


You may not like or agree with it, but D&D has a pretty simple, consisistent explanation of why almost all Undead (barring some ghosts, and incredibly-rare exceptions) are Evil. They're powered by "Negative Energy," which is inherently bad and corrupting (even just channelling Negative Energy is technically Evil, so being run by the stuff 24/7 can't be good). That's why even mindless undead are Evil in 3.5 (though not in all previous versions).

Durkon has, as the strip's title suggests, literally had his existence's polarity reversed along the Good/Evil axis. He's powered by Death, and his moral compass is now pointing South. Could he try to overcome his new nature? Probably; but he'll need a really compelling reason to try, and a lot of luck (and being a PC) to succeed.

[SavageWombat]

Nope.



Yep.



Which is, notably, the point I'm arguing. I feel that the people saying "Durkon is now LE" are applying an overly-simple view of alignment to the strip that is not borne out by the text.

The problem is that people who think I'm arguing "Durkon is NOT LE" try to prove it by saying things like "Durkon summoned a LE outsider" or "the template says vampires are evil."

I am willing to state the following as true, and I hope there's total agreement on these points:

1) Durkon's clerical magic is now demonstrably evil
2) Durkon's actions in this strip seem to imply that he's not the same dwarf he used to be - but time will tell

Other than that - I think that Rich has a point to make about Durkon's beliefs and morality vis-à-vis Durkon's innate vampire nature, and that he's not finished making it. Saying "Durkon's obviously LE and you're a fool - move on" is not supported by the text.

How hard is that, really?

[KillianHawkeye]

I don't get what is so hard for people to understand. There are almost zero non-evil undead creatures in D&D. Even with intelligent undead it is by far the exception rather than the norm.

The baseline is Undeath = Evil.

[SavageWombat]

I don't get what is so hard for people to understand. There are almost zero non-evil undead creatures in D&D. Even with intelligent undead it is by far the exception rather than the norm.

The baseline is Undeath = Evil.

See, this is the kind of point I'm arguing against.

[KillianHawkeye]

See, this is the kind of point I'm arguing against.

You're trying to argue against the trend of practically ALL undead creatures in D&D being Evil? That's a fact. So... good luck with that, I guess. :smallconfused:

[allenw]

Nope.
There are basically 4 ways this could go:
<good stuff snipped>



Or the "Soul Spice/Non-Alcoholic Beer" option:
5: Durkon knows that Vampires are Evil. Now he's a Vampire, so he must be Evil too; and it's not even really his fault. So he can now listen to his feelings (instead of shoving them deep down inside like his Mother taught him) and do whatever he wants without feeling guilty about it.

[SavageWombat]

You're trying to argue against the trend of practically ALL undead creatures in D&D being Evil? That's a fact. So... good luck with that, I guess. :smallconfused:

You're implying that (a) all undead are evil (b) Durkon is undead therefore (c) Durkon is evil. Which is a valid syllogism, and completely missing the point. You're oversimplifying the discussion and ignoring the fact that the issue is Durkon's character, not the game rules.

THAT'S what I'm arguing against.

[JennTora]

You may not like or agree with it, but D&D has a pretty simple, consisistent explanation of why almost all Undead (barring some ghosts, and incredibly-rare exceptions) are Evil. They're powered by "Negative Energy," which is inherently bad and corrupting (even just channelling Negative Energy is technically Evil, so being run by the stuff 24/7 can't be good). That's why even mindless undead are Evil in 3.5 (though not in all previous versions)

Where does it say that negative energy is inherently bad or corrupting? Plenty of negative energy spells lack the evil descriptor, if negative energy is inherently evil, why doesn't for example energy drain have it? Evil clerics channel negative rather than positive energy, but channeling negative is to my knowledge never called an evil act. It seems the only time negative energy is explicitly considered evil is when it's used to create undead and it still doesn't explain why that would be.

[KillianHawkeye]

You're implying that (a) all undead are evil (b) Durkon is undead therefore (c) Durkon is evil. Which is a valid syllogism, and completely missing the point. You're oversimplifying the discussion and ignoring the fact that the issue is Durkon's character, not the game rules.

THAT'S what I'm arguing against.

I disagree. I think you are overcomplicating it. :smallannoyed:


Where does it say that negative energy is inherently bad or corrupting? Plenty of negative energy spells lack the evil descriptor, if negative energy is inherently evil, why doesn't for example energy drain have it? Evil clerics channel negative rather than positive energy, but channeling negative is to my knowledge never called an evil act. It seems the only time negative energy is explicitly considered evil is when it's used to create undead and it still doesn't explain why that would be.

This issue is actually treated very inconsistently within the D&D rules. Almost as if there were several people involved in the design process with differing ideas.

[Dalek Kommander]

Until you fairly try to examine an argument you have no basis to say it's nonsense. I'm just trying to fairly examine the arguments. Rather than just jump up and down shouting at them: "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong."

How "fairly" do I have to examine the argument that Durkon is still lawful good, after I've seen him grin sadistically while snapping the neck of a helpless prisoner?

You talk in vague abstract terms as if we are disagreeing over an incredibly obtuse and complicated academic issue, but it really isn't. Lawful Good people do NOT take pleasure in the brutal murder of helpless prisoners. Any argument to the contrary CAN be safely dismissed as nonsense, without having to go through the pretense of "fairly examining" it.

[JennTora]

How "fairly" do I have to examine the argument that Durkon is still lawful good, after I've seen him grin sadistically while snapping the neck of a helpless prisoner?

You talk in vague abstract terms as if we are disagreeing over an incredibly obtuse and complicated academic issue, but it really isn't. Lawful Good people do NOT take pleasure in the brutal murder of helpless prisoners. Any argument to the contrary CAN be safely dismissed as nonsense, without having to go through the pretense of "fairly examining" it.

I believe you meant to say that lawful good doesn't. Lawful good people, being people and not alignments, are quite capable of taking pleasure in the suffering of someone they particularly hate.

Note the evil smile on Roy's face here:

www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0064.html

[DeliaP]

See, this is the kind of point I'm arguing against.
Yeah, I can get that.

But I hope you would acknowledge that I'm not arguing that. There are clearly wrong arguments that have been advanced (starting with Durkon swearing) on both sides (starting with Durkon regaining his accent).

I'm arguing that, looking at the whole set of arguments for and against, the balance of probabilities is pretty clearly that Durkon is, actually, Evil.

That, basically, all the in comic evidence is that Durkon is Evil.

And that trying to argue that Durkon isn't involves having to argue that all of that in comic evidence should be read differently to the way it naturally reads, and that there is no direct in comic reason to suppose that this should be the case.

The best argument so far marshalled for Durkon not being Evil is no more than a meta-reading of two tangential posts by the Giant.

So when you say:


Which is, notably, the point I'm arguing. I feel that the people saying "Durkon is now LE" are applying an overly-simple view of alignment to the strip that is not borne out by the text.


how do you respond to my saying "Durkon is now LE, on a clear balance of probabilities"? Are my arguments overly-simple?



The problem is that people who think I'm arguing "Durkon is NOT LE" try to prove it by saying things like "Durkon summoned a LE outsider" or "the template says vampires are evil."


Which are two out of several arguments: you've cherry picked the RAW arguments to argue against there. But they aren't the only arguments. They aren't even the strongest arguments. What about the rest?



Saying "Durkon's obviously LE and you're a fool - move on" is not supported by the text.
I hope I do not come across as saying you're a fool, it is not my intention. I am saying your position does not appear to be supported by the balance of the evidence.

[Dalek Kommander]

If you say that Durkon is now LE, and this prevents him from holding a LG morality - then he's not capable of change.

When Durkon was still alive and Lawful Good, did his Lawful Goodness "prevent" him from becoming lawful evil? How many people were tying themselves in knots arguing that he shouldn't have to stay Lawful Good if he doesn't want to?

Durkon is now Lawful Evil, in much the same way he used to be Lawful Good. Having free will means he is capable of change, but making it as easy as flipping a light switch would cheapen the dramatic significance of him turning into a vampire at all.

[DeliaP]

How "fairly" do I have to examine the argument that Durkon is still lawful good, after I've seen him grin sadistically while snapping the neck of a helpless prisoner?


If you're trying to actually have a discussion with the person you are disagreeing with, then pretty much it depends on how far you want to go to actually have a discussion, rather simply repeating "You're clearly wrong, so there".



You talk in vague abstract terms as if we are disagreeing over an incredibly obtuse and complicated academic issue, but it really isn't. Lawful Good people do NOT take pleasure in the brutal murder of helpless prisoners.

Weird. You have noticed that I basically have been saying that Durkon taking vicious delight in snapping Z's neck is the strongest evidence, in an overwhelmingly strong case, that Durkon is Evil, right?

So, um, what exactly do you think we are disagreeing about in that?



Any argument to the contrary CAN be safely dismissed as nonsense, without having to go through the pretense of "fairly examining" it.

Well, actually in the previous quote you've more or less fairly considered the case, right there, and come to a similar conclusion to me. See what I'm saying?

[SavageWombat]

No, I don't have any particular problem with your style of argument. I have total respect for someone considering all the facts, and not just leaping to the first conclusion.

But I don't think Durkon's alignment is easily interpreted as a binary proposition - "is he evil yes/no" at this point. And I think a lot of the people pushing to say he's evil are basically saying "Durkon is no longer who he was - he's magically compelled to evil" and that's the end of it.

I think that Durkon's behavior fighting Nale and Z can be interpreted as either (a) he's evil and revels in bloodshed OR (b) his vampiric instincts make him feel more aggressive and ruthless than he did previously.

I think that Durkon's conversation with Roy can be interpreted as either (a) he's still the same person he was, more or less OR (b) he's evil, but that doesn't override prior loyalties.

(I think his comment about "no more than Belkar" sounds bad, but not self-reflective enough to indicate for sure. But that's just me.)

I don't think ANY of these interpretations are impossible to be Rich's intent. I think he's being deliberately ambiguous. I want to see more of Durkon's behavior before ruling on that point.

But I also think that the debate on (a) is Durkon now, mechanically, Evil for rules purposes is a separate argument from (b) is Durkon now of a different moral viewpoint than he was before his transformation.

I want to see if Rich thinks that Durkon's becoming a vampire has changed his beliefs, or his instincts, or what. I don't think a cleric would just start worshiping Nergal or Hel because their alignment changed - unless that changed their entire belief structure. We don't really know what Durkon is thinking, and we've only seen his new behavior for one strip.

[DeliaP]

<snipped for length>

OK, I think you've probably put about the best face on the "Durkon may not be Evil" argument that can be made.

And in the end it still amounts to: there's a lot of evidence that Durkon is now Evil, but you can, in each individual case, argue a specific reading of it that goes against the natural reading.

So it's not 100% certain that the Giant isn't going to pull something on us. But there's still no evidence that indicates we should take such a contrary reading, so it is still completely against all the balance of evidence to suppose that Durkon is not Evil.

There. We've communicated! Hopefully we understand each other better. I'm not sure we can go any further forward, and we must just wait and see what the Giant will bring....

with respect,
DeliaP.

[Dalek Kommander]

I believe you meant to say that lawful good doesn't. Lawful good people, being people and not alignments, are quite capable of taking pleasure in the suffering of someone they particularly hate.

Note the evil smile on Roy's face here:

www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0064.html

Roy got a very stern lecture while applying to enter Lawful Good heaven for precisely this sort of minor transgression, which is utterly INSIGNIFICANT in comparison to brutally murdering a helpless prisoner. Even if it's technically possible Durkon was lawful good before he snapped Z's neck, he wasn't after, any more than Miko continued to be a paladin after killing Lord Sojo. And I have to add that when he followed up the neck-snapping with a joke about sucking Nale's blood in the very next panel, he didn't exactly blow me away with his heart-felt remorse and an earnest wish to make amends.

[JennTora]

Roy got a very stern lecture while applying to enter Lawful Good heaven for precisely this sort of minor transgression, which is utterly INSIGNIFICANT in comparison to brutally murdering a helpless prisoner. Even if it's technically possible Durkon was lawful good before he snapped Z's neck, he wasn't after, any more than Miko continued to be a paladin after killing Lord Sojo. And I have to add that when he followed up the neck-snapping with a joke about sucking Nale's blood in the very next panel, he didn't exactly blow me away with his heart-felt remorse and an earnest wish to make amends.

Irrelevant. A good character can commit a single evil act and still be good. If Nale suddenly rescued a basket of puppies from a burning building would that make him suddenly good?

[SavageWombat]

Please consider, as you argue, whether you are claiming that a given action

(a) is a result of Durkon's alignment or

(b) is an indicator of Durkon's alignment.

Claiming that (or saying someone else is claiming that) Durkon must be Evil because we saw him snap Z's neck is not the same as claiming that committing an act like snapping Z's neck makes him evil.

[Dalek Kommander]

Well, actually in the previous quote you've more or less fairly considered the case, right there, and come to a similar conclusion to me. See what I'm saying?

Your original words were "examining the argument", and while I suppose it might have less to do with disagreeing with you on specifics than I thought, as a general rule I still maintain it is not necissary to examine an argument when the alleged conclusion flagrantly defies facts.

[JennTora]

Please consider, as you argue, whether you are claiming that a given action

(a) is a result of Durkon's alignment or

(b) is an indicator of Durkon's alignment.

Claiming that (or saying someone else is claiming that) Durkon must be Evil because we saw him snap Z's neck is not the same as claiming that committing an act like snapping Z's neck makes him evil.

How so, for the purposes of this argument?

[SavageWombat]

When Durkon was still alive and Lawful Good, did his Lawful Goodness "prevent" him from becoming lawful evil? How many people were tying themselves in knots arguing that he shouldn't have to stay Lawful Good if he doesn't want to?

Yes, actually, to a certain degree. He was restrained from becoming LE because he considered that behavior to be wrong, abhorrent, misguided. So if your argument holds, it means that becoming a vampire didn't just make Durkon bloodthirsty and violent, but reversed his long-held belief structure on right and wrong. Such a character is not any more able to become LG because he no longer feels that to be true.

I don't believe that's true in Durkon's case - I think it's his instincts that have changed. A Durkon that is now LE will not try to return to his old ways because he won't agree with those ways. A Durkon that is evil against his will would try to be as much like his old self as he could - and probably fail.

That's the stuff that I'm waiting to see before judging.

[Dalek Kommander]

Claiming that (or saying someone else is claiming that) Durkon must be Evil because we saw him snap Z's neck is not the same as claiming that committing an act like snapping Z's neck makes him evil.

I think this ambiguity is about as important to the status of Durkon's alignment as it is to Z's neck.

[JennTora]

I think this ambiguity is about as important to the status of Durkon's alignment as it is to Z's neck.

I Agree. From where I'm standing they're functionally equivalent when said neck snapping is being used as evidence of Durkon's alignment. And if killing Z, even joyfully, doesn't make Durkon evil it's a loss of that piece of evidence for the evil dwarf brigade.

[Dalek Kommander]

He was restrained from becoming LE because he considered that behavior to be wrong, abhorrent, misguided.

Was he restrained, or did he CHOOSE to remain Lawful Good? More importantly, how many people were quibbling over this mostly-semantic distinction BEFORE he became a vampire?

[multilis]

Durkon is born into a brutal world of rules and fighting for XP.

He is basically LE but it is not his fault, it is the fault of of the Gods that created the world and made the rules so he had to be this way when he was vamped.

However, Durkon still has hope. He is near a rift. He is near Mr. Scruffy. The Love of Snarl is stronger than those petty rules of "always evil" and XP, and Durkon like Belkar can be saved.

For more information, please contact your nearest Holey Brotherhood office.

Thank-you.

[SavageWombat]

I think this ambiguity is about as important to the status of Durkon's alignment as it is to Z's neck.

If you honestly think that - I can see why there's no arguing with you.

[veti]

There's not much doubt in my mind that Durkon is now LE.

What I do await with bated breath, though, is some explanation as to why.

"Because he's a vampire" doesn't begin to cut it. It would be equally valid to say "Durkon isn't a vampire, therefore the character we see now isn't Durkon". It's a purely semantic argument, devoid of meaning or insight. The same applies to any answer that involves terms like "moral compass" or "negative energy".

We know that Durkula still has Durkon's memories, his speech patterns, his loyalties. So why, exactly, has the same life experience that previously led him to be "good", now flipped around and turned him "evil"?

I fully expect the Giant will answer that - maybe as a throwaway remark somewhere, or maybe it's the focus of the whole of the next book. Either way, I'm keen to see what he comes up with.

[Dalek Kommander]

If you honestly think that - I can see why there's no arguing with you.

If you can see a guy gleefully snap a helpless prisoner's neck and still think that leaves plenty of moral wiggle room for him to be lawful good, I suppose convincing you that I don't is about as much as I can hope for.

[Dalek Kommander]

What I do await with bated breath, though, is some explanation as to why.

"Because he's a vampire" doesn't begin to cut it. It would be equally valid to say "Durkon isn't a vampire, therefore the character we see now isn't Durkon". It's a purely semantic argument, devoid of meaning or insight. The same applies to any answer that involves terms like "moral compass" or "negative energy".

Asking "why" Durkon turned evil is the wrong question. You might as well ask why Malack burned in sunlight; that question doesn't HAVE an answer more satisfying than "vampires just do that." Any attempt to elaborate the mechanism that made him evil will involve negative energy at best, assuming you don't want the giant to hang a lampshade on D&D template rules.

The real question to ask is HOW Durkon is going to go about being a lawful evil vampire, and how the party will react to it. That is where the drama will actually come from.

[Psyren]

There's not much doubt in my mind that Durkon is now LE.

What I do await with bated breath, though, is some explanation as to why.

"Because he's a vampire" doesn't begin to cut it. It would be equally valid to say "Durkon isn't a vampire, therefore the character we see now isn't Durkon". It's a purely semantic argument, devoid of meaning or insight. The same applies to any answer that involves terms like "moral compass" or "negative energy".

We know that Durkula still has Durkon's memories, his speech patterns, his loyalties. So why, exactly, has the same life experience that previously led him to be "good", now flipped around and turned him "evil"?

I fully expect the Giant will answer that - maybe as a throwaway remark somewhere, or maybe it's the focus of the whole of the next book. Either way, I'm keen to see what he comes up with.

To make him interesting :smalltongue:

But really, if Sabine - a freaking demon - is capable of feeling love and loyalty, why can't a vampire have friends?

[warrl]

Not sure why this thread is titled the way it is, after all, this conversation happens:

ROY: Durkon, you're not Evil?
DURKIN: Not any more than Belkar, I'd wager.

Not any more than BELKAR.

BELKAR.

Belkar is most certainly not Lawful Good material, even after "character growth."

O-chul is not any more evil than Belkar.

Assume/pretend (just for the sake of this argument) that Vampire!Durkon is not evil, and consider the context.

Durkon flat-out claiming to not be evil would not be immediately credible. They are in the middle of a battle so he wouldn't want to take time for explanations and convincing.

His noncommittal reply effectively pointed out that they didn't need to precisely resolve the issue at the moment, because his current alignment was not an obstacle to working together on a more important problem.

[Forum Explorer]

Durkon has certainly gotten...harsher for lack of a better word. Before he became a vampire he wouldn't have snapped V's neck, he'd have immediately smacked Nale again, seeking to kill or disable him.

Still Durkon was hardly a pacifist before hand. He'd certainly kill his opponents and against certain beings he'd be uncompromisingly in his desire to destroy them. And it's still being Lawful Good if you kill evil creatures, even if you do so in their sleep. There is a world of difference between killing a evil, if helpless drow who is a powerful spellcaster after you immediately knocked them out, vs chopping down a unarmed old man who has never offered you any sort of physical threat at all.

So is Durkon evil? Perhaps. I think it's more likely that Durkon's worldview has been altered on a fundamental level. For one thing, other setinant beings are now his food. His very instincts scream at him that fact to him. At the same time either his past beliefs are being called into question (undead are evil no matter what) or those past beliefs make him think that he is automatically evil and he is acting appropriately. Either way he's got a lot to think over now and I think it's likely that he will be evil in the end.

[Niknokitueu]

Roy got a very stern lecture while applying to enter Lawful Good heaven for precisely this sort of minor transgression, which is utterly INSIGNIFICANT in comparison to brutally murdering a helpless prisoner. Even if it's technically possible Durkon was lawful good before he snapped Z's neck, he wasn't after, any more than Miko continued to be a paladin after killing Lord Sojo. And I have to add that when he followed up the neck-snapping with a joke about sucking Nale's blood in the very next panel, he didn't exactly blow me away with his heart-felt remorse and an earnest wish to make amends.
This. Oh, so much, this.
(Well, almost, at any rate.)
If Durkula was his old self, snapping the neck of an unconcious and helpless foe would have cost him a lot. Probably all spellcasting and needing an Atonement before he could gain spells again. It is an overtly evil act, and despite being able to be done by LG characters, it remains an overtly evil act that is normally done only by evil people. On balance of probability Durkula is evil.

Irrelevant. A good character can commit a single evil act and still be good. If Nale suddenly rescued a basket of puppies from a burning building would that make him suddenly good?
Given what we know about Nale, and assuming he isn't under the effect of a helm of opposite alignment, geas, or other such spell, I would assume either:
a) he had a nefarious plan that required a basket of puppies, or
b) he likes his 'puppies-in-a-basket' done 'rare'. With extra fries and ketchup.

Nah, Durkula is Evil. As Rich shows several times in the strip. Could it be a bluff? Yes. Is it a bluff? I am certain it is not.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[King of Nowhere]

I think is evil. Ngative energy empowers him, and it's taking a toll on his personality.

No, I don't think killing Z counts as evil. Killing a powerful foe after you knocked him out, considering you have no means of retaining him, and your team is going to die if you don't help them immeidately, thus abandoning your foe, and then his team is likely to get him and heal him... no, killing Z is just common sense. Not doing so would be begging to be killed by Z at some later point. At most, it is a chaotic act.
Also, arguments on that are verging close to "morally justified" material.

Anyway, the glee with which he killed Z is not something the old durkon would have displayed. he look much harsher than old durkon, and that coupled with the negative energy running in him strongly suggest evil. On the other hand, he still has all his previous loialties. We see plenty of evil people who would stand for a friend in this strip, or that would rather save the world they themselves live in rather than risk apocalypse for everybody including them.
So, my opinion is that durkon is now lawful evil, but on friendly terms with the order, and will still be a valuable member of the party. I expect he will, in fact, be very much like malack.