Wow. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

zimmerwald1915

2013-08-07, 03:53 AM

So, Dukon kills Zzz and he's automatically evil.

Let's see... Halley killed crystal in an ambush while she was coming out of the shower and robbed her afterwards.

Roy decapitated several goblins who had been bored to sleep by V's verbosity attack.

V disintegrated that bad guy in front of elan despite the fact he was no immediate threat.

So, wow, I guess if Durkon is evil for offing Zzz then the whole order, except for Elan, of course, must be evil, and belkar was just the only one honest enough to admit it.
Y'know, after each of these events, there were people who argued that yes, Haley had committed an evil act by killing Crystal, yes, Roy committed an evil act by executing the goblins, and yes, V committed and evil act by disintegrating Kubota (or the Young Black Dragon). There were also people who took the argument even farther and said that these acts were individually heinous enough to warrant an alignment shift one step towards Evil: CG => CN in Haley's case, LG => LN in Roy's, and N => NE in V's. It took Word of Giant to end the argument about V (he has yet to weigh in on Haley and Roy), and interestingly in that case he came down on the "no alignment shift" side.

I suppose we'll see what happens with respect to Durkon.

137beth

2013-08-07, 04:14 AM

Y'know, after each of these events, there were people who argued that yes, Haley had committed an evil act by killing Crystal, yes, Roy committed an evil act by executing the goblins, and yes, V committed and evil act by disintegrating Kubota (or the Young Black Dragon). There were also people who took the argument even farther and said that these acts were individually heinous enough to warrant an alignment shift one step towards Evil: CG => CN in Haley's case, LG => LN in Roy's, and N => NE in V's. It took Word of Giant to end the argument about V (he has yet to weigh in on Haley and Roy), and interestingly in that case he came down on the "no alignment shift" side.

I suppose we'll see what happens with respect to Durkon.

Of course, we also had people for most of the first two books saying that Belkar was totally CN or CG....

And yea, I think it was a Barbed Devil that he called, Z called a piscodaemon.

Math_Mage

2013-08-07, 04:19 AM

Komatik

2013-08-07, 04:45 AM

Starwulf

2013-08-07, 04:58 AM

It's not about killing Zzz. That's neutral or slightly evil. What's damning is Durkon's sheer glee while doing it.

And of course the Vampire template turning the base creature Evil upon application.
And calling a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally, something only possible for a nontheistic Cleric if he's Lawful Evil.

What's wrong with expressing glee(even with a sadistic look on your face) over killing someone who has caused much harm to your group in the past, and has likely killed many innocents in their lifetime? I'm sure the people who executed Serial Killers in real life took great pleasure in doing so, does that make them evil as well?

zimmerwald1915

2013-08-07, 05:03 AM

likely killed many innocents in their lifetime
Is executing someone for some evil they "likely" did (on what evidence? An entry in a Monster Manual?) a Good or Neutral act? Or is it the kind of act that's likely to get you nonuple-damned? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html)

Starwulf

2013-08-07, 05:07 AM

Is executing someone for some evil they "likely" did (on what evidence? An entry in a Monster Manual?) a Good or Neutral act? Or is it the kind of act that's likely to get you nonuple-damned? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html)

Well, considering we already have the evil that Z has perpetrated that the Order themselves has witnessed, even without assuming that he's committed horrible acts in the past, there is plenty enough to be quite happy in ridding the world of someone like that.

zimmerwald1915

2013-08-07, 05:22 AM

Well, considering we already have the evil that Z has perpetrated that the Order themselves has witnessed, even without assuming that he's committed horrible acts in the past, there is plenty enough to be quite happy in ridding the world of someone like that.
No, no, you've made me curious. Show me these "many innocents" Z's killed "over his lifetime". Any allusion to them will do, even something along the lines of Thog's confession to the CPPD.

Let me be clear, I'm not trying to defend Z, or play down how much trouble he's been to the Order. I'm just curious as to where this perception that he's some kind of rampaging psychopath comes from. As far as I can tell, it comes from his being a Drow, and a rather nasty piece of work. Am I wrong?

Starwulf

2013-08-07, 05:29 AM

Well, I'm about to hit the sack, being it's 6:30 in the morning, so I'm not going to search all the archives, but here is one example(even though it didn't end up being a murder, he was certainly aiming for it to be, and of a celestial being no less) http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0053.html

He's evil, and if he has no issue attempting to murder a celestial being, I'm sure he's had no qualms over murdering others to get what he wants. If I had more time, I'm sure I could easily come up with several other strips where he's either murdered, or attempted to, other people/goodly beings outside of the Order of the Stick.

Nightmarenny

2013-08-07, 05:44 AM

Y'know, after each of these events, there were people who argued that yes, Haley had committed an evil act by killing Crystal, yes, Roy committed an evil act by executing the goblins, and yes, V committed and evil act by disintegrating Kubota (or the Young Black Dragon). There were also people who took the argument even farther and said that these acts were individually heinous enough to warrant an alignment shift one step towards Evil: CG => CN in Haley's case, LG => LN in Roy's, and N => NE in V's. It took Word of Giant to end the argument about V (he has yet to weigh in on Haley and Roy), and interestingly in that case he came down on the "no alignment shift" side.

I suppose we'll see what happens with respect to Durkon.

In fact there were people in comic who expressed that point of view regarding both Haley and V's actions.

V's confronted by Elan for committing an act he finds reprehensible and that moment was one of the cornerstones of V's personal storyline of falling into the deepend of the alignment pool.

Haley herself admits doubts about the morality of her action.

Klear

2013-08-07, 05:45 AM

I'm sure the people who executed Serial Killers in real life took great pleasure in doing so, does that make them evil as well?

I'd argue for at least neutral here. Seriously.

Daywalker1983

2013-08-07, 05:48 AM

Daywalker1983

2013-08-07, 05:51 AM

It's almost like Durkon hasn't had a lot of time to show off his Evil side yet.

Seriously, can you wait, like, five whole strips before concluding that it's unreasonable to make free-willed Durkon LE without sufficient evidence of evil actions?

I think we should do it the other way round. At this point he has to prove himself good, and he has not done that yet.

In other news: I am seriously freaked out by how many people either don't see Durkon grin while killing or find nothing strange about having fun killing.

That's not even considering the in-comic proof about it being frowned upon by lawful good deities, as seen when Roy checked in.

And no, that certainly doesn't make Durkon chaotic good.

zimmerwald1915

2013-08-07, 06:03 AM

celestial being
Celia isn't a celestial. An outsider, certainly, but not a celestial.

But be that as it may, it's not sufficient. When you compared Z to a "serial killer" you were clearly implying a pattern of behavior. Establish that. Can you prove Z killed anyone in the Empire of Blood? You can make a case that he killed the Elven ambassador he was impersonating, Polozius, but it'd be a flimsy one; we don't know if "Polozius" ever existed as a real person.

If you cannot, then why should you assume Durkon can? If he cannot, whence the glee? Could the glee come not from ridding the world of a great evil - which would bring out grimness in the Durkon-that-was anyway - but from enjoyment in the act of killing?

SiuiS

2013-08-07, 06:11 AM

So, Dukon kills Zzz and he's automatically evil.

Nope. All vampires are inherently evil; the transformation makes you a predator willing to murder (and rationalize it!) and twists your psyche by bombarding it with negativity in a literal spiritual sense. He is evil because turnin into a vampire makes you an evil opposite.

He still has his own personality, however, his old high wisdom, his old outlook. It will just shift from here on because now he is evil. This will be tempered by wisdom, understanding, the idea that evil doesn't need to wantonly flaunt to be, and because now that he is dead, he can return to his homeland. Heck, he can even walk there himself! Or fly. I think he can fly now.

... Doubt that's gonna come up often.

It's almost like Durkon hasn't had a lot of time to show off his Evil side yet.

Seriously, can you wait, like, five whole strips before concluding that it's unreasonable to make free-willed Durkon LE without sufficient evidence of evil actions?

Sure he has. He strictly told people he would murder them and enjoy it first. Old Durkon would be grimly satisfied with a lawful execution.

But again, he's still Durkon. Being evil doesn't make you stupid.

It's not about killing Zzz. That's neutral or slightly evil. What's damning is Durkon's sheer glee while doing it.

And of course the Vampire template turning the base creature Evil upon application.
And calling a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally, something only possible for a nontheistic Cleric if he's Lawful Evil.

I think you have those first two backwards; the glee is because he's evil, not the evil being because of the glee.

Also, Z was complicit in the murder of elemental guardians.

137beth

2013-08-07, 06:35 AM

I think we should do it the other way round. At this point he has to prove himself good, and he has not done that yet.
Huh? So why are you assuming he is "evil until proven good"?

Nope. All vampires are inherently evil; the transformation makes you a predator willing to murder (and rationalize it!) and twists your psyche by bombarding it with negativity in a literal spiritual sense. He is evil because turnin into a vampire makes you an evil opposite.
Oddly enough, that is not the case in most "standard" D&D settings--it is directly contradicted in Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Eberron, etc.

Actually, I can't remember off the top of my head: do Forgotten Realms vampires instantly become evil upon being vampirized? I can't remember...

Komatik

2013-08-07, 06:44 AM

Huh? So why are you assuming he is "evil until proven good"?

Oddly enough, that is not the case in most "standard" D&D settings--it is directly contradicted in Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Eberron, etc.

Actually, I can't remember off the top of my head: do Forgotten Realms vampires instantly become evil upon being vampirized? I can't remember...

because of Rich using the standard Vampire template which Evilizes the base creature. Because Durkon called a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally. Those are very concrete statements about his alignment.

I wouldn't know, haven't read that much D&D related fiction apart from Dragonlance.

Sunken Valley

2013-08-07, 07:01 AM

Y'know, after each of these events, there were people who argued that yes, Haley had committed an evil act by killing Crystal, yes, Roy committed an evil act by executing the goblins, and yes, V committed and evil act by disintegrating Kubota (or the Young Black Dragon). There were also people who took the argument even farther and said that these acts were individually heinous enough to warrant an alignment shift one step towards Evil: CG => CN in Haley's case, LG => LN in Roy's, and N => NE in V's. It took Word of Giant to end the argument about V (he has yet to weigh in on Haley and Roy), and interestingly in that case he came down on the "no alignment shift" side.

I suppose we'll see what happens with respect to Durkon.

He has weighed in on Haley and Roy.

Don't Split the Party has a bonus scene in which Crystal tries to kill Haley 3 separate times while the guild tries to rescue Roy. Haley was killing an enemy.

In the old days of 2003, Rich made a post about Roy's act saying it wasn't evil because "killing evil creatures isn't evil". I can't find it now but someone brought it up at the index. The Phantasm chose not to include it because it does not reflect Rich's later stance.

Aolbain

2013-08-07, 07:15 AM

I'm sure the people who executed Serial Killers in real life took great pleasure in doing so, does that make them evil as well?

If you take great pleasure form killing people you are clearly a psychopath.

Sholos

2013-08-07, 07:18 AM

Huh? So why are you assuming he is "evil until proven good"?
Because every shred of evidence that even half-way points one direction or the other points towards evil. And a lot of the evidence does more than half-way point.

Oddly enough, that is not the case in most "standard" D&D settings--it is directly contradicted in Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Eberron, etc.
None of which are standard.... Standard D&D is Greyhawk. Which is what the core books are talking about. Which is where the vampire template turning you evil comes from.

Actually, I can't remember off the top of my head: do Forgotten Realms vampires instantly become evil upon being vampirized? I can't remember...
No idea, but that doesn't really matter since OOTS is clearly not set in Forgotten Realms.

DeliaP

2013-08-07, 07:24 AM

<snip>
Roy decapitated several goblins who had been bored to sleep by V's verbosity attack.
<snip>
Y'know, after each of these events, there were people who argued that yes, <snip>, Roy committed an evil act by executing the goblins <snip>
<snip>
In the old days of 2003, Rich made a post about Roy's act saying it wasn't evil because "killing evil creatures isn't evil". I can't find it now but someone brought it up at the index. The Phantasm chose not to include it because it does not reflect Rich's later stance.

Ah, the good old "Sleeping Goblins" scene. The gift that just keeps on giving, to every "Someone who looks clearly Good is really Evil" and every "Someone who looks clearly Evil is really Good" alignment debate.

I'd suspect that if the Giant had a list of scenes he'd like to go back and pull a George Lucas style makeover on, that one would be pretty high on the list...

137beth

2013-08-07, 07:48 AM

Because every shred of evidence that even half-way points one direction or the other points towards evil. And a lot of the evidence does more than half-way point.
Yes it does, but that's no reason for assuming he must be evil. I'd say it is more likely, based on the last two strips only that he is evil than good, but there isn't really any sort of proof that he isn't neutral.

None of which are standard.... Standard D&D is Greyhawk. Which is what the core books are talking about. Which is where the vampire template turning you evil comes from.

No idea, but that doesn't really matter since OOTS is clearly not set in Forgotten Realms.
Huh, so you think that the assumption should be that OOTS follows Greyhawk vampires, even though it clearly isn't set in Greyhawk, while every other setting doesn't matter because OOTS isn't set there. That makes...no sense whatsoever, but whatever.

Morty

2013-08-07, 07:53 AM

Sholos

2013-08-07, 08:15 AM

Yes it does, but that's no reason for assuming he must be evil. I'd say it is more likely, based on the last two strips only that he is evil than good, but there isn't really any sort of proof that he isn't neutral.
You're right. We don't have his character sheet with "LE" in the alignment spot. What we do have is evidence pointing very strongly towards an evil alignment. There are only two reasonable responses to that. One is to say, "We don't know, but it looks like evil," and the other is to say, "Yep, he's evil." There is absolutely no reason at all to think Durkon is now good or even neutral based on the available evidence.

Huh, so you think that the assumption should be that OOTS follows Greyhawk vampires, even though it clearly isn't set in Greyhawk, while every other setting doesn't matter because OOTS isn't set there. That makes...no sense whatsoever, but whatever.
Yes, for one very simple reason. If we're talking about a completely homebrewed setting (which OOTS-verse is) then there is no reason to assume it differs from the default unless given reason to. And OOTS has generally followed the default rules. But again, I'll concede that taking the position of, "We don't have absolute proof of any alignment," is valid, so long as you acknowledge that all current evidence points towards evil.

Komatik

2013-08-07, 08:23 AM

You're right. We don't have his character sheet with "LE" in the alignment spot. What we do have is evidence pointing very strongly towards an evil alignment. There are only two reasonable responses to that. One is to say, "We don't know, but it looks like evil," and the other is to say, "Yep, he's evil." There is absolutely no reason at all to think Durkon is now good or even neutral based on the available evidence.

We have evidence pointing towards it, and then very much ironclad proof in the form of Planar Ally and just plain being a freshly minted Vampire who hasn't yet had time for alignment-shifting character development (development away from Lawful Evil, that is).

Yes, for one very simple reason. If we're talking about a completely homebrewed setting (which OOTS-verse is) then there is no reason to assume it differs from the default unless given reason to. And OOTS has generally followed the default rules. But again, I'll concede that taking the position of, "We don't have absolute proof of any alignment," is valid, so long as you acknowledge that all current evidence points towards evil.

Rich has pointed people to the standard Vampire template to explain why some things wrt Durkon happened, like being able to cast spells and such. Plus the comic is clearly consistent with it, like references to Malack's LA, instant combustion in sunlight, days in the grave and so on.

MLH

2013-08-07, 09:02 AM

Jay R

2013-08-07, 09:44 AM

We're manufacturing a lot of complication out of something pretty basic.

Evidence pointing to evil alignment:

1. The vampire template says he should be evil.
2. His glee at killing something is undeniably inconsistent with Durkon's original alignment as portrayed over 900 strips.
3. He does not deny being evil, beyond saying "no more than Belkar".

Evidence pointing to non-evil alignment:

0.

These observed facts are evidence. They are not absolute proof.

The weight of the evidence makes an evil alignment the most likely result. If we get evidence in the other direction later, maybe we can say that everything up to now has been a deliberate attempt to confuse us, to set up a big surprising revelation later, but the evidence, starting with the template, makes an assumption of evil alignment a valid, reasonable inference, and makes an assumption of non-evil alignment an unsupported random guess.

SavageWombat

2013-08-07, 09:55 AM

Evidence pointing to non-evil alignment:

X. A story about characters discussing the effect of vampirism on an existing LG personality is more interesting than just saying "I pushed a button and now he's evil."

Your model of "Durkon is LE" is supported by the evidence in that no evidence contradicts it.

My model of "We don't know what Rich is saying about Durkon's alignment yet" is supported by the evidence in that no evidence contradicts it.

I have yet to see ANYONE say "Durkon's not Evil." We're saying "we don't really know what the full story is yet."

Komatik

2013-08-07, 10:01 AM

My model of "We don't know what Rich is saying about Durkon's alignment yet" is supported by the evidence in that no evidence contradicts it.

Except it's contradicted by all the stuff that says Durkon is Evil, which have to be explained away with leaps of logic, pedantry and "I think it dsoesn't work like it says it works."

ORione

2013-08-07, 10:04 AM

X. A story about characters discussing the effect of vampirism on an existing LG personality is more interesting than just saying "I pushed a button and now he's evil."

I dunno about that. I think that a story where Durkon and the rest of the Order come to grips with Durkon being Evil could be interesting. Especially in the Giant's hands.

And "worldview twisted so that he's now Evil" could be the effect of vampirism on an LG personality.

SavageWombat

2013-08-07, 10:06 AM

I dunno about that. I think that a story where Durkon and the rest of the Order come to grips with Durkon being Evil could be interesting. Especially in the Giant's hands.

And "worldview twisted so that he's now Evil" could be the effect of vampirism on an LG personality.

And that would be fine. But it doesn't mean that the other possibility is eliminated.

SavageWombat

2013-08-07, 10:07 AM

Except it's contradicted by all the stuff that says Durkon is Evil, which have to be explained away with leaps of logic, pedantry and "I think it dsoesn't work like it says it works."

No, it's not. I don't think you're grasping what proving/disproving means here.

ORione

2013-08-07, 10:14 AM

And that would be fine. But it doesn't mean that the other possibility is eliminated.

Sure. I suspect that he is Evil, based on the rules, what Durkon says and does 908, and my own storytelling intuition, but I wouldn't say that I know he is.

Amphiox

2013-08-07, 10:23 AM

Bulldog Psion

2013-08-07, 10:32 AM

Well, it's not 100% certain, but it certainly has some pretty strong evidence pointing towards it, and not much evidence that he's still good or even neutral.

- Seems rather more menacing than the previous Durkon.
- Summons a devil, which remains under his control even after he becomes free.
- States that he is evil.
- Has a new color of magic.
- Has a template, vampire, which, by the rules, makes him evil.
- Spontaneously casts inflict spells rather than heal spells, exactly like an evil cleric.

Sure, he might be lawful good, extra-sweet edition. But thus far, "if it looks like a LE cleric vampire, walks like a LE cleric vampire, and quacks like a LE cleric vampire, it probably is one."

DeliaP

2013-08-07, 10:33 AM

Your model of "Durkon is LE" is supported by the evidence in that no evidence contradicts it.

My model of "We don't know what Rich is saying about Durkon's alignment yet" is supported by the evidence in that no evidence contradicts it.

Oh, come on, seriously? Are we still here?

This is just as bad as the claim that "Durkula is 100% certain LE, shut up".

If you want to argue "Hey, there is (strong, even) in comic evidence pointing that Durkula is Evil, but it's not 100% certain, so because I believe there are good storytelling reasons for a different story, I will continue to entertain that possibility" then, fine.

But if you want to argue "There is currently no positive evidence in favour of Durkula being Evil over Durkula being non-Evil" then everyone is just going to be going back over the same four points again.

Rogar Demonblud

2013-08-07, 10:34 AM

Amphiox

2013-08-07, 10:37 AM

Sequence of events in 908:

1. Durkon has Z knocked unconscious and helpless. He then turns away from Nale, deliberately ignoring him and moves to threaten Z.
2. Nale begs Durkon to spare Z.
3. Durkon ignores the plea and taunts Nale, rubbing his face in his own helplessness.
4. Durkon murders Z and makes Nale watch even as Nale attempts desperately and utterly ineffectively to stop him, taking what can only be described as sadistic pleasure in the act.
5. Durkon turns to Nale and threatens him.
6. Nale flees.

Steps 3 and 4 are utterly unnecessary. Z was no immediate threat. Nale was not a threat to help or revive Z in any way. One threatening look from Durkon was all it would have taken to make him flee.

Killing Z at that moment, in that fashion, was gratuitously unnecessary. It is not the killing of Z that makes the act evil, it is the manner in which Z is killed that is evil.

A good character would have turned his attention to Nale immediately after knocking out Z, and either defeated Nale or driven him away, and THEN returned to decide what to do with Z. Said good character may or may not later decide to execute Z, but said execution would not be done with a slasher grin on his face, and not done with one of the victim's friends deliberately left around to helplessly watch.

This is an evil act because it was done in an evil way. This act does not make Durkon evil any more than any single act of evil makes any other previously good character evil. What it is, is evidence that supports the suspicion that being turned into a vampire has also turned Durkon evil.

SavageWombat

2013-08-07, 10:37 AM

If you want to argue "Hey, there is (strong, even) in comic evidence pointing that Durkula is Evil, but it's not 100% certain, so because I believe there are good storytelling reasons for a different story, I will continue to entertain that possibility" then, fine.

Which is EXACTLY what I've been saying all along, so thank you.

M.A.D

2013-08-07, 10:41 AM

So, Dukon kills Zzz and he's automatically evil.

Nope. He's not evil because he kills Z. It's the other way around, he killed Z because he's evil. The Good Durkon would have put him in prison as per the standard protocol of how good guys deal with recurring villains.

Also, the rulebook says so.

And that would be fine. But it doesn't mean that the other possibility is eliminated.

Honestly, I don't think you can convince anyone that Durkon is not evil just by saying that there's not enough evidence for the contrary.

Amphiox

2013-08-07, 10:43 AM

Bulldog Psion

2013-08-07, 10:45 AM

5. Now Spontaneously casts Inflict spells.

Granted the last doesn't mean Evil per se, just Evil-aligned Neutral.

Since neutral clerics can choose whether to cast heal or inflict, and Durkon appears to be only able to cast inflict spells spontaneously, it's not clear if this can mean anything but evil, IMO.

Amphiox

2013-08-07, 10:46 AM

Nope. He's not evil because he kills Z. It's the other way around, he killed Z because he's evil. The Good Durkon would have put him in prison as per the standard protocol of how good guys deal with recurring villains.

At the very least, the Lawful Good Durkon would have wanted some sort of legal sanction, like a trial and sentence, before executing Z. A Good character might decide that a particular helpless enemy was too dangerous to allow to live, and administer a coup-de-grace, but a Lawful Good character would not summarily execute a defeated foe already rendered helpless and not an immediate threat.

137beth

2013-08-07, 10:50 AM

But if you want to argue "There is currently no positive evidence in favour of Durkula being Evil over Durkula being non-Evil" then everyone is just going to be going back over the same four points again.
No one said that, but nice straw man.

Honestly, I don't think you can convince anyone that Durkon is not evil just by saying that there's not enough evidence for the contrary.
The nice part about proofs is that there is no "convincing" required: a statement is either true, false, or formally undecidable. If you prove it is true, then it's true, no possible arguments. If you prove it is formally undecidable, then no one can ever know if it is true, no possible arguments. And if you haven't proven or dis-proven something, well, you don't know if it's true. You can guess that Durkon is probably evil, but that's all it is: a guess. You can guess that Durkon is probably neutral, but that's all it is: a guess.

DeliaP

2013-08-07, 10:52 AM

Which is EXACTLY what I've been saying all along, so thank you.

Sorry, but this is the first time I think I've heard you accept that "There is (strong, even) in comic evidence that Durkula is Evil, but....".

Up until now I think I've only really been hearing "There's no evidence one way or the other, it's too soon to tell.", which, even if it is presented in response to "It's 100% certain LE, shut up", still isn't right.

But if I have misrepresented you, my apologies.

CRtwenty

2013-08-07, 10:53 AM

No one said that, but nice straw man.

The nice part about proofs is that there is no "convincing" required: a statement is either true, false, or formally undecidable. If you prove it is true, then it's true, no possible arguments. If you prove it is formally undecidable, then no one can ever know if it is true, no possible arguments. And if you haven't proven or dis-proven something, well, you don't know if it's true. You can guess that Durkon is probably evil, but that's all it is: a guess. You can guess that Durkon is probably neutral, but that's all it is: a guess.

Durkon cast Planar Ally to call a Barbed Devil. Calling a Barbed Devil with that spell requires you to be Lawful Evil, since Devils are Lawful Evil. Therefore Durkon is Lawful Evil.

Quild

2013-08-07, 10:57 AM

We can add the following two:

1. Durkon did not immediately order his devil to stop attacking the Order. He prioritized aggressively attacking and killing his enemies before removing a source of danger to his friends.

2. Durkon has not yet thought to order his devil to help save Haley from the elemental. He prioritized trying to help the friend he liked the best over helping the friend who is in the most need.

Neither of these are evil acts in and of themselves, but they demonstrate a degree of callous inconsiderateness that the old LG Durkon definitely did not have, and taken together with all his other actions supports the idea of evil impulses twisting Durkon's old outlook and motivating him towards evil acts.

1. Well, that's prioritization, maybe bad one, but helping the order is clearly his priority. Also while doing this, he get rid of the other fiend as well.

2. If Durkon has sent the Devil against the Elemental I can bet someone would have say that using a Devil to fight for you is some Evil act :o. It seems to me that it enters in the "X should have done Y (first)" thing

On another hand, Durkon seems to show more guilt than pleasure having inflicted wounds to Roy, he's not having fun with that!

I have no doubt that Durkon is now evil but I don't think he would have acted very differently if he wasn't.

JennTora

2013-08-07, 11:00 AM

Lawful Neutral beings aren't as cool, and moight not help. A lawful good being definitely wouldn't help try and take the gates.

DeliaP

2013-08-07, 11:03 AM

No one said that, but nice straw man.

Really? No-one? We've obviously been reading different posts. :smallsigh:

The nice part about proofs is that there is no "convincing" required: a statement is either true, false, or formally undecidable. If you prove it is true, then it's true, no possible arguments. If you prove it is formally undecidable, then no one can ever know if it is true, no possible arguments. And if you haven't proven or dis-proven something, well, you don't know if it's true. You can guess that Durkon is probably evil, but that's all it is: a guess. You can guess that Durkon is probably neutral, but that's all it is: a guess.

There is a huge gap between: can't prove it is true or false; and know nothing and can only geuss. That gap is occupied by the word "probable".

If I flip a coin five times, I can't prove that it won't come up heads five times. Because it's possible. But it's still pretty unlikely, and if I am only "guessing" it won't, it's still a much better guess than guessing it will.

I'm not going to claim that "no-one is arguing that it's 100% certain the Durkula is LE", because clearly some people were/are.

But a lot of people have been arguing only that: there is strong in comic evidence that Durkula being LE is much more likely than not. And until recently I really haven't seen many of the other part of the debate even conceding that.

Komatik

2013-08-07, 11:07 AM

No one said that, but nice straw man.

The nice part about proofs is that there is no "convincing" required: a statement is either true, false, or formally undecidable. If you prove it is true, then it's true, no possible arguments. If you prove it is formally undecidable, then no one can ever know if it is true, no possible arguments. And if you haven't proven or dis-proven something, well, you don't know if it's true. You can guess that Durkon is probably evil, but that's all it is: a guess. You can guess that Durkon is probably neutral, but that's all it is: a guess.

Unless you assert that both 1&2 are true:
1. The Vampire template is houseruled.
2. Either Planar Ally or the Create Spawn ability is houseruled.

Then no, it is not a guess. Those two things both say, 100% certain, that Durkon is Evil.

Rogar Demonblud

2013-08-07, 11:13 AM

Since neutral clerics can choose whether to cast heal or inflict

They choose at character creation, and that choice sticks. So, possibly Evil-aligned Neutral.

Of course point 4 is the real sticker for anyone trying to argue D isn't Lawful Evil.

JennTora

2013-08-07, 11:30 AM

Unless you assert that both 1&2 are true:
1. The Vampire template is houseruled.
2. Either Planar Ally or the Create Spawn ability is houseruled.

Then no, it is not a guess. Those two things both say, 100% certain, that Durkon is Evil.

Again, how many lawful good or lawful neutral beings would agree to do something that risk unmaking the universe? What happens if no being that shares your alignment is up for the mission?

Kish

2013-08-07, 11:34 AM

Again, how many lawful good or lawful neutral beings would agree to do something that risk unmaking the universe? What happens if no being that shares your alignment is up for the mission?
This is a Catch-22. If no being that shares your alignment is up for the mission, then apparently the mission has an extinction-level clash with your alignment, which means if you want to do it you aren't actually the alignment you think you are.

In other words, you can argue that Durkon is Lawful Good. Or you can argue that something Durkon was or is doing is utterly incompatible with Lawful Good. But you can't really argue both at once.

CRtwenty

2013-08-07, 11:37 AM

Again, how many lawful good or lawful neutral beings would agree to do something that risk unmaking the universe? What happens if no being that shares your alignment is up for the mission?

You can't call beings that don't share your alignment unless you worship a deity that commands creatures of that alignment. Durkon due to his newfound vampire status is no longer a worshiper of Thor and therefore can only call beings of his own alignment. He called a Devil, making him Lawful Evil.

And if an outsider called with Planar Ally decides it doesn't like your mission it can refuse it. The spell merely calls an outsider, it doesn't force it to follow your orders. It could just ignore you and hang out until the spell expires and sends it back, or even attack you if it felt like it.

Daywalker1983

2013-08-07, 11:41 AM

And that would be fine. But it doesn't mean that the other possibility is eliminated.

I call troll, you're trolling.

There are precious few things that we can know for certain. That goes for trials, scientific observation and relationships. It it a fundemental part of being a human in our universe.

It is even harder for a fictional story like this one, becaue in theory the Giant can pull whatever he wants. Which he hasn't done so far, on the contrary.

Which doesn't mean every conceivable possibilty is equally likely.

Durkon could be gay, even though he slept with Hilgya. Or did he? Did we see it?

Maybe Nale is not evil per se? Maybe all he does is done in misunderstood envy of his brother? Maybe he is dominated into being evil?

Is Roy's sister really his sister? Was she adopted? There is nothing in the comic saying otherwise.

And even if Durkon's arc is going to be "I'm fighting against my evil urges" he is evil now! Especially then.

I think that the Giant made that abundantly clear, after the confusion about Thog and Belkar. Whereever that came from.

Of course there are a lot of possibilities, but they are way to the right or to the left along the normal distribution. We concede the possibility, but we do not consider it likely enough by far. It is likely in the same way that every conceivable thing might theoretically happen, as per the infinite universe theory. There is no need for discussion (anymore).

I'll stop feeding you now.

SavageWombat

2013-08-07, 11:46 AM

Sorry, but this is the first time I think I've heard you accept that "There is (strong, even) in comic evidence that Durkula is Evil, but....".

Up until now I think I've only really been hearing "There's no evidence one way or the other, it's too soon to tell.", which, even if it is presented in response to "It's 100% certain LE, shut up", still isn't right.

But if I have misrepresented you, my apologies.

Apology accepted. I think the reason I over-involve myself like this sometimes is because I am irrationally frustrated if I think I'm being misinterpreted.

denthor

2013-08-07, 11:50 AM

Y'know, after each of these events, there were people who argued that yes, Haley had committed an evil act by killing Crystal, yes, Roy committed an evil act by executing the goblins, and yes, V committed and evil act by disintegrating Kubota (or the Young Black Dragon). There were also people who took the argument even farther and said that these acts were individually heinous enough to warrant an alignment shift one step towards Evil: CG => CN in Haley's case, LG => LN in Roy's, and N => NE in V's. It took Word of Giant to end the argument about V (he has yet to weigh in on Haley and Roy), and interestingly in that case he came down on the "no alignment shift" side.

I suppose we'll see what happens with respect to Durkon.

The Giant has spoken to Roy not being LN he allowed Roy to enter Lawful Good Heaven. Please read some of the more boring order of the stick comics. Even though it contained the tavern of infinant one night stands.

Shivore

2013-08-07, 11:53 AM

Komatik

2013-08-07, 12:01 PM

In my opinion Durkon is evil, quite plainly. "No more evil than Belkar" is enough proof for me.

That said, I do wish people would stop tossing Planar Ally around as proof, that is meaningless. Durkon didn't cast that, Malack's thrall did and they are not the same creature. You cannot draw any conclusions based around that spell.

Except that they are the same creature, during thralldom Durkon is simply under a one-time domination effect that makes him fawn over Malack and unable to disobey his orders.
Nothing in the Create Spawn rules, or any similar domination effect that I know of for that matter, says that the dominated creature's alignment changes.

Furthermore, there's the Vampire template that Evilizes the base creature.

pendell

2013-08-07, 12:02 PM

Here's another bit of trivia that may be evidence in the debate.

Notice that in 908 Durkula instructed his devil to "stand down." He did not dismiss him. Perhaps he intends to use him in the fight against the elemental, or dispose of Zzdtri's corpse with it.

Now, the fact that he did not instantly dismiss the devil is not prima facie evidence of lawful evil alignment. But it's one more fact on the pile. Since he arose as a vampire he has taken a number of actions that are consistent with a lawful evil alignment and not done anything that was obviously and undeniably good.

As important as what he does is what he does not do. He doesn't show horror or any kind of angst which a mortal might otherwise experience in being transformed into an outsider abomination. While the next few strips might change my opinion, *at the moment*, it seems he's found peace with his new status in the story remarkably quickly. Which mean's he's stepped into the role of evil bloodsucker. He's not kicking against it or fighting against it. He's ACCEPTING it.

And only an evil being could simply accept such a status without a considerable amount of kicking and screaming.

The rules say he is always evil. His character and actions since arising are consistent with lawful evil. So until he acts in some way that would be in violation of this I will believe he is lawful evil. By the standard of preponderance of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Respectfully ,

Brian P.

Kish

2013-08-07, 12:07 PM

Komatik

2013-08-07, 12:09 PM

Also, someone made a good point earlier in one of these threads that Nale (who is presumably pretty damn familiar with how vampirism works in OotS, having grown up around Malack and planned to murder him for at the very least a decade, probably two or three) assumed Durkon was flat out Evil. One more piece of strong evidence on top of the pile.

Klear

2013-08-07, 12:15 PM

If Durkon isn't evil, we're still intended to think he is. Everything points towards that.

eras10

2013-08-07, 12:22 PM

Durkon summoning a devil is only evidence of his alignment if you believe that your alignment is a fixed element of your species. Rich has definitively rejected that point of view. For that matter, so has 3.5 D&D.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a

see here - we have our lawful good succubus. She can still drain levels. That's biological, it never goes away. She just refrains from doing it. Even that's her interpetation of Lawful Good - it's not fact that she couldn't use it to save the life of a child if there was no other way while still being lawful good.

Furthermore, as has been repeatedly stated, Durkon summoned the devil while he was a thrall. It's summoning is not evidence of anything regarding Durkon's attitude and character whatsoever.

He's a vampire cleric, so his summons will be devils. That is only indirectly related to his alignment at all. He can be a lawful good cleric who summons devils to perform only lawful and good actions. That's entirely possible. I have provided the link to demonstrate. Now, in this story, the devils refuse to show since they'd have to do Lawful and good things all the time. Fine.

The point here is that the type of being you summon is biological, but alignment is determined by the ethical quality of your actions, period.

So the devil isn't evidence of anything.

As for behavior, we have overwhelming in-comic evidence that good creatures can kill evil ones. Yes, even when they're helpless. And yes, they can even have facial expressions indicating that they enjoyed it. The enjoyment itself may not be good, but in itself it's not an alignment-losing problem. Yes, the Crystal killing is an excellent example of this. Yes, killing Z was easily defensible as a good act - he's a threat as soon as he wakes up, he's furthering a plot to control the entire world, needs to be killed, end of story.

Durkon's had a bit of an unkind attitude so far, but he has committed no clearly evil acts. Not even one. This isn't a surprise - we've had exactly one strip so far.

People making declaratory expressions of certainty as to what's going on in Durkon's heart right now - and that's, along with his actions - are the sole determinant of his alignment - are way ahead of themselves.

For a counterfactual - if Durkon hadn't been vampirized, and in the past strip had just killed Z (while the Linear Guild's forces were engaging OOTS, I might add, and right after setting back, but not thwarting their plot to control the whole world, with a mean look on his face, then made an ambiguous statement to Roy about his own feelings - would that be sufficient basis for Thor to deactivate his LG cleric status?) I think that's... not realistic at all.
That's not a basis for declaring an LG creature no longer LG. It's not much different from Roy enjoying his destruction of a helpless Xykon in the dream bubble, or Soon's disinterest in taking Redcloak alive.

Komatik

2013-08-07, 12:38 PM

Durkon summoning a devil is only evidence of his alignment if you believe that your alignment is a fixed element of your species. Rich has definitively rejected that point of view. For that matter, so has 3.5 D&D.

Not a fixed part of your species (barring you being an outsider literally made of cosmic good or evil or law or chaos). But it's an intrinsic part of a CHARACTER. And it's not fixed. But the Vampire template turns you Evil, calling a Devil with Planar Ally absolutely requires you to be Evil, and everything about Durkon's post-Malack behavior is consistent with Lawful Evil.

He's completely free to turn to another alignment following character development.

see here - we have our lawful good succubus. She can still drain levels. That's biological, it never goes away. She just refrains from doing it. Even that's her interpetation of Lawful Good - it's not fact that she couldn't use it to save the life of a child if there was no other way while still being lawful good.

The Succubus is a Lawful Good character, with the [Evil, Chaotic] subtypes so effects that care about alignment read her as all four.

Furthermore, as has been repeatedly stated, Durkon summoned the devil while he was a thrall. It's summoning is not evidence of anything regarding Durkon's attitude and character whatsoever.

The spell doesn't care about you being under a mind control effect. It cares about your alignment. Durkon's is Lawful Evil, he got a Barbed Devil. Had he been alive and under Dominate Person, he'd have gotten a Deva.

He's a vampire cleric, so his summons will be devils. That is only indirectly related to his alignment at all. He can be a lawful good cleric who summons devils to perform only lawful and good actions. That's entirely possible. I have provided the link to demonstrate. Now, in this story, the devils refuse to show since they'd have to do Lawful and good things all the time. Fine.

Nothing about the Vampire rules says he counts as an evil creature, or can only ever summon evil beings. If he is a Cleric, he channels negative energy and spontaneously casts Inflict spells, THAT'S IT.

The point here is that the type of being you summon is biological, but alignment is determined by the ethical quality of your actions, period.

So the devil isn't evidence of anything.

Except that it's not, unless you have some inherent powers derived from your creature type, like that Succubus had. Please quote the relevant rules that say so. Certainly, Planar Ally couldn't give a crap if you were a drooling Ooze. It's a spell. Derived from class levels. Not something inherent to your very being.

As for behavior, we have overwhelming in-comic evidence that good creatures can kill evil ones. Yes, even when they're helpless. And yes, they can even have facial expressions indicating that they enjoyed it. The enjoyment itself may not be good, but in itself it's not an alignment-losing problem.

Durkon's had a bit of an unkind attitude so far, but he has committed no clearly evil acts. Not even one. This isn't a surprise - we've had exactly one strip so far. [/QUOTE]

These have been pointed to as indicators of Durkon's alignment, not reasons for turning from Lawful Good into Lawful Evil.

People making declaratory expressions of certainty as to what's going on in Durkon's heart right now - and that's, along with his actions - are the sole determinant of his alignment - are way ahead of themselves.

That's not a basis for declaring an LG creature no longer LG. It's not much different from Roy enjoying his destruction of a helpless Xykon in the dream bubble, or Soon's disinterest in taking Redcloak alive.

Except the Vampire template and calling a Barbed Devil, both of which are 100% indicators of Durkon being Evil.

Oblitron

2013-08-07, 12:41 PM

This.

...the evidence, starting with the template, makes an assumption of evil alignment a valid, reasonable inference, and makes an assumption of non-evil alignment an unsupported random guess.

^Undeniable eloquent brilliance, Jay R. Thank you.

I apologize for coming into this attacking, but I am quite disturbed by the fact that some people seem to be of the opinion that you can murder someone and that it might not be evil. To do so with a smile?? There is NEVER any excuse to end another's life with a smile unless you have just escaped death by torture at their hands by killing them in self defense. Durkon-that-was would never end any non-tree life without a whole lot of talk beforehand and a frown while it was happening. Durkon-that-is has a very clear and obvious disconnect from Durkon-that-was. If you cannot see this very plainly, PLEASE see a health professional as soon as you can. I am not comfortable living with you loose on the streets undrugged and unsupervised.

I'm all for blowing up and analyzing interesting technicalities in an online forum, but anyone who says that the "jury is still out" on whether Durkula is evil needs to get a life; speak to a therapist, take a course in critical thinking, include flesh-and-blood friends in their discussion. Because you are wasting time and energy scaring me and annoying other people. If you truly have nothing better going on in your life than insisting that everyone else admit that there's not enough evidence to recognize evil, then you need to go outside and get some sunshine. Read a book, kiss a girl (or a guy,) and gain some perspective on life.

Now, there's a very interesting argument to be explored about whether being turned vampire *should* turn someone evil and why, but that's probably it's own thread.

pendell

2013-08-07, 12:48 PM

While I believe Durkon is Lawful Evil, I have to shake my head at the irony of reading different "he's definitely evil" people arguing, "As evidence, he didn't send his devil to attack the elemental immediately" and, "As evidence, he didn't dismiss his devil immediately, and may even be planning to have it fight for him."

I didn't say "definitely evil". I said "preponderance of evidence leads me to the conclusion that he is evil, but it is not yet beyond reasonable doubt."

What would remove reasonable doubt for me would be a series of completely unprovoked Kick The Puppy moments, like Belkar's murder of the gnome with the cart.

And that's also why I said "refusing to dismiss the devil is not prima facie evidence of lawful evil alignment." If he had said something like "Begone, foul creature, back to the hells ye came from!" then that would be evidence of either good/neutral alignment or at least a desire to be so.

A lawful good character could reasonably retain the devil's services for the duration of the combat encounter. A Deva wouldn't , but it's mortals fighting here, not Devas.

So taken by itself, the act means nothing.

Taken with everything ELSE Durkula has done -- which at this time isn't much -- it tends to reinforce the Lawful Evil narrative rather than disprove it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

JennTora

2013-08-07, 01:02 PM

This is a Catch-22. If no being that shares your alignment is up for the mission, then apparently the mission has an extinction-level clash with your alignment, which means if you want to do it you aren't actually the alignment you think you are.

In other words, you can argue that Durkon is Lawful Good. Or you can argue that something Durkon was or is doing is utterly incompatible with Lawful Good. But you can't really argue both at once.

Durkon's mission was malack's at the time, though. Enthrallment and all, so he could have been good while the mission was evil. Thing is if Giant wanted Durkon to summon something there are several possibilities.

1. Have lawful good/neutral durkon summon a similarly aligned being. The being does what durkon wants despite the absurdity involved.

2. Have lawful good/neutral Durkon summon a similarly aligned being. Said being sits there. Boring and therefore it wouldn't happen.

3. Have lawful good/neutral Durkon summon a similarly aligned being. Said being zaps malack and durkon with a sunburst. Malack and Durkon both die.

4. Have lawful good/neutral Durkon summon a devil. Only problem here is a minor conflict with the spell that nobody really cares about, but everyone brings up anyway for some reason.

5. Have lawful evil durkon summon a devil. No problem at all.

Obviously, 4 and 5 are really the only ones that could be true, since he summoned a devil. But really, I don't stick to the rules this hard when I actually PLAY/DM d&d, so I don't see why I should assume the giant is going to follow some minor, kind of unimportant rule perfectly.

eras10

2013-08-07, 01:02 PM

I didn't say "definitely evil". I said "preponderance of evidence leads me to the conclusion that he is evil, but it is not yet beyond reasonable doubt."

What would remove reasonable doubt for me would be a series of completely unprovoked Kick The Puppy moments, like Belkar's murder of the gnome with the cart.

And that's also why I said "refusing to dismiss the devil is not prima facie evidence of lawful evil alignment." If he had said something like "Begone, foul creature, back to the hells ye came from!" then that would be evidence of either good/neutral alignment or at least a desire to be so.

A lawful good character could reasonably retain the devil's services for the duration of the combat encounter. A Deva wouldn't , but it's mortals fighting here, not Devas.

So taken by itself, the act means nothing.

Taken with everything ELSE Durkula has done -- which at this time isn't much -- it tends to reinforce the Lawful Evil narrative rather than disprove it.

I endorse this opinion. I myself wouldn't bet a large sum of money against Durkon turning out to be LE. I personally don't think it's been clearly established yet, and furthermore I think Rich wrote it in a manner that deliberately fails to make it clear just yet, while also providing troubling hints that imply but deliberately avoid the elimination of other interpretations / possibilities.

stsasser

2013-08-07, 01:11 PM

Some OOTS readers are rockin' the Kubler-Ross.

Gnome Alone

2013-08-07, 01:13 PM

Komatik

2013-08-07, 01:14 PM

I endorse this opinion. I myself wouldn't bet a large sum of money against Durkon turning out to be LE. I personally don't think it's been clearly established yet, and furthermore I think Rich wrote it in a manner that deliberately fails to make it clear just yet, while also providing troubling hints that imply but deliberately avoid the elimination of other interpretations / possibilities.

How do applying an evilizing template AND committing and act only an Evil character can commit NOT eliminate other possibilities?

JennTora

2013-08-07, 01:14 PM

Some OOTS readers are rockin' the Kubler-Ross.

... ... What?

SavageWombat

2013-08-07, 01:15 PM

... ... What?

I think he's calling somebody stupid - but who?

Scow2

2013-08-07, 01:16 PM

Obviously, 4 and 5 are really the only ones that could be true, since he summoned a devil. But really, I don't stick to the rules this hard when I actually PLAY/DM d&d, so I don't see why I should assume the giant is going to follow some minor, kind of unimportant rule perfectly.

That rule is neither minor nor unimportant.

JennTora

2013-08-07, 01:18 PM

That rule is neither minor nor unimportant.

What exactly is so important about it?

Yuki Akuma

2013-08-07, 01:23 PM

Durkon's mission was malack's at the time, though. Enthrallment and all, so he could have been good while the mission was evil.

That doesn't matter. If he was Good when he cast Planar Ally, he would have gotten an Angel or an Archon. The spell doesn't care what the mission is. All it does is call a servant of your god, or failing that, an Outsider with an alignment that matches your own. After it's called, you negotiate with it for its services. If you called an Angel and asked it to perform an evil task, it would refuse and leave.

To use Planar Ally to Call a Barbed Devil, you must either worship a Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral god who has them as servants, or be Lawful Evil yourself. Those are literally the only two ways to get a Barbed Devil with that spell.

Every single time someone has cast a spell in OoTS, it's gone by the actual rules in the SRD - except a single time when Durkon used Control Weather to deal sonic damage, which the strip immediately called out as being outside the usual rules of the spell. There is no reason to assume Planar Ally works different in OoTS than it does in the real game.

Gift Jeraff

2013-08-07, 01:26 PM

What exactly is so important about it?

Clerics are alignment-bound to not do certain things because it's a faith-based class.

Carry2

2013-08-07, 01:28 PM

Goblins being first and foremost sources of XP for good guys is 100% the basis for the comic's main conflict by way of motivation for one of its main antagonists. They were created as such by the same forces that exercise the defining authority over what counts as good or evil.
Yes, but given that much of the comic revolves around repudiating the notion that it's acceptable to ascribe a certain alignment to free-willed creatures solely on the basis of their species, I'm not certain that making vampire-Durkon automatically evil is consistent with that message. (Yes, we got a long spiel from Redcloak about how Tsukiko's wights are just dangerous tools, but those were specifically soulless automatons. Durkon is supposed to be... well... Durkon.)

Evidence pointing to non-evil alignment:

0.

These observed facts are evidence. They are not absolute proof.
As I see it, the problem with Durkon simply entering 'evil mode' is that it does not constitute a character arc. Having to struggle with an unquenchable thirst for warm blood, (further) rejection by the common masses, and the spiritual anguish of abandonment by his deity, then becoming gradually more ruthless and savage in response, would be the basis for a character arc.

So, yeah, maybe evidence does indicate that Durkon is evil now. That's not exactly a reason to be happy about how he's gotten there, which I think is the underlying basis for some of the dissatisfaction on this point.

(To be honest, I think folks may be reading a little too much Durkon enjoying his work, which has precedents (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0216.html). Zz-d-whatever was a clear and present murderous danger to folks that D cares about. If he takes some professional satisfaction in eliminating that, I wouldn't hold it against him.)

JennTora

2013-08-07, 01:30 PM

That doesn't matter. If he was Good when he cast Planar Ally, he would have gotten an Angel or an Archon. The spell doesn't care what the mission is. All it does is call a servant of your god, or failing that, an Outsider with an alignment that matches your own. After it's called, you negotiate with it for its services. If you called an Angel and asked it to perform an evil task, it would refuse and leave.

To use Planar Ally to Call a Barbed Devil, you must either worship a Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral god who has them as servants, or be Lawful Evil yourself. Those are literally the only two ways to get a Barbed Devil with that spell.

Every single time someone has cast a spell in OoTS, it's gone by the actual rules in the SRD - except a single time when Durkon used Control Weather to deal sonic damage, which the strip immediately called out as being outside the usual rules of the spell. There is no reason to assume Planar Ally works different in OoTS than it does in the real game.

Weird, because all the reanimationy spells cast by xykon, redcloak, tsukiko and whatnot? Yeah those are supposed to only cast at night.

Thokk_Smash

2013-08-07, 01:31 PM

Obliteron (amazing name, that, btw): brutality =/= evil. Roy coup de gras-ing sleeping goblins while smiling is creepy and brutal, but evil? Nah, they'd kill him. Durkon killing a demonstrably evil threat with a bit too much relish seems about the same.

When did Roy smile while killing sleeping goblins? We don't see his face when he's coup de gras-ing the goblins V talked to sleep. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html) So him coup de gras-ing them is not creepy, and if he hadn't killed them they would have tried to kill him later.

Math_Mage

2013-08-07, 01:33 PM

The nice part about proofs is that there is no "convincing" required: a statement is either true, false, or formally undecidable. If you prove it is true, then it's true, no possible arguments. If you prove it is formally undecidable, then no one can ever know if it is true, no possible arguments. And if you haven't proven or dis-proven something, well, you don't know if it's true. You can guess that Durkon is probably evil, but that's all it is: a guess. You can guess that Durkon is probably neutral, but that's all it is: a guess.
And by the same token, the theory of quantum electrodynamics could be false since no one can prove it to be true, but that doesn't stop anyone from working with it as established fact.

Mathematical proof is a poor model for reaching a conclusion about a character's alignment from limited narrative evidence. In math, there is no such thing as a theorem that is 99% likely to be true; there is no provision for differing degrees of uncertainty. But the only way to analyze the comic without Word of Giant is through differing degrees of uncertainty.

... ... What?
Kubler-Ross describes five stages of grief. In this case, it's meant to be grief at Durkon becoming LE. The people arguing that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that Durkon is LE are in the 'denial' stage of the model.

eras10

2013-08-07, 01:35 PM

To use Planar Ally to Call a Barbed Devil, you must either worship a Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral god who has them as servants, or be Lawful Evil yourself. Those are literally the only two ways to get a Barbed Devil with that spell.

Follow me here:

#1. Actions and character determine alignment of free-willed creatures in Rich's story, period. Barring our extraplanar exceptions that he has specifically mentioned. Creature type determines capabilities.

#2. Durkon was killed and resurrected as a new creature type, and from the very first moment of that happening, he was mentally dominated by Malack.

In other words, that wasn't Durkon. There was no Durkon in there whatsoever (which the lack of accent is supposed to tell you). There was Durkon's body inhabited by a mindless thrall. Whatever alignment the mindless thrall had is not Durkon's alignment.
Whatever that thing did has no relationship to what Durkon is now. Durkon, the free-willed vampire - the vampire with Durkon's character - did not even exist until the moment Malack was destroyed. Before that, there was only "Malack's vampire thrall in Durkon's body".

I suppose if Durkon summons another devil now that he is actually Durkon, that would, from a rules-lawyer perspective, indicate Durkon's current alignment. But the thing using his body did has no relationship with what Durkon is.

Until Malack died, there was no Durkon, and nothing the thing inhabiting Durkon's body did says anything about what Durkon is now.

I wouldn't trust the devil-summoning thing myself, on its own, however, until I saw what it is used for, because I don't know how much Rich cares about RAW in this case. That's why I don't much care about "Vampire conversion applies the LE template in RAW". This is very much an example of RAW being in the way of a story Rich might want to tell, so I'm fairly sure Rich would trash that without a second glance.

Yuki Akuma

2013-08-07, 01:35 PM

Weird, because all the reanimationy spells cast by xykon, redcloak, tsukiko and whatnot? Yeah those are supposed to only cast at night.

Not all of them. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm)

Also I'd like to see any evidence of anyone casting Create Undead during the day. Not that I don't believe you or anything, I just don't remember that ever happening.

JennTora

2013-08-07, 01:39 PM

Clerics are alignment-bound to not do certain things because it's a faith-based class.

And a lawful neutral cleric calling a lawful good/evil creature would be problematic to their faith because...? Especially since they can already be one step outside their cleric's alignment.

Scow2

2013-08-07, 01:42 PM

Follow me here:

#1. Actions and character determine alignment of free-willed creatures in Rich's story, period. Barring our extraplanar exceptions that he has specifically mentioned. Creature type determines capabilities.I'm pretty sure that he has also included Undead as an exception to free will determining alignment.

And - if the creature that summoned the Devil wasn't Durkon, then it wouldn't obey him. Durkon was Durkon, even under Malack's thrall - though his free will was suppressed, it wasn't eliminated entirely.

Weird, because all the reanimationy spells cast by xykon, redcloak, tsukiko and whatnot? Yeah those are supposed to only cast at night.
Do we have any cases of "Create Undead" being cast in comic at a time other than night? The usual spell tossed around is "Animate Dead", which has no such restriction. And Malack's staff of spellstuff.

And a lawful neutral cleric calling a lawful good/evil creature would be problematic to their faith because...? Especially since they can already be one step outside their cleric's alignment.They could if they had a deity (The deity chooses who to send). But, for a Nontheistic cleric, the creature that comes MUST share the calling cleric's Moral AND Ethical outlook. Neither the Lawful Good nor Lawful Evil outsider share the Lawful Neutral cleric's Moral outlook.

Quorothorn

2013-08-07, 01:48 PM

(To be honest, I think folks may be reading a little too much Durkon enjoying his work, which has precedents (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0216.html). Zz-d-whatever was a clear and present murderous danger to folks that D cares about. If he takes some professional satisfaction in eliminating that, I wouldn't hold it against him.)

I would say that Roy is simply mildly smiling with some satisfaction, rather than outright, sadistic glee, though. I feel there's a difference between :smallamused: and :smallbiggrin: , basically.

Math_Mage

2013-08-07, 01:54 PM

eras10

2013-08-07, 01:57 PM

I'm pretty sure that he has also included Undead as an exception to free will determining alignment.

Wrong.

And - if the creature that summoned the Devil wasn't Durkon, then it wouldn't obey him. Durkon was Durkon, even under Malack's thrall - though his free will was suppressed, it wasn't eliminated entirely.

Skeptical.

Komatik

2013-08-07, 01:57 PM

Some OOTS readers are rockin' the Kubler-Ross.
... ... What?

He's saying people are going through the five stages of grief.

eras10

2013-08-07, 01:58 PM

Also, the Giant has specifically excepted supernatural beings (outsiders and undead) from his discussions about judging by race.

I recall the quote excepting outsiders, full stop. Why don't you provide a link?

Scow2

2013-08-07, 02:01 PM

Wrong.
His exception is for Supernatural creatures, not "Extraplanar Outsiders". He's classified Undead as such Supernatural creature. He emphasized this back during the wierd "Anti-Vampire sentiment is actually an allegory for homosexual discrimmination" thread derailment that happened after we learned what Malack was, but before we confirmed he was actually evil, and used phraseology that clearly stated Undead to be made of vile darkness and other inherently-evil things.

Jade_Tarem

2013-08-07, 02:02 PM

One final bit of information I haven't seen brought up: by 3.5 RAW, it is true that your actual alignment is not tied to your racial subtypes - But! Your subtypes don't go away if you happen to be of a different alignment that clashes with them. That Lawful Good Succubus from the earlier example is also Chaotic and Evil for the purposes of all things objective, magical, etc. This comes with upsides and downsides - she can, for instance, wear a white or black Robe of the Archmagi without taking temporary negative levels - something few characters can do. On the other hand, she can get blasted by Holy Word, Blasphemy, Dictum, and Word of Chaos, which is impossible for a normal LG or CE character.

This is (probably) meant to represent a dynamic struggle between the inner nature of what something is and the personality trying to overcome it. In reality, few players have the roleplaying chops to pull that off, and it's largely ignored except for mechanical purposes.

In Durkon's case, who knows? The Giant can go in whatever direction he wants with it. My personal belief is that Durkon is LE, especially if we take Malack's word for it that the Vampire is a different person than the original. On the other hand, Durkon clearly has fond memories of Roy, Haley, etc. and a bunch of his old LG priorities, and I would tend to side with those that think that maybe we should let Durkon have more than two strips and a dozen lines before we nail down an alignment for him.

As for Roy executing the goblins, that might seem a bit cold, but a Sleep spell doesn't last indefinitely, and the assumption in DnD is that if they were evil and willing to fight you when you were asleep, they'll still be evil and ready to fight you when they wake up. Deep Slumber and Fireball are both third-level spells; the game and the default universe implied by it does not recognize a clear moral difference between roasting ten goblins with the Fireball or Coup de Gracing them after the Enchantment takes effect. Yes, you could try to take one or more of them prisoner, but that is an additional risk, to be taken when you're so much stronger than your opponents that the situation no longer qualifies as life-and-death. Put more simply, Roy could have been taking a -4 penalty to all of his attack rolls to do subdual damage to enemies (knocking them out instead of killing them) by only using the flat of his blade this whole time. Or he could have become a grapple/submission monk instead of a fighter. Or Haley could be using a sap. No one has called them evil for utilizing the much more effective lethal force. Being LG does not mean you have to stick to Superman's code of conduct at all times. Pragmatic kills are legit within that alignment.

For a supplementary example, icing the Linear Guild in Azure City after they were defeated would have only been Chaotic, due to it being in direct violation of the rules handed down by the legitimate government whose territory they were operating within. Evil? Not at all, by the alignment chart standards. Nale and Thog have shown a willingness to harm innocents and pursue the Order anywhere, and Sabine is literally a physical manifestation of sin. The only reason the non-lawful members of the Order didn't do it is because they thought it wouldn't take, figuring that the Sapphire Guard would hold Nale longer than death.

Even then, twisting and turning the alignment chart inside out and upside down seems to be a hobby of Mr. Burlew's. I can't wait to see what he has in store for Durkon.

JennTora

2013-08-07, 02:04 PM

Do we have any cases of "Create Undead" being cast in comic at a time other than night? The usual spell tossed around is "Animate Dead", which has no such restriction. And Malack's staff of spellstuff.

Create Greater Undead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html)
unless the elven homeland is on the other side of the world from where the faustian lease took place.
Create greater undead as far as I know shares the same restriction since it functions as create undead but the undead are better.

pendell

2013-08-07, 02:04 PM

Gnome Alone

2013-08-07, 02:13 PM

JennTora

2013-08-07, 02:24 PM

Consarn it, I was conflating the CDG one with where Roy's smiling and saying "Great Cleave!" Oops.

But "they'd have killed him later" is a pretty decent description of Z too, so I don't get why killing Z is considered so wrong by some.

It was the best way to get rid of Z's devil, really, but it's the aadistic smile on his face when he does it. Though if he was so intent on causing pain, well snapping his neck is quick and supposed to be one of the least painful ways to die.

Thokk_Smash

2013-08-07, 02:24 PM

Consarn it, I was conflating the CDG one with where Roy's smiling and saying "Great Cleave!" Oops.

But "they'd have killed him later" is a pretty decent description of Z too, so I don't get why killing Z is considered so wrong by some.

It's partially the intent, but mostly Durkon's smirking face as he brutally and intimately snapped Z's neck (with one hand, no less). We can't see Roy's face in that panel, but knowing him he probably isn't smiling with furrowed brows like Durkon is while he snaps Z's neck.

Now, of course, we can't know for definite sure that he took undue glee in snapping Z's neck...but the smirk and eyebrows strongly imply that he was enjoying it perhaps a bit too much.

Carry2

2013-08-07, 02:34 PM

I would say that Roy is simply mildly smiling with some satisfaction, rather than outright, sadistic glee, though. I feel there's a difference between :smallamused: and :smallbiggrin: , basically.
I think it's a pretty fine line, and it doesn't bother me either way. All else equal, I try and judge characters by their concrete behaviour, not body language.

His exception is for Supernatural creatures, not "Extraplanar Outsiders". He's classified Undead as such Supernatural creature. He emphasized this back during the wierd "Anti-Vampire sentiment is actually an allegory for homosexual discrimmination" thread derailment that happened after we learned what Malack was, but before we confirmed he was actually evil, and used phraseology that clearly stated Undead to be made of vile darkness and other inherently-evil things.
Yeah, but this aspect of the D&D rules leads to paradoxical situations where Always Chaotic Evil actually translates to 'not responsible for their actions', because they don't have a choice about being Chaotic Evil. Yet dangerous animals who don't have a choice about being carnivorous predators count as True Neutral.

In any case, I think it's still a poor excuse for neglecting actual psychological buildup. I don't know, maybe I'm jumping the gun, given we've only seen a handful of strips with free-willed Durkula. But I hope, if and when we see him doing unmistakably evil stuff, we're given more explanation for it than just the undead subtype.

JennTora

2013-08-07, 02:42 PM

Okay, no more saying the Giant said undead are evil until you can provide a quote in which the giant flat out says undead are all evil.

I think we learned Malack was evil when he expressed intent to kill Belkar for no reason other than the fact that Belkar bumped into him while lost. Expressing desire to attempt a plan to take over the world could also be considered evil, but I could see neutral from that if it's to help your evil best friend. There were plenty of hints back then that Malack was evil. The death camp thing was just the smoking gun.

tomandtish

2013-08-07, 04:37 PM

Since neutral clerics can choose whether to cast heal or inflict, and Durkon appears to be only able to cast inflict spells spontaneously, it's not clear if this can mean anything but evil, IMO.

For those discussing the spontaneous casting of inflict spells, as I noted here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15777144&postcount=836), it doesn't really answer the question. Since the vampire template forces clerics to rebuke undead (regardless of what they did previously), it also forces spontaneous casting of inflict spells. There's no mention of alignment being relevant in the vampire section about rebuking, so presumably even a good vampire rebukes undead and casts inflict spells.

Note: I think Durkon is either evil or sliding that way, but am just pointing out that technically the inflict spell by itself isn't definite.

Katuko

2013-08-07, 05:21 PM

What's wrong with expressing glee(even with a sadistic look on your face) over killing someone who has caused much harm to your group in the past, and has likely killed many innocents in their lifetime? I'm sure the people who executed Serial Killers in real life took great pleasure in doing so, does that make them evil as well?

You'd be surprised at how different it is to take a life outside of a game. People slay each other with glee in wars, but local police officers who have arrested a criminal are not so keen on being the ones to flip the switch in an execution, I'd bet. Are you aware of the practice of loading some of the guns in an execution squad with blanks? This is so that the people shooting can rationalize in their mind that "it's likely that I was not the one who really shot him".

A lot of places in the world (my own country included) have no death penalty, despite a few perhaps deserving it. I would gladly order the death of a mass murderer, if it meant putting a stop to it. However, at the same time I know that I would not be keen on pulling the trigger myself.

Durkon used to be of the kind who would suggest imprisonment rather than execution. Haley on the other hand, has never had any qualms about killing people she viewed as bad guys, such as hobgoblins and the Thieves' Guild. V is also definitely on the line for pragmatists, as shown when he disintegrated Kubota. Haley kills with an angry or determined look on her face, indicating that she does it because she feels she needs to.

Consider V's evil smile when the Ancient Black Dragon was fought, however. That was the smile of a sadist, one who took pleasure in dismantling his opponent. Other evil characters show the same grin, such as Nale offing a cop in Cliffport, or Belkar on many occasions.

Durkon has not shown signs of glee during killing before now, and his choice of words to Nale indicate a very different look on things than the one we had before. This is a being who takes pleasure in offing old enemies, and feels the need to mock them whilst doing so. The only time I can recall Durkon smiling at a fight before was when he made Leeky sit like a dog... and note how he easily could have beaten Leeky unconscious at that point if he had felt like it.

Klear

2013-08-07, 05:35 PM

People slay each other with glee in wars

More like, in action movies. There's nothing gleeful about wars.

Anyway, I just had a thought:

After Durkon said that he's not more evil than Belkar, Roy's reaction suggests he realizes that D being evil doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the team. And it is exactly the reaction Durkon wanted from Roy. Why would a good/neutral Durkon want Roy to think he is evil?

Grogmir

2013-08-07, 06:14 PM

For me, the tipping point was when Roy flat out asked him, "You're not evil?".

And his response was "not any more then Belkar, I'd wager."

If he was still good, the best way to answer the question is "No, I am not
evil."

Same with being neutral.

And a simple "yes, I am evil" would lead to a confrontation they don't need now.

So he answered intelligently: Yes, I AM evil, and I want to save the world. Let me join you. If you're going to kick me out for being evil, kick Belkar out too.

So I think Roy and Durkola and we, the readers are all on the same page. Yes, Durkula is evil, and yes he wants to adventure with the party.

Roy seems cool with this. Will the rest of the party agree?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

This... Durkon is Evil. There is no other way to interpret what Durkon himself said in comic. (Plus all the other evidence) I'm astonished by the number of posts and threads about this.

Will he work his way back to being Good? Maybe..
Does he retain some semblance of his values from before? Indeed..

Going to be awesome seeing it happen. Durkon gets his long awaited character development and I don't say long awaited in a negative way... It was precisely the time its taken for this to happen that has defined D, he's the one you can (could) rely on, steady, never changing. Now his been forced to and I can't wait to see where it takes him.

Komatik

2013-08-07, 06:19 PM

Follow me here:

#1. Actions and character determine alignment of free-willed creatures in Rich's story, period. Barring our extraplanar exceptions that he has specifically mentioned. Creature type determines capabilities.

#2. Durkon was killed and resurrected as a new creature type, and from the very first moment of that happening, he was mentally dominated by Malack.

In other words, that wasn't Durkon. *SNIP*

I wouldn't trust the devil-summoning thing myself, on its own, however, until I saw what it is used for, because I don't know how much Rich cares about RAW in this case. That's why I don't much care about "Vampire conversion applies the LE template in RAW". This is very much an example of RAW being in the way of a story Rich might want to tell, so I'm fairly sure Rich would trash that without a second glance.

The Durkon was still there, suppressed. The Create Spawn ability doesn't say anything otherwise. Durkon isn't responsible for the action he committed as a Thrall - he was basically under a Dominate Person effect the whole time. But Durkon was still there. It was his alignment that the Planar Ally spell worked off of - certainly not Malack's, and an entity called "Malack's Thrall" did not exist. Create Spawn is what creates the new Vampire, and it speaks not one word about any sort of foreign intelligence, simply saying that the created thrall is enslaved to the Master.

You would not trust anything because there is a story you think might happen and won't let anything eliminate that possibility. Everything Rich has done up until this point points to using the bogstandard Vampire template and abilities just as written, and there is, to my knowledge, not a single shred of evidence for Planar Ally having been houseruled.

EnragedFilia

2013-08-07, 06:23 PM

More like, in action movies. There's nothing gleeful about wars.

I'm going to contend that The Hurt Locker and Apocalpyse Now do not fall into the "action movie" genre as such. Now if you're trying to claim that fiction in general is not reflective of Real Life wars, that's a rather different issue.

Harbinger

2013-08-07, 06:28 PM

So, Dukon kills Zzz and he's automatically evil.

It's less that he's evil because he's killing Z, and more that the fact that he killed Z while grinning like a psychopath, taunted Nale about it, and threatened to drink Nale's blood that might be an indication that he's evil. It's a pretty OOC thing for not vamped-Durkon to do, after all.

Let's see... Halley killed crystal in an ambush while she was coming out of the shower and robbed her afterwards.

V disintegrated that bad guy in front of elan despite the fact he was no immediate threat.

Again, it's not the fact that Durkon killed Z that leads me to think he's evil, and more the fact that he enjoyed it. Haley did not. Both acts were necessary, but one was committed by a Chaotic Good character, and the other by a Lawful Evil one.

As for Vaarsuvius killing Kubota, that killing was very similar to this one. Killing Kubota was not an Evil act, but killing Kubota without knowing or caring who he was most certainly was. My point being, it could very well be argued that V IS Evil, or at least was at that point in the comic.

Yeah, Durkon is Evil. The blood drinking, undead creature who kills gleefully and outright told Roy that he was Evil.... Is Evil. What a surprise. :smalltongue:

SavageWombat

2013-08-07, 06:30 PM

You people have an odd definition of "tell someone outright".

Telling Roy outright that he was evil would be to say "Yes, Roy, I'm Evil." Not a cute evasion about Belkar.

Just sayin'.

dps

2013-08-07, 06:31 PM

Is executing someone for some evil they "likely" did (on what evidence? An entry in a Monster Manual?) a Good or Neutral act? Or is it the kind of act that's likely to get you nonuple-damned? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html)

I don't even see his killing of Z as that though--it's just the killing of a known enemy in combat, which is not inherently an Evil act.

Note that I am not arguing that Durkon is not Evil at this point, merely arguing that killing Z is not an Evil act, regardless of Z's alignment.

EDIT: Oh, and as for grinning as he killed the drow, check out Roy's expression as he thinks he's killing Xykon in strip #886

JennTora

2013-08-07, 06:33 PM

This... Durkon is Evil. There is no other way to interpret what Durkon himself said in comic.

You just responded to another way to interpret it. I'm still good would be met with skepticism.

"But corwin, durkon sucks at bluff!!!!1111"

He gets a +8 for being a vampire, so now he doesn't.

EnragedFilia

2013-08-07, 06:38 PM

"But corwin, durkon sucks at bluff!!!!1111"

He gets a +8 for being a vampire, so now he doesn't.

+10 if you count the extra 4 charisma!

Klear

2013-08-07, 07:21 PM

I'm going to contend that The Hurt Locker and Apocalpyse Now do not fall into the "action movie" genre as such. Now if you're trying to claim that fiction in general is not reflective of Real Life wars, that's a rather different issue.

...

Seriously? Are you going to be that nitpicky? There are action movies where people murder each other gleefully. That's the whole point.

Math_Mage

2013-08-07, 07:22 PM

Okay, no more saying the Giant said undead are evil until you can provide a quote in which the giant flat out says undead are all evil.
That's not what anyone said, though. There was a claim made that being vamped isn't a good reason to think Durkon's alignment has changed because the Giant is against portraying alignment by creature type except when dealing with extraplanar entities. But the exception is broader in the Giant's actual remark (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12743252#post12743252) (though also more ambiguous): "Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural--if it exists at all--and away from biological creatures." Of course, free-willed undead being both kinda messes with that.

I don't even see his killing of Z as that though--it's just the killing of a known enemy in combat, which is not inherently an Evil act.

Note that I am not arguing that Durkon is not Evil at this point, merely arguing that killing Z is not an Evil act, regardless of Z's alignment.
What combat? The combat with Z was over (if it could be said that it ever began). If anything, Durkon's next combat action should have been whacking Nale again to make sure he didn't escape. Instead, he represented Belkar's side of the discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) of how to dispose of a defeated foe. And apparently enjoyed it.

EDIT: Oh, and as for grinning as he killed the drow, check out Roy's expression as he thinks he's killing Xykon in strip #886
The difference is there's a multitude of reasons for Roy to be happy about when killing Xykon besides the experience of killing, reasons that don't apply to Durkon's situation. Roy has vindicated himself to his father, defeated the greatest unliving evil in the land, accomplished a goal towards which he's been working for the better part of a decade. Durkon doesn't care about Z, and killing Z is not preventing great future evil *especially when he's already knocked out*--hell, Z hasn't even killed anyone over the course of the comic! Durkon really doesn't have any motive but sadistic pleasure for snapping Z's neck.

Harbinger

2013-08-07, 07:27 PM

You people have an odd definition of "tell someone outright".

Telling Roy outright that he was evil would be to say "Yes, Roy, I'm Evil." Not a cute evasion about Belkar.

Just sayin'.

If Durkon was Good or Neutral, why wouldn't he say, 'No, I'm not Evil." What possible motivation would Durkon have to cause Roy to think that he was Evil? "No more Evil than Belkar," might as well be "Yes, Roy I'm Evil." Both clearly imply that he's Evil. Belkar is Evil. Durkon said that to illustrate that while, yes, he is Evil, he wants to help and that they are already traveling with an Evil character.

Kish

2013-08-07, 07:42 PM

If Durkon was Good or Neutral, why wouldn't he say, 'No, I'm not Evil."
I think he's Lawful Evil. But I thought that line was pretty much exactly what he meant, neither an evasion nor a metaphor: He's not sure what alignment he is anymore, but he doesn't think he's more evil than Belkar. He is not confident that he is still Lawful Good, nor that he isn't evil, but he's pretty confident (not absolutely confident, he didn't say what he'd wager) that he doesn't occupy the "too evil to be allied with" territory of Nale, Tarquin, and Xykon.

EnragedFilia

2013-08-07, 07:48 PM

...

Seriously? Are you going to be that nitpicky? There are action movies where people murder each other gleefully. That's the whole point.

What I'm trying to say is that there are also serious movies where realistic characters demonstrate enjoyment in fighting and killing their enemies without being Silly_Action_Movies. This undercuts your argument that Silly_Action_Movies are the only setting in which people kill each other gleefully, a statement that I find slightly nitpicky itself, given that it was made in response to a fairly thoughtful post regarding the significant difference between the behavior exhibited while fighting a war and pretty much any other realistic situation.

In either case, the important part is that there are people who will react to the necessity of killing during wartime by embracing it and even exhibiting a degree of glee at the thought or the act of killing itself, as depicted in the two serious war movies that I mentioned. That there's "nothing gleeful" about war itself is therefore a minor quibble with the phrasing of the statement, and claiming that such a situation occurs only in Silly_Action_Movies represents an attempt to deny that distasteful yet realistic aspect of human behavior by consigning it to the realm of wish-fulfillment fantasies.

JennTora

2013-08-07, 07:53 PM

If Durkon was Good or Neutral, why wouldn't he say, 'No, I'm not Evil." What possible motivation would Durkon have

the motivation that has been mentioned 100 times over the course of this thread.

:durkon: Nay lad, I still Lawful Good.

:roy: but that can't be true, you're a vampire

:durkon: lad, I promise ye I'm lawful good.

:roy: no that doesn't make sense.

And then the elemental killed haley, belkar, and elan while they were busy arguing.

Harbinger

2013-08-07, 07:59 PM

the motivation that has been mentioned 100 times over the course of this thread.

:durkon: Nay lad, I still Lawful Good.

:roy: but that can't be true, you're a vampire

:durkon: lad, I promise ye I'm lawful good.

:roy: no that doesn't make sense.

And then the elemental killed haley, belkar, and elan while they were busy arguing.

Neither Roy nor Durkon would be stupid enough to stand there arguing about Durkon's alignment while an Elemental was killing their friends (and Belkar). The conversation would go something like this, if that happened.

:durkon: Nay lad, I still Lawful Good.

:roy: I'm not sure if I believe you, but since you're obviously trying to help us and I have no alternative options, lets go save the others and debate this later.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-08-07, 08:05 PM

Since neutral clerics can choose whether to cast heal or inflict, and Durkon appears to be only able to cast inflict spells spontaneously, it's not clear if this can mean anything but evil, IMO.

They can't choose repeatedly, just once on creation: turn/destroy undead and spontaneous cure, or rebuke/control undead and spontaneous inflict? Also the vampire entry says the template makes clerics rebuke/control undead and spontaneous inflict, presumably even if they become (or somehow remain) good-aligned.

I totally agree that Durkon seems to be LE, but the spontaneous inflict is not evidence that he is now evil, it is evidence that he is now a vampire.

JennTora

2013-08-07, 08:26 PM

Neither Roy nor Durkon would be stupid enough to stand there arguing about Durkon's alignment while an Elemental was killing their friends (and Belkar). The conversation would go something like this, if that happened.

:durkon: Nay lad, I still Lawful Good.

:roy: I'm not sure if I believe you, but since you're obviously trying to help us and I have no alternative options, lets go save the others and debate this later.

Neither are stupid, but Roy's skepticism has diverted his attention from more important issues before, and his intelligence has worked against him even more frequently. What I said before may have been exaggerating things, but I took the hesitation after Roy said the word that to mean that he was ready to argue with what durkon said but then realized it made sense. Which means that had durkon said something that roy thought made no sense, possibly due to preconceived notions abiut all vampires being evil, Roy might have been ready to spend a round or two more arguing.

Harbinger

2013-08-07, 08:38 PM

Neither are stupid, but Roy's skepticism has diverted his attention from more important issues before, and his intelligence has worked against him even more frequently. What I said before may have been exaggerating things, but I took the hesitation after Roy said the word that to mean that he was ready to argue with what durkon said but then realized it made sense. Which means that had durkon said something that roy thought made no sense, possibly due to preconceived notions abiut all vampires being evil, Roy might have been ready to spend a round or two more arguing.

I don't think that Durkon would go through that whole line of reasoning to avoid Roy arguing for a few rounds, but I guess your point is valid.

Math_Mage

2013-08-07, 08:43 PM

Neither are stupid, but Roy's skepticism has diverted his attention from more important issues before, and his intelligence has worked against him even more frequently. What I said before may have been exaggerating things, but I took the hesitation after Roy said the word that to mean that he was ready to argue with what durkon said but then realized it made sense. Which means that had durkon said something that roy thought made no sense, possibly due to preconceived notions abiut all vampires being evil, Roy might have been ready to spend a round or two more arguing.

Talking is a free action. This was most recently demonstrated here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0906.html).

For what it's worth, I subscribe to Kish's view that Durkon's line reflects uncertainty about who and what he is now.

JennTora

2013-08-07, 08:56 PM

I don't think that Durkon would go through that whole line of reasoning to avoid Roy arguing for a few rounds, but I guess your point is valid.
*looks back*
Maybe it is a bit more planning than most people would put into a short conversation. Then again Durkon just got a decent boost to both int and wis.

CowardlyPaladin

2013-08-07, 09:15 PM

Roy killed Goblins in combat, Z actually hadn't done anything Durken when he was killed. Now that alone would be a SINGLE evil act, not enough to tip him in any direction, but hte Glee with which he did it, and the fact that he is...you know....a vampire means alot more here.

WoLong

2013-08-07, 09:17 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to take the fact that Durkon thinks of himself as merely 'not more Evil' than Belkar as likely evidence that his character has shifted somewhat. 'Yer blood...now THA I might just taste a bit first' also is a phrase that does not seem particularly clerical.

Further, the recent strips seem to clearly intend establishing Durkon as having developed a certain form of badassery not common in protagonists.

JennTora

2013-08-07, 09:29 PM

Durkon died, and came back as a vampire. That would change anyone. I just don't necessarily think becoming evil is the only way it could have changed him.

EnragedFilia

2013-08-07, 09:52 PM

Further, the recent strips seem to clearly intend establishing Durkon as having developed a certain form of badassery not common in protagonists.

Or at least protagonists not created by or imitating the success of those created by Rob Liefeld.

Paseo H

2013-08-07, 10:23 PM

As for Vaarsuvius killing Kubota, that killing was very similar to this one. Killing Kubota was not an Evil act, but killing Kubota without knowing or caring who he was most certainly was. My point being, it could very well be argued that V IS Evil, or at least was at that point in the comic.

Don't forget V seriously threatening harm against Elan for talking back to him after that.

eras10

2013-08-07, 11:07 PM

Durkon doesn't care about Z, and killing Z is not preventing great future evil

I think you should reconsider the statement that killing Z is not preventing future great evil. Z is a large chunk of the power of a team that includes Nale, Tarquin, and a definitionally evil outsider. Tarquin has conquered most of an entire continent, and Nale wants to use the Snarl to control the entire world. Killing Z helps prevent great future evil if it eliminates a 5% possibility that Z could ever again help either of them at all. And if Durkon hadn't killed Z, there was no other way to be certain of Z not being revived. Tarquin could show up in the next round with 10000 soldiers and drive the OOTS out of here, and Z is his only known source of teleportation - for just one example.

This whitewashing of Z is crazy. He's a high-level evil drow wizard who takes great pleasure in killing himself and has more than no moral compunctions. That would be enough on its own, but he's also actively participating in a quest to enslave the world.

This is not a supported statement. Durkon the person has every reason to be satisfied at eliminating/weakening the mortal threat of a party that, for one thing, recently vampirized the highest-level good cleric we've seen in the story.

Scow2

2013-08-07, 11:15 PM

Yeah, but this aspect of the D&D rules leads to paradoxical situations where Always Chaotic Evil actually translates to 'not responsible for their actions', because they don't have a choice about being Chaotic Evil. Yet dangerous animals who don't have a choice about being carnivorous predators count as True Neutral.

In any case, I think it's still a poor excuse for neglecting actual psychological buildup. I don't know, maybe I'm jumping the gun, given we've only seen a handful of strips with free-willed Durkula. But I hope, if and when we see him doing unmistakably evil stuff, we're given more explanation for it than just the undead subtype.Animals don't act with malice (As far as the writers of D&D are concerned. Then again, they also treat animals as incapable of having an INT greater than 3, despite studies showing that they can be quite intelligent. Most animals ARE capable of communication)

What the heck does responsibilty for their actions have anything to do with being Always Evil? No, they don't have true free will. On the other hand, they are manifestations of the world's will. Places have character. Fiends, Celestials, and Undead are extentions of that character.

Math_Mage

2013-08-08, 12:30 AM

I think you should reconsider the statement that killing Z is not preventing future great evil.
I think I won't. Preventing the merest possibility that Z will be party to someone else's great evil in the event of a miraculous rescue is decidedly not the same thing.

And yes, I whitewashed Z. Realistically, his two instances of Flesh to Stone count as lethal force. But blackface isn't going to help you reach an objective assessment. We both agree Z is Evil--well, what of it? Should Durkon take pleasure in snapping Belkar's neck next?

Durkon the person has every reason to be satisfied at eliminating/weakening the mortal threat of a party that, for one thing, recently vampirized the highest-level good cleric we've seen in the story.
Malack did that. By himself. He made that much clear to Durkon. But yes, I suppose Durkon could blame Z for that...if he wasn't overly concerned with whether the blame was deserved, and just wanted to accomplish some sort of vengeance against the LG. Which would make him...wait for it...Evil.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2013-08-08, 03:41 AM

Someone want to post the link where it says vampires spontaneously cast 'inflict' spells? Because the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) says nothing of the sort.

While cure/inflict spells and turn/rebuke are related, nothing RAW actually says a LG vampire cannot cast spontaneous 'cure' spells. However, RAW, only neutral and evil clerics can cast spontaneous 'inflict' spells.

And Durkon blatantly CHOSE to spontaneously cast a 'cure' spell the very first time he cast such a spell. But out came an inflict spell. So RAW, Durkon should be evil, not neutral.

Add to that the barbed demon being summoned, and later commanded by free will Durkon, plus the whole Vampires are always evil when turned thing, and that's some RAW evil. Now the Giant is of course the DM and Rule 0 can trump all of this.

But why would he have Durkon joke and smile as he snapped someone's neck, threaten to drain someone's blood, throw a corpse around like a rag doll, use a multi-kilonazi halfing as a benchmark for friendly evil and view a Devil, which should be vile to Durkon, as a servant and ally, if he intended to Rule 0 those three things he deliberately chose to compliment all these questionable deeds?

He's using character actions AND the rules to underline the evil.

The red-eyed, black armoured evil.

Now, I can't be 100% certain. But I'd wager a months wages on it. Any takers? :belkar:

Komatik

2013-08-08, 03:55 AM

Someone want to post the link where it says vampires spontaneously cast 'inflict' spells? Because the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) says nothing of the sort.

The Cleric passage could be taken to mean that the vampirism is responsible for the negative channeling (the evil too, of course. Hard to tell when both happen at the same time).

Now, I can't be 100% certain. But I'd wager a months wages on it. Any takers? :belkar:

D:
No.

Tris

2013-08-08, 04:31 AM

The Cleric passage could be taken to mean that the vampirism is responsible for the negative channeling (the evil too, of course. Hard to tell when both happen at the same time).
When it says, "Vampires are always evil, which causes characters of certain classes to lose some class abilities," it seems to imply that the change is because the vampire is evil.

Carry2

2013-08-08, 05:29 AM

Animals don't act with malice (As far as the writers of D&D are concerned. Then again, they also treat animals as incapable of having an INT greater than 3, despite studies showing that they can be quite intelligent. Most animals ARE capable of communication)

What the heck does responsibilty for their actions have anything to do with being Always Evil?...
If you can't blame someone for their actions, then in a certain sense this implies they have done no wrong. A delusional schizophrenic might chop up his family with a carving knife while under the impression they were nine foot alien lizards, or something, but under the law he'd go to a mental asylum, not a penitentiary. You couldn't actually convict him of murder.

I mean, in practical terms it doesn't make a huge amount of difference to the arresting officer, so to speak- they're still dangerous enough that they have to be taken down before people get hurt, and you're certainly allowed to kill dangerous animals in defence of self or others. But in terms of underlying moral theory, which ought to translate into something alignment-metaphysics-wise... I think that there has to be at least a possibility of netherworldly daemons having some kind of moral awakening in order for them to be evil at all.

hamishspence

2013-08-08, 05:56 AM

Talking is a free action. This was most recently demonstrated here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0906.html).

Usually, but not always- sometimes it can take up a whole round or so- as demonstrated here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0186.html).

pendell

2013-08-08, 07:46 AM

What I'm trying to say is that there are also serious movies where realistic characters demonstrate enjoyment in fighting and killing their enemies without being Silly_Action_Movies. This undercuts your argument that Silly_Action_Movies are the only setting in which people kill each other gleefully, a statement that I find slightly nitpicky itself, given that it was made in response to a fairly thoughtful post regarding the significant difference between the behavior exhibited while fighting a war and pretty much any other realistic situation.

In either case, the important part is that there are people who will react to the necessity of killing during wartime by embracing it and even exhibiting a degree of glee at the thought or the act of killing itself, as depicted in the two serious war movies that I mentioned. That there's "nothing gleeful" about war itself is therefore a minor quibble with the phrasing of the statement, and claiming that such a situation occurs only in Silly_Action_Movies represents an attempt to deny that distasteful yet realistic aspect of human behavior by consigning it to the realm of wish-fulfillment fantasies.

Quite. People who say that good people must hate killing while in a war situation don't understand the psychology of War. C.S. Lewis (http://books.google.com/books?id=JaC0_Yvffr0C&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=c.s.+lewis+semi-pacifism+long+face&source=bl&ots=wE9r-O_dRQ&sig=gKhOrq6cK4sIIOmDmhRisEYqF0g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x44DUoGWKfOq4APWh4CYAQ&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=c.s.%20lewis%20semi-pacifism%20long%20face&f=false) said this about it:

War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist. ... What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young [soldiers] in the Services of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage -- a kind of gaiety and wholeheartedness

And, yes. Lewis knew something of which he spoke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#World_War_I)

I'm also reading The Liberation Trilogy (http://www.amazon.com/An-Army-Dawn-1942-1943-Liberation/dp/0743570995) by Rick Atkinson, who talks about the psychology of war. Which is, your compassion and pity for your enemy dries up remarkably quickly when you're being shot at. When you're stuck in a trench pinned down by a machine gun for hours, and this has been your daily experience for months, and planes fly overhead and start dropping napalm on the machine gun nest which just killed your best friend, your immediate reaction is not "Oh, how terrible! Those poor people are being burned alive!" Your immediate reaction is "YEEAAAH!!! GET 'EM! KILL THOSE $$#$#$%#!"

When the fact that someone else dies means that YOU get to stay alive, it's remarkable how good you can feel about them dying.

Zzd'tri? Absolutely in that camp. He's a lethal threat who has killed or attempted to kill people Durkon cares about. He's been a constant menace to the order. And Durkon is a combat veteran. So when he finally and permanently removes this killer from the list of threats facing him and his, his reaction may very well be like that of this Pkunk (http://www.sa-matra.net/quotes/pkunk/), who is faced with the fact that you are responding to his peaceful and friendly overtures with plasma fire.

First, they try very hard to persuade you not to murder them without provocation.

We welcome you to our space, perversely misguided spirits of hostile intent that you are.
Perhaps it is simply that your species does not comprehend such subtle concepts
as the unification of the inner self child with the universal love stream.
So sad.
Perhaps if we put it in terms you could understand
Killing bad, bad.
Is that better?

Greetings aggressive ones.
We extend our wing tip to you in a gesture of unwarranted compassion.
Open your heart and become one with your happy self.
Let us help you. Let us heal you. Let us love you.
Don't be afraid of love. Are you afraid of love?
Are you afraid of yourself? We love you... friend.

Whoopdy Dee and Trolly Bazoo!
This is what I say when I am in a good mood.
Are you in a good mood today?
Please allow me to give you some advice.
Rather than become tense, and fire weapons at other people's ships
simply say, `Whoopdy Dee and Trolly Bazoo!'
You will feel much better and you will be much more popular.

And finally, if that doesn't work, you finally push them into this corner:

I have no patience for this absurd idiocy. Prepare yourselves for battle!

So, you choose the dark path.

I am saddened, and yet I feel a certain exhilaration, for with your destruction
the universe will be a better place, and it will be I who cause the change.

The universe is a better place now that Zz'dtri is not in it, and those who make the universe a better place by taking out the cosmic trash do not have to be ashamed of what they do or go about with a long face. It's a necessary job, and they are allowed satisfaction and wholeheartedness in a job well done.

And I, personally, will not change my mind on this unless someone who's actually *been there and done that* tells me otherwise. Those who have? So far they haven't.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Rajhiim

2013-08-08, 08:02 AM

Nope. All vampires are inherently evil; the transformation makes you a predator willing to murder (and rationalize it!) .

The great crusaders of the hamburger kingdom smite thee for your murderous crimes!

or are you Vegan?

The great Paladin, "Sir Carrot the Red", is coming for you, you evil beast!

The prey always think the predator is evil.

Vampire evil is simply a human response to being preyed upon by a sentient being.

I reject the notion a vampire feeding is "murder". And Durkon offed Z as an opportunity to further the greater good -- the race to the gate.

Jay R

2013-08-08, 08:55 AM

The prey always think the predator is evil.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

Most prey are animals, and we have no reason to believe they even have a concept of good and evil. They clearly regard the predator as dangerous, but that's a pragmatic judgment, not a moral one.

If I were chased by ravening wolves out to kill me and feed on my corpse, I would consider the predators a threat, but not evil. If I were being chased by a ravenous crowd of people for the same purpose, I would consider them evil.

Vampire evil is simply a human response to being preyed upon by a sentient being.

Historically, this has not not true. Undead have been considered evil in most cultures that believed in them because they are unnatural, totally apart from whether they attack people.

I reject the notion a vampire feeding is "murder". And Durkon offed Z as an opportunity to further the greater good -- the race to the gate.

A vampire feeding is not inherently murder, as is proven by the fact that Durkon and Malack fed on Belkar, and Belkar is still alive.

But murder is a legally-defined term, not a morally-defined one. It is defined as unlawful killing with malice aforethought, either express or implied. If a vampire intends to kill somebody to feed, and kills that person, it's murder. If a vampire feeds but does not kill, then it's some form of assault. (If a vampire tries to leave them alive, but misjudges and the person dies, then it's probably manslaughter.)

There is one legal complication: If a vampire is not legally considered to be a person, then it cannot commit murder, or any other crime. (If a dog kills somebody, it's not murder.) In a world with multiple sentient races, I assume that the legal term "person" would encompass all sentient beings.

Kish

2013-08-08, 09:03 AM

But murder is a legally-defined term, not a morally-defined one. It is defined as unlawful killing with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

This is not a good argument. Considering who made the laws of the area of the world where Durkon currently is, I wouldn't be surprised to learn Durkon has the right to feed on almost anyone he likes as much as he likes, legally.

Even if Malack, who drank the Blood of the Convicted, had no interest in making unlife easier for vampires who weren't directly affiliated with him, manifestly assault and even murder are legally circumscribed (and not terribly circumscribed; mutilating opponents is apparently an accepted way of winning a school contest), not prohibited.

SavageWombat

2013-08-08, 09:07 AM

I find it so strange that some on this board are asserting that

(a) becoming a vampire changes your moral outlook on the universe AND
(b) that the resulting vampire has free will to change back - but it's hard work.

Becoming a vampire might make you more aggressive and violent, even callous to human life, than you were before. It might warp your magic to darkness.

But you have to decide, in your opinion, whether it is changing your mind about good and evil or not. If it's making you be evil, you don't have free will any more. If you have free will, it doesn't have to make you evil to begin with.

There's a reason there are so many debates here - it's not a simple issue to say "now he's Evil."

Scow2

2013-08-08, 09:42 AM

If you can't blame someone for their actions, then in a certain sense this implies they have done no wrong. A delusional schizophrenic might chop up his family with a carving knife while under the impression they were nine foot alien lizards, or something, but under the law he'd go to a mental asylum, not a penitentiary. You couldn't actually convict him of murder.

I mean, in practical terms it doesn't make a huge amount of difference to the arresting officer, so to speak- they're still dangerous enough that they have to be taken down before people get hurt, and you're certainly allowed to kill dangerous animals in defence of self or others. But in terms of underlying moral theory, which ought to translate into something alignment-metaphysics-wise... I think that there has to be at least a possibility of netherworldly daemons having some kind of moral awakening in order for them to be evil at all.Nope. They're demons, not people. They are evil by their very existence. Stop trying to treat them as people when they're not. The delusional schizophrenic is a bad example because he thinks he's doing the right thing (It should be noted, though, that the BoVD considers him and other insane people as Evil). How about we use the Psychopathic Sadist instead, who is psychochemically incapable of empathy, and only draws pleasure and meaning in life from inflicting pain and suffering on others? He can't help not torturing and killing people because it's all he's incapable of understanding how its wrong, and his body/mind is compelling him to do so.

However, a big part of the judicial system is Retribution and Rehabilitiation. A non-insane person will comprehend imprisonment as a punishment, and possibly learn and seek redemption from his time imprisoned, and come out a new man (The reality of this is... stickier). However, putting an insane person in prison accomplishes nothing, because they might not comprehend the punishment, and there is no chance of rehabilitation. An insane psychopath is still Evil - but the only way to purge that evil from him is through the rehabilitation offered by a mental asylum/rehabilitation person. A normal person can choose to purge the evil within them by realizing how miserable prison makes them. An insane person cannot self-improve without extensive external involvement. Once the insanity is treated, they can start choosing to be good, but they're Evil as long as their brain is diseased like that.

I find it so strange that some on this board are asserting that

(a) becoming a vampire changes your moral outlook on the universe AND
(b) that the resulting vampire has free will to change back - but it's hard work.

Becoming a vampire might make you more aggressive and violent, even callous to human life, than you were before. It might warp your magic to darkness.

But you have to decide, in your opinion, whether it is changing your mind about good and evil or not. If it's making you be evil, you don't have free will any more. If you have free will, it doesn't have to make you evil to begin with.

There's a reason there are so many debates here - it's not a simple issue to say "now he's Evil."Just because someone technically CAN perform an action, doesn't mean they will. A vampire or other "Always Evil" has a 99.99% chance of doing actions that result in an evil alignment, but they always technically can opt not to do so (or do the right thing). And, just because someone doesn't consider an extra course of action doesn't mean they can't do it.

It's sort of like a Tobacco Addiction - sure, someone has the free will to quit (Despite pressure to the contrary), and many have asserted their will by doing so (Even cold-turkey, like my parents). But, despite their free will, 90% of tobacco-addicts WON'T quit, even if they "want" to.

hamishspence

2013-08-08, 09:48 AM

Nope. They're demons, not people. They are evil by their very existence. Stop trying to treat them as people when they're not.

Even fiends can change:

Evil Subtype
A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype.http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtype

while still being fiends.

Komatik

2013-08-08, 09:49 AM

There's a reason there are so many debates here - it's not a simple issue to say "now he's Evil."

It is very simple to say "Now he's Evil". The exact details of that, such as the nature of a Vampire's afterlife and so on are the tricky things.

Now, as far as free will and vampirism go, this is how I see alignment:

It's worthwhile to note, though, that alignment is about philosophy and moral outlook. It's how the creature views the world and reasons about it's and others' actions, not some mind control effect. The current Durkon is the old Durkon, he just views things differently. His old way of thinking might be very, very alien to his current self. Similar things happen when people are exposed to fundamentally new philosophies or worldviews, and when they gain or lose faith. That's the kind of switch that was flipped, not daemonic possession, where another hand is twisting Zzz's neck, you see it and get sentenced for it. It was very concretely Durkon himself who did it.

So:

A natural, living person like Belkar is Evil. He sees the world from an Evil standpoint, doesn't have moral compunctions and so on. Can change, probably doesn't want to because it doesn't see any reason to.
Compare to someone with impulses to kill but who feels that killing is a very, very bad thing to do. The difference is very drastic and change much more likely.

How I see Durkon's vampirism is that the turning process alters one's outlook dramatically - similar to being exposed to a completely new view on the world naturally. The old way of thinking can seem very alien. The genesis of the new personality is the dark magic doing it's work when Durkon was vampirized. it overwhelms and changes a person.

But that effect - or the strength of it anyway - doesn't have to be constant. For sure, a vampire needs blood and life force which, without some (relatively easy for a Cleric) special arrangements will lead it to committing Evil deeds. As undead, it may have certain natural problems feeling empathy that Belkar might not have. It's whole outlook of the world represents the halfling's viewpoint. Other people are, to it, food.
There may or may not be be a low thrum of black magic steering the vampire towards evil.

But a vampire is an intelligent being, and nothing says there has to a similar crushing, cosmic force that prevents the vampire from ever going through an enlightenment and becoming Neutral or - if capable of feeling empathy - Good.

It's just bloody rare for the aforementioned reasons, and a far harder trek than it would be for our control group of "living, psychopathic halfling". Both are pretty happy where they are, so the change is relatively unlikely. It need soutside influence, a long time thinking about things, or a bona fide revelatory/enlightenment type experience.

Contrast with a fiend which is literally made of cosmic Evil, and which are apparently occasionally able to overcome something of that magnitude. In comparison, bloodthirst seems rather... meek?

Scow2

2013-08-08, 10:56 AM

Even fiends can change:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtype

while still being fiends.

So can drug addicts, despite the neurochemical compulsion (Aka: Lack of free will) to satiate it.
Contrast with a fiend which is literally made of cosmic Evil, and which are apparently occasionally able to overcome something of that magnitude. In comparison, bloodthirst seems rather... meek?
Negative Energy is just as vile in its hatred of Life as Cosmic Evil is in its hatred of Good.

Kish

2013-08-08, 10:58 AM

So are you arguing that drug addicts are not people, or dodging hamishspence's point?

SavageWombat

2013-08-08, 11:01 AM

pendell

2013-08-08, 11:28 AM

How about we use the Psychopathic Sadist instead, who is psychochemically incapable of empathy, and only draws pleasure and meaning in life from inflicting pain and suffering on others? He can't help not torturing and killing people because it's all he's incapable of understanding how its wrong, and his body/mind is compelling him to do so.

Point of order. I knew someone like this who claimed to be psychochemically incapable of empathy. He nonetheless dealt gently with other people and never, to my knowledge, had any crime worse than a traffic ticket on his record.

This is because, while he was physically incapable of empathy, he nonetheless had a rational brain and a traditional upbringing. So although the feelings were not there, he not only had been taught that it was wrong , but he could reason out why harming others for his own pleasure would cause pain and harm to others, and why it would be a bad idea. So he didn't.

For that matter, I have to question to what degree empathy is a "natural" thing and how much it is a learned response. When I was a child I stomped on snails for pleasure with glee and enjoyed the squish they made. Now that I'm an adult, I look on that with horror and sadness. Because although I can't know how a snail feels I can reason by analogy and make a rational choice. That rational choice repeated enough times eventually sinks down into the emotions and becomes a learned response. I suspect this is why a long-term vegan has real trouble with the smell of cooking meat, while us more carnivorous types think it's a great smell.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Kish

2013-08-08, 11:34 AM

I suspect this is why a long-term vegan has real trouble with the smell of cooking meat, while us more carnivorous types think it's a great smell.
Actually, that's strictly physiological.

Try smelling any kind of meat you haven't eaten in six months or longer cooking; it's probably going to smell like revolting burning flesh to you, not food.

Rakoa

2013-08-08, 11:36 AM

Actually, that's strictly physiological.

Try smelling any kind of meat you haven't eaten in six months or longer cooking; it's probably going to smell like revolting burning flesh to you, not food.

Strange you should mention this, but last night I had lamb for the first time in years. The scent was horrifying, but the flavour delightful.

tomandtish

2013-08-08, 11:48 AM

Someone want to post the link where it says vampires spontaneously cast 'inflict' spells? Because the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) says nothing of the sort.

While cure/inflict spells and turn/rebuke are related, nothing RAW actually says a LG vampire cannot cast spontaneous 'cure' spells. However, RAW, only neutral and evil clerics can cast spontaneous 'inflict' spells.

And you answered your own question. It has nothing to do with being a vampire. It has to do with being a cleric and how that was impacted by his becoming a vampire.

Turn or Rebuke Undead (Su)

Any cleric, regardless of alignment, has the power to affect undead creatures by channeling the power of his faith through his holy (or unholy) symbol (see Turn or Rebuke Undead).

A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) can turn or destroy undead creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) instead rebukes or commands such creatures. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity must choose whether his turning ability functions as that of a good cleric or an evil cleric. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells.

In short, his becoming a vampire basically rebuilds him as a new cleric of the same level (and a non-theist at least for the moment). This changes his turning to rebuking and by RAW therefore means his spontaneous casting has to be inflicts.

Starwulf

2013-08-08, 11:50 AM

Actually, that's strictly physiological.

Try smelling any kind of meat you haven't eaten in six months or longer cooking; it's probably going to smell like revolting burning flesh to you, not food.

I"ll disagree with this(even though it's taking the thread off topic). My best friend went vegan for an entire year, and he was still complaining all the way up to the end of the year that the smell of hamburgers and steak was overwhelmingly delicious and tempting.

Also @Pendell, your post, #140 in this thread, was well-written and I agree exactly(especially considering it's what I was trying to get across earlier in the thread, but apparently got everyone all riled up with the idea that someone could express glee at killing an enemy while not being evil).

Klear

2013-08-08, 11:54 AM

Point of order. I knew someone like this who claimed to be psychochemically incapable of empathy. He nonetheless dealt gently with other people and never, to my knowledge, had any crime worse than a traffic ticket on his record.

This is because, while he was physically incapable of empathy, he nonetheless had a rational brain and a traditional upbringing. So although the feelings were not there, he not only had been taught that it was wrong , but he could reason out why harming others for his own pleasure would cause pain and harm to others, and why it would be a bad idea. So he didn't.

That's basically what sociopathy is - being incapable of empathy. A lot (most?) of such people never commit a violent crime, though they are prone to be manipulative and will often use other people in very nasty ways.

However, Scow2 wrote Psychopathic Sadist - somebody who, in addition to being incapable of empathy, derives pleasure from hurting others. As you can imagine, it's a pretty bad combination.

SiuiS

2013-08-08, 11:59 AM

Oddly enough, that is not the case in most "standard" D&D settings--it is directly contradicted in Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Eberron, etc.

Vampirism causes evil as a default. Additional rules which specifically contradict that for their specific setting are called "exceptions which prove the rule".

And uh, Ravenloft? Really? I've got the most recent Ravenloft stuff, vampires are even more evil than standard. Plan escape 2e? I haven't seen a correction yet, but both AD&D editions go to great detail on vampires being the worst of the Chaotic Evil undead. Ebberon built it's reputation on being subversive. Spell hammer has space hippos.

Actually, I can't remember off the top of my head: do Forgotten Realms vampires instantly become evil upon being vampirized? I can't remember...

By the book, same way it's been for the last thirty years.

JennTora

2013-08-08, 12:26 PM

WoLong

2013-08-08, 02:38 PM

That's basically what sociopathy is - being incapable of empathy. A lot (most?) of such people never commit a violent crime, though they are prone to be manipulative and will often use other people in very nasty ways.

There is no such disorder as 'Sociopathy'. The term is used to refer to a variety of disorders that involve anti-social behavior. While Psychopaths often have a reduced sense of empathy, they do not necessarily have no empathy whatsoever.

WoLong

2013-08-08, 02:41 PM

Point of order. I knew someone like this who claimed to be psychochemically incapable of empathy. He nonetheless dealt gently with other people and never, to my knowledge, had any crime worse than a traffic ticket on his record.

This is because, while he was physically incapable of empathy, he nonetheless had a rational brain and a traditional upbringing. So although the feelings were not there, he not only had been taught that it was wrong , but he could reason out why harming others for his own pleasure would cause pain and harm to others, and why it would be a bad idea. So he didn't.

There is debate as to whether empathy is a necessary prerequisite for sympathy, unless you have some credible science showing that it is.

Scow2

2013-08-08, 06:18 PM

Yes, and what you're describing is a person who, at this stage, is still the sum of their previous beliefs (i.e. good in this case) who now has a collection of instincts counter to that.

If actions determine alignment, then the presence of those new instincts DOES NOT MAKE HIM EVIL unless he ACTS on them.

He is inclined to do evil, but if he has free will he can choose to remain good. Even if it's excrutiatingly hard.

Unless the transformation changes your previous ethics of right and wrong - a magical compulsion/memory edit - the new instincts towards evil actions do not constitute a change of alignment until acted upon.

If Durkon were, for example, to reexamine his ethics about power and morality, and decide that "you know, I used to be an idiot - I see better" - then he's chosen Evil (as a result of being a vampire) and will probably not want to change back. But if he's still convinced that the strong should protect the weak, then even though he's drawn to kill and drain them, he could resist, and still be Good.Vampirism, like Lycanthropy, comes bundled with a "Hard Shift" alignment change, similar to Atonement and a Helm of Opposite Alignment

So are you arguing that drug addicts are not people, or dodging hamishspence's point?I'm saying that they have their free will compromized by chemical dependency that STRONGLY encourages behaviors a rational person wouldn't do. A demon/Undead IS the addiction, not the person who's addicted. An addiction is not a person, but it can infect someone and twist their perspective and behavior dramatically.

Dr. Murgunstrum

2013-08-09, 12:03 AM

And you answered your own question. It has nothing to do with being a vampire. It has to do with being a cleric and how that was impacted by his becoming a vampire.

Turn or Rebuke Undead (Su)

Any cleric, regardless of alignment, has the power to affect undead creatures by channeling the power of his faith through his holy (or unholy) symbol (see Turn or Rebuke Undead).

A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) can turn or destroy undead creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) instead rebukes or commands such creatures. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity must choose whether his turning ability functions as that of a good cleric or an evil cleric. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells.

In short, his becoming a vampire basically rebuilds him as a new cleric of the same level (and a non-theist at least for the moment). This changes his turning to rebuking and by RAW therefore means his spontaneous casting has to be inflicts.

This pertains to Neutral clerics of a Neutral deity. And describes a choice made by a Neutral cleric.

From the SRD:

An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric of an evil deity), can’t convert prepared spells to cure spells but can convert them to inflict spells (an inflict spell is one with "inflict" in its name).

As a cleric without a deity, if he was neutral, he'd be given a choice, RAW. He chose a cure spell. It came out inflict.

Evil clerics can only spontaneously cast inflict spells. Durkon spontaneously cast an inflict spell while choosing a cure spell for the very first time. The vampire template says nothing of spontaneous spell casting. The cleric description explicitly states a choice for neutral clerics, connected to turning and rebuking, but not for evil ones or good ones.

With the Vampire template also forcing an evil alignment, to blame vampirisim over an alignment change is a real stretch within the rules.

Carry2

2013-08-09, 06:48 AM

Nope. They're demons, not people. They are evil by their very existence. Stop trying to treat them as people when they're not...
...A normal person can choose to purge the evil within them by realizing how miserable prison makes them. An insane person cannot self-improve without extensive external involvement. Once the insanity is treated, they can start choosing to be good, but they're Evil as long as their brain is diseased like that.
I don't see anything hugely objectionable about that argument per se, but I'm not sure D&D mechanics actually stick with it consistently, if you go by certain remarks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15774845&postcount=18) in the vampire responsibility thread. (I mean, by the same token, you can argue that animals don't count as evil because they lack sufficient intelligence, but you can still somehow apply the evil descriptor to inanimate objects.)

I personally rather lean toward the idea that actions determine alignment, rather than vice versa. In which case, again, I think that Durkon's character transition and alignment either will, or ought to be, governed by a gradual transition in outlook based on concrete and observable (http://media.canada.com/b2fd399c-8611-4580-92ea-44f66ab1b1a2/Hobbes.jpg) behaviour.

But a vampire is an intelligent being, and nothing says there has to a similar crushing, cosmic force that prevents the vampire from ever going through an enlightenment and becoming Neutral or - if capable of feeling empathy - Good...
...Contrast with a fiend which is literally made of cosmic Evil, and which are apparently occasionally able to overcome something of that magnitude. In comparison, bloodthirst seems rather... meek?
This. I mean, the problem with the 'demons are not people' argument is that we already have a character in the strip (Sabine) who supposedly has at least one conspicuously non-evil quality (genuine attachment and devotion to another person), rather than being, at all times and all places, compelled to do evil, regardless of utility (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/01/27/advanced-dungeons-and-discourse/).

And if there was ever someone capable of stoically shrugging off their baser instincts or inner feelings in favour of an abstract moral or ethical code, it's got to be Durkon. He's known for it.

Komatik

2013-08-09, 07:29 AM

I personally rather lean toward the idea that actions determine alignment, rather than vice versa. In which case, again, I think that Durkon's character transition and alignment either will, or ought to be, governed by a gradual transition in outlook based on concrete and observable (http://media.canada.com/b2fd399c-8611-4580-92ea-44f66ab1b1a2/Hobbes.jpg) behaviour.

They're not the only thing that determines it. Morals and general worldview matter a heck of a lot, too, and on those counts Durkon is pretty clear LE. Plus the small matter of Calling the Devil.

This. I mean, the problem with the 'demons are not people' argument is that we already have a character in the strip (Sabine) who supposedly has at least one conspicuously non-evil quality (genuine attachment and devotion to another person), rather than being, at all times and all places, compelled to do evil, regardless of utility (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/01/27/advanced-dungeons-and-discourse/).

And if there was ever someone capable of stoically shrugging off their baser instincts or inner feelings in favour of an abstract moral or ethical code, it's got to be Durkon. He's known for it.

A demon's every single action doesn't have to involve punching kittens, I would think. Caring for a small number of friends is perfectly consistent with a thoroughly Evil alignment (*cough* Tarquin, Malack *cough*). The person just needs to be overall (and in a fiend's case, overwhelmingly) Evil. Sabine's ideas of relationship mending involve casual human sacrifice.

Carry2

2013-08-09, 09:59 AM

They're not the only thing that determines it. Morals and general worldview matter a heck of a lot, too, and on those counts Durkon is pretty clear LE. Plus the small matter of Calling the Devil.
I'm not sure what you mean about morals and worldview, since we've barely seen Durkula do anything morally distinguishable from Classic Durkon. I can accept he's LE by rules-technicality, but my point is that this isn't necessarily a great development from a dramatic standpoint. And possibly that those are dumb rules. And given that the author has a relatively casual relationship with D&D-technicalities at this point, 'the rules say so!' might not be an adequate cover for the decision.

Again, I want to stress this is all based on very scant evidence, so it's totally possible we'll see a more nuanced arc for Durkon going forward. I just don't want to see vampirism, by itself, used to explain him molesting celestial kittens for LOLZ. Or whatever.

A demon's every single action doesn't have to involve punching kittens, I would think. Caring for a small number of friends is perfectly consistent with a thoroughly Evil alignment (*cough* Tarquin, Malack *cough*). The person just needs to be overall (and in a fiend's case, overwhelmingly) Evil. Sabine's ideas of relationship mending involve casual human sacrifice.
Oh, I know. My point is simply that these pleasant qualities do actually make these characters less-than-perfectly evil, even if they were hovering at around 98%. Rather than being, in Sabine's case, inevitably 100%.

.

Komatik

2013-08-09, 10:38 AM

The fiend is not a mere technicality. I mean, ffs. Old Durkon was a Lawful Good, better-than-Paladin goody two shoes guy. Summon Devil hardly belongs into his spell repertoire. The whole flavour of Planar Ally is that it calls just that - an ally with an outlook similar to yourself. A Good being simply cannot summon a fiend with it.

Also, old Durkon wouldn't have gleefully snapped Zzz's neck. That's a full 180 from what he'd have done. Even if swayed to kill him, a full 180 from how he would have done the deed.

Rich pays attention to rules accuracy remarkably well if he has a mind to and any homebrew deviations are typically explained. Thus far everything in comic and in Rich's comments is consistent with using the standard Vampire template.

I don't know why you'd expect anything less than a nuanced arc. Rich has shown time and again that he writes excellent Evil characters with a ton of nuance and depth. Stereotypical cartoon villainy happens very intentionally if it is done at all - see Tarquin, contrast with his handling of Redcloak and the different Paladin portrayals.
Durkon being Evil means just that - that his new personality is a result of taking Durkon and magically altering his outlook so that it slots into Lawful Evil. It doesn't mean he suddenly turns into a flat lulzmonster. If anything, the arc was made for adding depth to Durkon. You can trust Rich on that.

hamishspence

2013-08-09, 11:06 AM

Also, old Durkon wouldn't have gleefully snapped Zzz's neck. That's a full 180 from what he'd have done. Even if swayed to kill him, a full 180 from how he would have done the deed.

If Durkon had CON-drained him, he'd have come back as a vampire.
If Durkon had energy-drained him, he'd have come back as a wight.

A broken neck is arguably a pretty merciful way of killing an adversary.

The problem isn't the neck breaking, so much as the glee.

EnragedFilia

2013-08-09, 01:29 PM

I'm pretty sure a humanoid slain by a vampire's energy drain rises as a vampire spawn, not a wight.

And everyone sure seems to be loading a lot of emotion into the curvature of a mouth in a single panel. What if that's supposed to be an irreverent smile instead of a gleeful one?

Komatik

2013-08-09, 01:30 PM

If Durkon had CON-drained him, he'd have come back as a vampire.
If Durkon had energy-drained him, he'd have come back as a wight.

A broken neck is arguably a pretty merciful way of killing an adversary.

The problem isn't the neck breaking, so much as the glee.

As a vampire spawn, not as a wight. And yes, the glee is the problem.

SavageWombat

2013-08-09, 01:35 PM

I'm pretty sure a humanoid slain by a vampire's energy drain rises as a vampire spawn, not a wight.

I think there may have been some version of D&D that didn't have vampire spawn stats and used wight instead. That might be the source of the confusion.

Oko and Qailee

2013-08-09, 01:42 PM

I find it so strange that some on this board are asserting that

(a) becoming a vampire changes your moral outlook on the universe AND
"

To be fair, this assertion is consistent with TONS of mythology about vampires. Vampires are nearly always evil, with very few exceptions and most of those exceptions are more recent.

Additionally, this is all within a D&D universe (not really, but you get the point, basically the default assumption of readers is that, if you don't know how it works, assume D&D until Rich says otherwise)

So asserting "Durkon is evil because he is a vampire" is 100% valid.

Finally, in terms of this entire topic. All of the existing evidence points to Durkon being evil, but there is no evidence pointing to the contrary (there are only logical justification for why he may not be evil, but that's conjecture, not proof).

So it makes more sense to think, based on what we know, to think Durkon is evil. We can be proved wrong at any point and change our opinions. But I really don't understand why people are so bothered that other people think durkon is evil.

Math_Mage

2013-08-09, 01:43 PM

I don't see anything hugely objectionable about that argument per se, but I'm not sure D&D mechanics actually stick with it consistently, if you go by certain remarks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15774845&postcount=18) in the vampire responsibility thread. (I mean, by the same token, you can argue that animals don't count as evil because they lack sufficient intelligence, but you can still somehow apply the evil descriptor to inanimate objects.)

I personally rather lean toward the idea that actions determine alignment, rather than vice versa. In which case, again, I think that Durkon's character transition and alignment either will, or ought to be, governed by a gradual transition in outlook based on concrete and observable (http://media.canada.com/b2fd399c-8611-4580-92ea-44f66ab1b1a2/Hobbes.jpg) behaviour.
Point of order: there is no winner in the debate between 'actions determine alignment' and 'alignment determines actions.' It's the snake swallowing its own tail. That was actually the point Hobbes was making--Calvin is the one arguing from the dichotomy you express.

SavageWombat

2013-08-09, 01:49 PM

So it makes more sense to think, based on what we know, to think Durkon is evil. We can be proved wrong at any point and change our opinions. But I really don't understand why people are so bothered that other people think durkon is evil.

Nobody is bothered that other people think Durkon is evil. Some of us are bothered that, when we bring up other possibilities, some people say "No, Durkon is clearly Evil. You're wrong."

I think Rich intends to tell a story about involuntary alignment change and what it really means in the head of the victim - and people saying "Durkon is just Evil now" and speculating about him joining Nale, worshiping Hel or conquering the dwarf lands are leaping to an as-yet unsupported conclusion. I'm happy with saying that vampirism has changed Durkon and we'll find out HOW in time.

The Giant

2013-08-09, 01:51 PM

I have locked the other thread arguing about Durkon's alignment due to being the same topic as this one and slightly closer to Morally Justified territory. But I think this thread could use a warning as well: Keep away from ideas of whether or not Durkon is right to do this, that, or the other.

Oko and Qailee

2013-08-09, 01:54 PM

I think Rich intends to tell a story about involuntary alignment change and what it really means in the head of the victim .

For a story of involuntary alignment change to occur, Durkon must have had that alignment change.

SavageWombat

2013-08-09, 01:58 PM

For a story of involuntary alignment change to occur, Durkon must have had that alignment change.

OR it could be that Durkon has a template that compels him to become Evil but chooses to resist it and stay Good. Why is that not an option?

Connington

2013-08-09, 02:33 PM

Well there is the fact that Durkon is bound by prophecy to bring death and destruction to the dwarven lands. That's not something that individuals who aren't seriously capital E Evil do.

I'm in the camp that expects Durkon to play the role of the relatively harmless team sociopath, Belkar style, for a bit until he gets a chance to unleash some serious revenge on the dwarfs that exiled him.

And yes, I'm aware of the proposal that the prophecy refers to Durkon's new spell-slots being "Death" and "Destruction". That makes approximately zero sense in-story (I'm thinking the dwarven lands have seen an evil cleric or two before) and out (Rich hasn't been playing the serious prophecies for laughs so far, and if he did, there's no point in subverting a prophecy that is only featured in a book that most of the fanbase hasn't read.

Oko and Qailee

2013-08-09, 03:01 PM

OR it could be that Durkon has a template that compels him to become Evil but chooses to resist it and stay Good. Why is that not an option?

Because you said "involuntary alignment change" which means, you know... it changed, not that he's resisting it changing.

TBH it was just being nitpicky anyway.

Anyway, our opinion on how good a story that would be is irrelevant to wether he's evil or not currently.

Oko and Qailee

2013-08-09, 03:03 PM

(Rich hasn't been playing the serious prophecies for laughs so far, and if he did, there's no point in subverting a prophecy that is only featured in a book that most of the fanbase hasn't read.

Belkars prophecy was kinda subverted for laughs. I don't seem Durkon bringing the Death and Destruction domains to the dwarven lands as something that would be done just for laughs.

Connington

2013-08-09, 03:14 PM

"Will I get to cause the death of Miko, Miko's horse, Roy, V, or you?" isn't a serious prophecy to begin with.

Oko and Qailee

2013-08-09, 04:12 PM

"Will I get to cause the death of Miko, Miko's horse, Roy, V, or you?" isn't a serious prophecy to begin with.

I consider someones desire to murder always serious. The fact that the oracle said yes make you wonder if Belkar was going to actually kill Roy.

Why is Belkar killing Roy a possibility a less serious issue than Haley getting her voice back?

Kish

2013-08-09, 04:14 PM

Yeahh...

I think only someone who wasn't on the kill list would call the killing prophecy "not a serious prophecy to begin with."

Scow2

2013-08-09, 05:52 PM

I think I figured out my stance on how a lack of free will determines Alignment. Something without free will can still have an alignment.

Animals are not evil because, IMO, D&D doesn't really handle animal mentality well at all. In that narrow viewpoint of the developers, animals are driven by instinct and act without malice. Evil creatures have malice hard-coded into their motivations and behaviors. Honestly? I think most actually-domesticated animals should be Lawful, because they were bred by order and civilization for order and civilization. Rats Swarms should be Evil (Individual rats not in a Swarm mentality would be Neutral).

Inanimate objects can be evil because they have no soul. Mindless things can also be Evil (See - Skeletons). They are imbued with "Cosmic Evil".

But... back to the point of Compulsions and Alignments - Someone compelled by a spell to do evil things is innocent - but the Cosmic Crimes are still going on Someone's record. That someone, of course, is the compeller. Casting a Compulsion spell is not an evil act - but what you do with someone under such a spell CAN be (And, it's usually two or three atrocities for the price of one). However, for things like Undead, Insanity, Demons, and destructive addicts the compeller is part of themselves. Tragic and Pitiable? Sure. A free pass? No. However, if that thing can be purged, it also takes its effect on alignment with it.

Undead automatically have their undead status purged upon their destruction. The sins committed while under the influence of negative energy are not held against the soul, even if they were commited "By their own free will". If they were not Evil in life, it's clear that it's the undeath that has twisted their behavior and is to blame.

[Evil] Outsiders are one and the same with the evil aspect of their alignment. In other settings, this can also apply to a lesser degree to species such as the evil humanoids and monsters. Rich Burlew's Order of the StickTM setting has racial features be purely cosmetic for any non-supernatural creature with an Intelligence score (to provide relevant commentary on the real world), but not every setting does*. Extraordinary circumstances (Or less extraordinary circumstances for less-influenced races like Gnolls, Goblins, and some monsters) can have a creature overcome this.

Addictions and Drug-induced behaviors are similar to Undeath, except, as taking the actions to acquire these conditions are usually voluntary, the actions taken still count against the person, and it is not released on death.

Insanity is a very sensitive situation - I have no idea what its effects on the afterlife are. A person whos insanity makes them evil is still evil (Crazy Cultists abound! Don't worry about having to kill them). I'm guessing that, when it comes to the Afterlife, it depends on how influential the insanity was on their identity. For some people, the insanity and its alignment baggage are jettisoned upon death as the soul takes its "Idealized Form". In other cases, the insanity is so pervasive that it is also present in the "Idealized Form", and thus they keep their alignment upon death.

*This is a point of disagreement between my own stance on Racial Alignments and Burlew's. Most conventional fantasy settings toake archaic and scientifically-disproven ideas and play with them as though they are fact. Mysticism, Astrology, Necromancy and other magics, Luminous Aether, Divine Right, Creationism, Lamarkian Genetics, Miasma, and even Racism. Just because someone makes a world where Goblins are inherently Evil doesn't mean they believe that it applies to the real world, even though the reasoning is the same used by bona fide racists. Racism is only wrong morally and ethically when it's unjustifiable (Such as in the real world), and someone with a Fantastic Racist setting does not imply any racist beliefs in the real world, just as using Planar Cosmology doesn't imply a rejection of Astronomy.

In the OotSverse, according to The Giant's "I CARE" quote, he made it clear that in his setting, all creatures are all Born Neutral, with Alignments established later in life. And Racism is not a fact beyond the most superficial details. Killing Evil creatures isn't an evil act (It's not Good either). But Killing Neutral creatures unprovoked is (Most animals provoke). However, in many "Can a Paladin Kill Goblin Babies" threads, and other such - I'm not as opposed to settings where infants of some creatures DO default to a specific alignment, though it's unrealistic.

EnragedFilia

2013-08-09, 07:56 PM

If you'll allow me to address one point at a time, as that's much easier than attempting to formulate a coherent response to such a large post all at once:

Rich Burlew's Order of the StickTM setting has racial features be purely cosmetic for any non-supernatural creature with an Intelligence score (to provide relevant commentary on the real world), but not every setting does*. Extraordinary circumstances (Or less extraordinary circumstances for less-influenced races like Gnolls, Goblins, and some monsters) can have a creature overcome this.

That seems to be the case in terms of alignment and alignment-relevant aspects of the creatures in question, but not necessarily other aspects. Consider the Elves. Every elf depicted in the strip thus far has exhibited or attempted to exhibit an emotionally detached attitude and generally approached situations in a reasonable and cerebral manner. Naturally, most of the elf characters other than V have been minor and thus had fairly shallow characterization, so this use of such stereotypical traits is to be expected as a matter of character archetypes more than of worldbuilding or social commentary. But that itself indicates that any conscious decision to eschew use of the more alignment-relevant racial traits does not necessarily extend to all such racial traits. In short, the social commentary being made here may not be about stereotypes as such, but rather about judgmentalism, and especially about the use of overtly judgmental preconceptions regarding good and evil.

Carry2

2013-08-10, 07:35 AM

Point of order: there is no winner in the debate between 'actions determine alignment' and 'alignment determines actions.' It's the snake swallowing its own tail. That was actually the point Hobbes was making--Calvin is the one arguing from the dichotomy you express.
Yes, but if we're talking about an equivalence relation here, where A implies B and B implies A, then absence of one implies absence of other.

Animals are not evil because, IMO, D&D doesn't really handle animal mentality well at all. In that narrow viewpoint of the developers, animals are driven by instinct and act without malice. Evil creatures have malice hard-coded into their motivations and behaviors...

...Inanimate objects can be evil because they have no soul. Mindless things can also be Evil (See - Skeletons). They are imbued with "Cosmic Evil".
I'm not sure how that makes evil creatures anything but 'driven by instinct', but AFAICT (particularly given your argument about animal alignments), this is basically redefining 'evil' as 'destructive', by which logic tornadoes and tsunamis should have the 'evil' subtype.

You could do things that way, and it would arguably be more coherent than the current state of affairs, but I'm not sure it gels well with people's intuitive understanding of the term. I've always leaned toward the standpoint that if Hell existed, it would be Hell because of the company, not because the geography is itself morally reprobate somehow (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Morality_and_Fiends#Moral_Option_3:_The_Face_of_Ho rror). I mean, the definition becomes fairly vacuous when things like Xykon's crown register as Evil without being magical or mind-affecting. It's just... sitting there, apparently, not-thinking bad thoughts.

Scow2

2013-08-10, 09:10 AM

Yes, but if we're talking about an equivalence relation here, where A implies B and B implies A, then absence of one implies absence of other.

I'm not sure how that makes evil creatures anything but 'driven by instinct', but AFAICT (particularly given your argument about animal alignments), this is basically redefining 'evil' as 'destructive', by which logic tornadoes and tsunamis should have the 'evil' subtype.

You could do things that way, and it would arguably be more coherent than the current state of affairs, but I'm not sure it gels well with people's intuitive understanding of the term. I've always leaned toward the standpoint that if Hell existed, it would be Hell because of the company, not because the geography is itself morally reprobate somehow (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Morality_and_Fiends#Moral_Option_3:_The_Face_of_Ho rror). I mean, the definition becomes fairly vacuous when things like Xykon's crown register as Evil without being magical or mind-affecting. It's just... sitting there, apparently, not-thinking bad thoughts.It's an inanimate object exposed to Evil, and thus carries an Evil Aura (I think the BoVD gave examples about how evil changed things around them). Also - Hell is hell because of the geography AND company.

Most animal's instincts, in the narrow view of the authors, also tend to neutral behaviors. Except Dogs, which are driven to Lawful behaviors, and Rats, which are possibly the most horrific and abominable species known in the world. They're not just destructive - Locust swarms are destructive, but they're still neutral. Rats are orders of magnitudes far worse.

hamishspence

2013-08-10, 11:42 AM

Most animal's instincts, in the narrow view of the authors, also tend to neutral behaviors. Except Dogs, which are driven to Lawful behaviors, and Rats, which are possibly the most horrific and abominable species known in the world. They're not just destructive - Locust swarms are destructive, but they're still neutral. Rats are orders of magnitudes far worse.

Probably because being a "pest species" isn't exactly something an animal can choose to be or not be.

Kish

2013-08-10, 11:54 AM

Probably because being a "pest species" isn't exactly something an animal can choose to be or not be.
I find myself wondering how (if!) humans would avoid being classified as Always Neutral Evil, if rats are evil.

hamishspence

2013-08-10, 12:05 PM

Terry Pratchett's The Amazing Maurice & His Educated Rodents does bring that up:

You will have worked out that there is a race in this world which steals and kills and spreads disease and despoils what it cannot use, said the voice of Spider.
'Yes,' said Dangerous Beans. 'That's easy. It's called humanity.'
[p. 206]

Of course, that's from the point of view of the intelligent rats in the book.

Oko and Qailee

2013-08-10, 12:19 PM

I find myself wondering how (if!) humans would avoid being classified as Always Neutral Evil, if rats are evil.

Because rats are disgusting and the writers are human

so there is a lot of bias there :)
(not saying rats should be evil, just answering how human avoided the same classification as rats)

hamishspence

2013-08-10, 12:22 PM

Thing is- the authors of 3rd ed D&D, made rats Neutral rather than Evil- maybe because those writers were applying the same standards to all animals.

I think older D&D books had variation- dolphins as Good, for example (this was before certain things about them came to light in the media).

Kish

2013-08-10, 12:27 PM

Older D&D books had fully-sapient (read: average Intelligence of 10 or higher) dolphins, who were also Always Chaotic Good.

hamishspence

2013-08-10, 12:29 PM

That was what I was thinking of. Int 10 would be a bit of a stretch - but they were probably intending it that way.

martianmister

2013-08-10, 02:58 PM

Most animal's instincts, in the narrow view of the authors, also tend to neutral behaviors. Except Dogs, which are driven to Lawful behaviors, and Rats, which are possibly the most horrific and abominable species known in the world. They're not just destructive - Locust swarms are destructive, but they're still neutral. Rats are orders of magnitudes far worse.

Are you referring to this?

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn265/martianmister/AnimalAlignmentChart_zpsfc4f1d1e.png (http://s306.photobucket.com/user/martianmister/media/AnimalAlignmentChart_zpsfc4f1d1e.png.html)

Carry2

2013-08-10, 06:12 PM

It's an inanimate object exposed to Evil, and thus carries an Evil Aura (I think the BoVD gave examples about how evil changed things around them). Also - Hell is hell because of the geography AND company...
...Locust swarms are destructive, but they're still neutral. Rats are orders of magnitudes far worse.
It's still hard to see how skeletons qualify as evil under this schema, but locusts don't.

The former are basically simple constructs who lack the imagination for malice or sadism, they don't enslave the original soul, and they don't inherently violate the wishes of the living or need to be used for nefarious purposes. They certainly don't cannibalise their young out of malthusian necessity, or anything. If anything, they should be the same alignment as golems and inevitables, or just treated as objects.

I mean, sure, Sauron's ring is an evil artifact, but that's because it has specific effects on the folks around it that actively make the world a worse place. Elric's blade Stormbringer has a pretty similar rep. These things are evil because they're not just inanimate objects or servile automatons. They have independent goals and agendas and influence events to realise them.
.

Tris

2013-08-10, 07:40 PM

It's still hard to see how skeletons qualify as evil under this schema, but locusts don't.

The former are basically simple constructs who lack the imagination for malice or sadism, they don't enslave the original soul, and they don't inherently violate the wishes of the living or need to be used for nefarious purposes. They certainly don't cannibalise their young out of malthusian necessity, or anything. If anything, they should be the same alignment as golems and inevitables, or just treated as objects.

I mean, sure, Sauron's ring is an evil artifact, but that's because it has specific effects on the folks around it that actively make the world a worse place. Elric's blade Stormbringer has a pretty similar rep. These things are evil because they're not just inanimate objects or servile automatons. They have independent goals and agendas and influence events to realise them.
.

It's because skeletons are animated using negative energy, so for the purposes of the mechanics they register as evil.

warrl

2013-08-10, 09:07 PM

You forgot:

4. Used Planar Ally to summon a Lawful Evil monster, which requires him to be Lawful Evil.
5. Now Spontaneously casts Inflict spells.

Granted the last doesn't mean Evil per se, just Evil-aligned Neutral.

Or the last could possibly indicate that he's some sort of undead creature. Supposedly, undead clerics are just that way.

warrl

2013-08-10, 09:27 PM

Sequence of events in 908:

1. Durkon has Z knocked unconscious and helpless. He then turns away from Nale, deliberately ignoring him and moves to threaten Z.
2. Nale begs Durkon to spare Z.
3. Durkon ignores the plea and taunts Nale, rubbing his face in his own helplessness.
4. Durkon murders Z and makes Nale watch even as Nale attempts desperately and utterly ineffectively to stop him, taking what can only be described as sadistic pleasure in the act.
5. Durkon turns to Nale and threatens him.
6. Nale flees.

Steps 3 and 4 are utterly unnecessary. Z was no immediate threat. Nale was not a threat to help or revive Z in any way.

Z, a competent high-level primary caster known to have prepared Greater Dispel Magic (and therefore of above-average probability of having it prepared twice), was a greater threat to Durkon *unconscious* (presumably due to a stun effect, not HP loss, and thus capable of awakening any round) than the incompetent Nale was *conscious*.

Guaranteeing that Z would not awaken was therefore a higher priority than dealing with Nale.

Killing Z at that moment, in that fashion, was gratuitously unnecessary. It is not the killing of Z that makes the act evil, it is the manner in which Z is killed that is evil.

Killing Z at that moment was the wise and prudent choice, both for self-preservation and the well-being of the entire OotS. Good-aligned adventuring parties in D&D, tend kill their evil enemies when that is the prudent thing to do. So it's hardly evidence of evil alignment.

Smack-talking enemies in combat is not an evil act. Even if the smack talk is false, let alone if it's true. (Here's (http://www.goblinscomic.org/05142008/) an instance of a Paladin smack-talking and falsely portraying himself as an Evil entity. Granted, it's from a different universe.)

I don't like to draw firm conclusions based on one grin.

Note: I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion. I think it's probably correct. I'm only disagreeing with your confidence in that conclusion, and eagerness to restrict what the Giant *can* do with *his* story.

warrl

2013-08-10, 09:43 PM

As important as what he does is what he does not do. He doesn't show horror or any kind of angst which a mortal might otherwise experience in being transformed into an outsider abomination.

a) I don't remember vampires being "outsiders". </nitpick>

b) Durkon has had a while - not a long while, but a while - to at least start to deal with the emotional impact.

c) New (or old) vampires being emotionally distressed by their own vampirism is a relatively new trope.

d) Durkon has a long history of at least trying to be extremely stoic. Particularly when there are outside issues that he sees as being of greater priority than his emotional issues.

Stack up any one or more of those that makes sense to you, and suddenly the thought of Durkon showing angst or horror at his condition *while his friends are in a really tough combat* seems strange and unnatural.

While the next few strips might change my opinion, *at the moment*

Hey, allowing for one's opinion to not be immutable truth! I'll buy into that!

it seems he's found peace with his new status in the story remarkably quickly. Which mean's he's stepped into the role of evil bloodsucker. He's not kicking against it or fighting against it. He's ACCEPTING it.

And only an evil being could simply accept such a status without a considerable amount of kicking and screaming.

Or an extremely stoic one, who tries to keep his kicking and screaming about his own condition internal and usually succeeds. Like Durkon.

(Such an extremely stoic being could still be evil, of course.)

The rules say he is always evil. His character and actions since arising are consistent with lawful evil. So until he acts in some way that would be in violation of this I will believe he is lawful evil. By the standard of preponderance of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.

100% Agreed.

Actually, I'll go further: it would take a *pattern* of definitely-not-Evil acts to say that he's probably not Evil.

warrl

2013-08-11, 12:50 AM

I apologize for coming into this attacking, but I am quite disturbed by the fact that some people seem to be of the opinion that you can murder someone and that it might not be evil.

An irrelevant strawman unless you first prove that the people making the assertion you misrepresent, agree that Durkon murdered someone.

To do so with a smile?? There is NEVER any excuse to end another's life with a smile unless you have just escaped death by torture at their hands by killing them in self defense.

Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html)
Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0648.html)
Vaarsuvius (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0020.html) at the mere anticipation of killing an enemy
Durkon (pre-vamp) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html)
Paladin Miko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) actually praying for the privilege of slaughtering people when they are no threat to anyone - and NOT falling in consequence.

Apparently, in OotSverse, it IS acceptable for a Good being to end another's life with a smile, entirely independently of self-defense or torture.

warrl

2013-08-11, 01:03 AM

For me, the tipping point was when Roy flat out asked him, "You're not evil?".

And his response was "not any more then Belkar, I'd wager."

If he was still good, the best way to answer the question is "No, I am not
evil."

No, I don't agree. Why not? Simple.

"You're a vampire. I don't believe you."

All sort of stress ensues, as Roy not only thinks Durkon is evil, but also thinks Durkon is lying to him.

Whereas, if Durkon is NOT evil, it is also true that he is not more evil than Belkar. His statement is true. Roy may think Durkon is evil, but doesn't think he's been lied to (because he hasn't). So Durkon may later demonstrate, through actions, that he is not evil.

(Reminder: I think Durkon is *probably* evil. I'm only arguing against certainty.)

theNater

2013-08-11, 03:09 AM

Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html)
Yup, Roy needs to work on that, as has been mentioned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html).

Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0648.html)
Self-defense can be argued, though I don't intend to do that here. So that's two people who have something to work on.

Vaarsuvius (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0020.html) at the mere anticipation of killing an enemy
You may note that Vaarsuvius did not kill that enemy, and in fact made no attempt to stop it when it tried to flee. In contrast, Belkar killed it with a big ol' grin on his face (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0021.html).

Durkon (pre-vamp) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html)
That goblin was actively trying to kill Durkon at the time; that's obviously self-defense.

Paladin Miko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) actually praying for the privilege of slaughtering people when they are no threat to anyone - and NOT falling in consequence.
Wanting to hurt someone is not an evil act. In almost all cases, stating that you want to hurt someone is not an evil act, even if you state it to your deity or deities of choice.

No, I don't agree. Why not? Simple.

"You're a vampire. I don't believe you."

All sort of stress ensues, as Roy not only thinks Durkon is evil, but also thinks Durkon is lying to him.

Whereas, if Durkon is NOT evil, it is also true that he is not more evil than Belkar. His statement is true. Roy may think Durkon is evil, but doesn't think he's been lied to (because he hasn't). So Durkon may later demonstrate, through actions, that he is not evil.
This is not the sort of thing the Durkon we know would think of. It is more likely that Durkon believes himself to now be evil than that he suddenly developed the necessary social graces to engage in weasel-wording in this manner.

Math_Mage

2013-08-11, 05:40 AM

warrl, multiquote is available. No need to quintuple-post.

Z, a competent high-level primary caster known to have prepared Greater Dispel Magic (and therefore of above-average probability of having it prepared twice), was a greater threat to Durkon *unconscious* (presumably due to a stun effect, not HP loss, and thus capable of awakening any round) than the incompetent Nale was *conscious*.

Guaranteeing that Z would not awaken was therefore a higher priority than dealing with Nale.
Durkon has no way to stun with an attack from his staff. Z's unconsciousness was necessarily due to HP loss. Nale has no spells that could make Z into a threat. This counterargument fails on the facts.

Killing Z at that moment was the wise and prudent choice, both for self-preservation and the well-being of the entire OotS. Good-aligned adventuring parties in D&D, tend kill their evil enemies when that is the prudent thing to do. So it's hardly evidence of evil alignment.
We have lots of evidence from the comic about how Good parties handle their evil opposites. Killing unconscious enemies isn't on the list.

a) I don't remember vampires being "outsiders". </nitpick>

b) Durkon has had a while - not a long while, but a while - to at least start to deal with the emotional impact.

c) New (or old) vampires being emotionally distressed by their own vampirism is a relatively new trope.

d) Durkon has a long history of at least trying to be extremely stoic. Particularly when there are outside issues that he sees as being of greater priority than his emotional issues.

Stack up any one or more of those that makes sense to you, and suddenly the thought of Durkon showing angst or horror at his condition *while his friends are in a really tough combat* seems strange and unnatural.
Durkon has become something he reflexively hates. That will show.

c) is not meaningful; new (or old) vampires being anything but Evil is another relatively new trope.

EnragedFilia

2013-08-11, 06:11 AM

Komatik

2013-08-11, 09:13 AM

Let's just consider the following possibility: Durkon was grinning specifically to scare Nale into retreating immediately rather than spend another round dealing with him and not saving Roy from the devil and the elemental. In that case, ignoring anything other than immediate tactical considerations, it was at least very effective.

Oh, it was effective. Also a thing Old, More-Goody-Two-Shoes-Than-A-Paladin Durkon would have never done.

(Reminder: I think Durkon is *probably* evil. I'm only arguing against certainty.)

I'm still curious as to how people manage to wrangle "Is subjected to an Evilizing template which the Giant is evidently using in-story and has pointed people to. Has also recently committed an act which is only possible to a Lawful Evil character." into "not certain". It's as ironclad as proof can be, with not a single shred of evidence, let alone strong evidence, to the contrary.

It's also not about "Rich not being pidgeonholed into a story arc he doesn't want to tell", despite what naysayers want to tell themselves.

The Giant has had this thing planned out for ages. If using the standard Vampire template were problematic, he would've indicated the setting using a hosueruled version in interactions involving Malack. Instead all in-comic scenes flatly corroborate using the standard template.
If Durkon's last big spell being Planar Ally (and the subsequent "Good character calls an Angel" thing) were problematic for future interactions, he would've chosen Durkon's spell differently. The vampirization scenes were running just at that moment and there's no way he didn't have a clear clue as to Durkon's alignment then.

That is, the storyline being told was chosen months or years ago. It was what was being set up. If the Giant wanted to tell a different one, he would have set things up differently. He's good enough at his job to do that.

Gift Jeraff

2013-08-11, 09:22 AM

Killing Z at that moment was the wise and prudent choice, both for self-preservation and the well-being of the entire OotS. Good-aligned adventuring parties in D&D, tend kill their evil enemies when that is the prudent thing to do.

Killing Z actually made it easier for Qarr to save him, since now all of Z is nonliving material that he can take a piece of and teleport with. Yes, Durkon knows how difficult it is to find a cleric capable of casting Resurrection, but Sabine/Qarr can [Greater] Teleport at will. That's already a big step up from Roy's corpse being left with the nonmagical half of the party, and the magical half lacking Teleport spells.

martianmister

2013-08-11, 09:37 AM

Let's just consider the following possibility: Durkon was grinning because he was remembering a really good joke about a gnome, a drow and a kender...

Komatik

2013-08-11, 09:57 AM

Let's just consider the following possibility: Durkon was grinning because he was remembering a really good joke about a gnome, a drow and a kender...

Rocks fell and they died?

Demolator

2013-08-11, 10:05 AM

Killing Z actually made it easier for Qarr to save him, since now all of Z is nonliving material that he can take a piece of and teleport with. Yes, Durkon knows how difficult it is to find a cleric capable of casting Resurrection, but Sabine/Qarr can [Greater] Teleport at will. That's already a big step up from Roy's corpse being left with the nonmagical half of the party, and the magical half lacking Teleport spells.

That might not happen though, because the last thing Quarr said before poofing out of there was "OK, I'm out. Good luck, elf. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html)" I don't think he has any intention of going back there and risking anything.

Juhn

2013-08-11, 10:36 AM

As I see it, the problem with Durkon simply entering 'evil mode' is that it does not constitute a character arc. Having to struggle with an unquenchable thirst for warm blood, (further) rejection by the common masses, and the spiritual anguish of abandonment by his deity, then becoming gradually more ruthless and savage in response, would be the basis for a character arc.
I disagree with this, actually. We see this with most every take on vampire fiction in games since Vampire: the Masquerade. It's old, well-tread ground by this point.

Durkon dealing with the fact that he's had "you're now Evil" thrust upon him by an outside source and a violation of his body and being (i.e. being fed upon until death by Malack) and deciding what he's going to do about this fact (perhaps even deciding that no, something else doesn't get to decide to be Evil now and he's going to claw his way back up to Good if it kills him because that's who Durkon is), would be a fresher take on it than "oh no, I have horrible monstrous urges but still want to retain my humanity! (or... "dwarfity" in this case, I suppose) I can't go near symbols of my faith because I'm now a creature of darkness and impurity and they harm me!"

Thankfully this doesn't seem to be the direction the Giant is taking this anyway. It looks like Durkon has bigger priorities than an urge to prey on living beings and the fate of his soul.

Juhn

2013-08-11, 11:53 AM

And I'm positing that "flipping the negative energy switch and now he's suddenly, jarringly evil for reasons entirely outside of his control or consent" might be the point. It's a radical alteration of the situation after which he has to find his bearings and figure out which way he's going to go from here (perhaps slowly clawing his way back to Good), rather than still being Good but now starting a slow, inexorable descent towards Evil due to overpowering evil urges.

It's sort of like "You're a LG adventurer, and you were actually pretty damn good at it. You get hit with a Helm of Opposite Alignment and are now CE (or LE, in Durkon's case). You remember being LG and you liked being LG, and now you're not due to outside imposition. Now what do you do?" Except in this case it's a template with a bunch of associated strengths and weaknesses, rather than a cursed item.

It's a different type of story, and I'm suggesting that the former might be more interesting because we've seen the latter in basically all modern vampire fiction.

EDIT: Hang on, where did the post this was responding to go? :smallconfused:

Tris

2013-08-11, 12:23 PM

That might not happen though, because the last thing Quarr said before poofing out of there was "OK, I'm out. Good luck, elf. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html)" I don't think he has any intention of going back there and risking anything.
Durkon had no way of knowing that.

Kish

2013-08-11, 12:53 PM

Durkon had no way of knowing that.
...Excuse me? Durkon had and has all the information Demolator just stated, as soon as Demolator did.

Tris

2013-08-11, 01:00 PM

...Excuse me? Durkon had and has all the information Demolator just stated, as soon as Demolator did.

Never mind. I got little mixed up. :smallredface:

Komatik

2013-08-12, 04:02 AM

Hey, Durkon is good people. We still haven't heard a good explanation for:

1. Is subjected to Evilizing template. (Which the Giant has pointed people to, and which in-comic scenes with Malack are perfectly consistent with).

2. Nothing in Create Spawn or any Dominate-style effect I'm familiar with says another personality is in control of the body. Create Spawn only says the Spawn is "under the command of the vampire who created it" and is "enslaved until it's master's destruction." => Thrall!Durkon = Durkon.

3. Is a nontheistic Cleric by Word of Giant.

4. Called a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally, something he can only do if he's Lawful Evil.

5. Gleefully snapped Zzz's neck, something Old Durkon would have never done. Even if he was convinced Zzz had to go, he'd have ended him reluctantly, not gleefully.

6. All his other actions are consistent with a Lawful Evil alignment, and point to Lawful Evil alignment. None point to a Good one, although some can be argued as to being Neutral if we stretch a bit or employ some pedantry.

7:
It's also not about "Rich not being pidgeonholed into a story arc he doesn't want to tell", despite what naysayers want to tell themselves.

The Giant has had this thing planned out for ages. If using the standard Vampire template were problematic, he would've indicated the setting using a hosueruled version in interactions involving Malack. Instead all in-comic scenes flatly corroborate using the standard template.
If Durkon's last big spell being Planar Ally (and the subsequent "Good character calls an Angel" thing) were problematic for future interactions, he would've chosen Durkon's spell differently. The vampirization scenes were running just at that moment and there's no way he didn't have a clear clue as to Durkon's alignment then.

That is, the storyline being told was chosen months or years ago. It was what was being set up. If the Giant wanted to tell a different one, he would have set things up differently. He's good enough at his job to do that.

theNater

2013-08-12, 04:37 AM

Komatik, I think you're making a pretty good case overall, but I wanted to talk about point 6(quoted below for context).

All his other actions are consistent with a Lawful Evil alignment, and point to Lawful Evil alignment. None point to a Good one, although some can be argued as to being Neutral if we stretch a bit or employ some pedantry.
Most people, of all alignments, mostly engage in Neutral acts. Durkula is no exception; attacking enemies and assisting allies are Neutral behaviors. Of his actions, we can really only point to one or two as non-Neutral. The killing of Zz'dtri was done Evilly, and chucking the corpse may be Evil(depending on the rules for corpse desecration, with which I am not familiar).

Insulting and attacking the guildies, threatening Nale, chatting with Roy, Inflicting Wounds on Roy, sharing potions with Roy, rescuing Haley, attacking the elemental, and ignoring Belkar's attacks were all Neutral actions.

gorocz

2013-08-12, 05:47 AM

Komatik, I think you're making a pretty good case overall, but I wanted to talk about point 6(quoted below for context).

Most people, of all alignments, mostly engage in Neutral acts. Durkula is no exception; attacking enemies and assisting allies are Neutral behaviors. Of his actions, we can really only point to one or two as non-Neutral. The killing of Zz'dtri was done Evilly, and chucking the corpse may be Evil(depending on the rules for corpse desecration, with which I am not familiar).

Insulting and attacking the guildies, threatening Nale, chatting with Roy, Inflicting Wounds on Roy, sharing potions with Roy, rescuing Haley, attacking the elemental, and ignoring Belkar's attacks were all Neutral actions.

He said they were consistent with a Lawful Evil alignment. Consistent means that they are not pointing in opposite direction (i.e. it is something a LE person would do).

You can take his actions as being mostly Neutral and they would be, by your definiton, still consistent with a Lawful Evil alignment - as you said yourself, people of all alignments mostly engage in Neutral acts, so do most Lawful Evil people (e.g. Redcloak, he's a prime example of a Lawful Evil person acting mostly like a normal person (Neutral acts) but having higher Evil goals on his long-term plan).

The main point is that he has done no Good acts, which would be incosistent with being Evil, even though he had a chance (at least one - sparing Z), which ended up as an Evil act. That is consistent with Lawful Evil imo.

Niknokitueu

2013-08-12, 06:23 AM

The main point is that he has done no Good acts, which would be incosistent with being Evil, even though he had a chance (at least one - sparing Z), which ended up as an Evil act. That is consistent with Lawful Evil imo.
I am seriously into "Durkula is LE", but need to point out that he has done what may be considered a Good act in 909. He provided Roy with a healing potion in order to make amends for accidently harming* him (an effect that good people cannot accidently do).

Given 909, I do really wonder how Durkula is still percieved by anyone to not be Evil.

When you convert spells on the fly to heal/harm spells, you decide which to do (at character creation) if you are neutral, and is decided for you if you are good or evil.

Durkula converted a spell to a heal on the fly. It came out as a harm. He apologises for the fact that his converted heals are now harms.
If he were good, they would convert to heals.
If he were neutral, he would choose (once ever) whether they would be heal or harm.
If he were evil, they would convert to harms.

Given he wanted to heal, and his on-the-fly spell convertion automatically converted to harm, he must (and I mean absolutely must) be Evil.

As to where Rich will go with this, it is up for discussion. I favour Durkon's warping his world views into an Evil mindset and playing it to the hilt. See Affably Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil), Well Intentioned Extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist) and Knight Templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) for examples of where Rich could lead us. And two of those examples are supposed to be Good Guys!

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu
*I use the term 'harm' here as 'reversed healing spell' in general, not the Harm spell.

Komatik

2013-08-12, 06:32 AM

I am seriously into "Durkula is LE", but need to point out that he has done what may be considered a Good act in 909. He provided Roy with a healing potion in order to make amends for accidently harming* him (an effect that good people cannot accidently do).

As to where Rich will go with this, it is up for discussion. I favour Durkon's warping his world views into an Evil mindset and playing it to the hilt. See Affably Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil), Well Intentioned Extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist) and Knight Templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) for examples of where Rich could lead us. And two of those examples are supposed to be Good Guys!

Helping your friends is a thoroughly Neutral act, and entirely consistent with being Lawful Evil. One of the key things about Evil characters is that while they can be caring and kind, the sphere of that kindness is small, and largely limited to people they know well. The rest can receive very callous treatment or simple indifference even if in deep trouble because it's just not their business, why should he care?

Roy is Durkon's best non-Dwarf friend by a mile - caring about his welfare - especially if it doesn't pose mortal danger to Durkon himself, which is one case where even caring Evil is way more likely to bolt than Good characters would - is entirely in keeping with LE.

Agreed on where the story is going. Gonna be awesome, given the Giant's talent for writing characters.

hamishspence

2013-08-12, 06:34 AM

Helping your friends is a thoroughly Neutral act, and entirely consistent with being Lawful Evil. One of the key things about Evil characters is that while they can be caring and kind, the sphere of that kindness is small, and largely limited to people they know well. The rest can receive very callous treatment or simple indifference even if in deep trouble because it's just not their business, why should he care?

Even then, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an "Evil Hero" with a very large sphere of kindness- who is exceptionally cruel to those that fall outside it.

Komatik

2013-08-12, 06:37 AM

Even then, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an "Evil Hero" with a very large sphere of kindness- who is exceptionally cruel to those that fall outside it.

Entirely possible. We don't know the entirety of Durkon's new personality yet, just a rough sketch and which one of the nine boxes it will at least initially fall into.

SavageWombat

2013-08-12, 08:38 AM

Entirely possible. We don't know the entirety of Durkon's new personality yet, just a rough sketch and which one of the nine boxes it will at least initially fall into.

Which is why it perplexes me that you insist it will so easily fall into a single box.

Scow2

2013-08-12, 08:42 AM

I find myself wondering how (if!) humans would avoid being classified as Always Neutral Evil, if rats are evil.Because humans go out of their way to ensure the protections of other species and mitigate their damage to the environment, often putting the lives of members of endangered and threatened species and areas above the lives of their own kind (See: Extreme poaching punishments over in Africa). Humans tend to care too much about others (Human or not) to be treated as universally evil, despite what ignorant misanthropes would have you believe - and also define morality, which helps. Also, animals are Not People.

Probably because being a "pest species" isn't exactly something an animal can choose to be or not be.Choice doesn't have a damn thing to do with anything. Their actions are a result of their own natures. Also - it's not the individual rats that are evil, but the entire Swarm. Rat swarms spread disease and miasma, horrifically maim and kill anything unlucky enough to get in their path (The game Dishonored doesn't even TOUCH on the horrors rat swarms are capable of inflicting), and are strongly associated with other, greater evils. They are so horrific that it's a great injustice to the universe to not be vulnerable to Smite Evil, Holy Smite, and Holy Word, and not show up to Detect Evil. Locust not called forth by a magic curse or plague are not evil because their damage is restricted to plants and vegetation.

It's still hard to see how skeletons qualify as evil under this schema, but locusts don't.

The former are basically simple constructs who lack the imagination for malice or sadism, they don't enslave the original soul, and they don't inherently violate the wishes of the living or need to be used for nefarious purposes. They certainly don't cannibalise their young out of malthusian necessity, or anything. If anything, they should be the same alignment as golems and inevitables, or just treated as objects.

I mean, sure, Sauron's ring is an evil artifact, but that's because it has specific effects on the folks around it that actively make the world a worse place. Elric's blade Stormbringer has a pretty similar rep. These things are evil because they're not just inanimate objects or servile automatons. They have independent goals and agendas and influence events to realise them.
.Skeletons are made of Evil, though they do not commit it. The stuff animating them is foul, and thus hurt by things such as Holy Smite, Turn Undead, Smite Evil, Holy Word, and is enough to exude an aura of evil. Golems are not made and animated by evilstuff, and the trapped spirits animating them are not evil for being caged like that.

Komatik

2013-08-12, 08:44 AM

Which is why it perplexes me that you insist it will so easily fall into a single box.

Because we know it will. The Giant is a master of setup, and thus far everything indicates Evil. Thing is, Lawful Evil is a pretty damn big box, like other alignments. Hell, Giant demonstrated that the "Paladin" box which is just a portion of Lawful Good and is usually thought to be abysmally small is, in fact, surprisingly spacious.

Lawful Evil isn't some perfectly chiseled description of every nuance of new Durkon, very far from it. It's exactly why I can say with such confidence he is Lawful Evil (well, that and the rules telling me so, and Giant being OK with displaying those rules impacts).

Niknokitueu

2013-08-12, 09:07 AM

Which is why it perplexes me that you insist it will so easily fall into a single box.
Not will, has.
His alignment has so easily fallen into a single box.
What alignment he will end up as? Do not know. But I have lots of ideas :smallbiggrin:

The instant Durkula was created, he became LE (it is in the writeup for vampire template).
His actions have yet to disprove such an event, and indeed seem to be pointing quite strongly towards both 'evil' and 'lawful'.
Several of those actions can only occur if he is Evil (such as heal/harm on the fly).

What perplexes me is why people keep insisting he isn't LE. Just as 'Belkar wasn't CE'-opinioned people did way back when.

Where alignments are is not where they are deemed forever to be. Indeed I can see Belkar becoming at least Neutral if he lives long enough, if not 'Good' (although he would probably need several lifetimes to achieve Good). Belkar's original actions happily placed him as 'CE', but his recent actions just do not jell with being CE. Hence if he lives long enough, he will cease to be CE.

Again, Durkon's alignment has fallen quite easly into a single box. The box has 'LE' stamped on the outside. Where his alignment will wander from now is called 'character development'.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

Komatik

2013-08-12, 09:19 AM

What perplexes me is why people keep insisting he isn't LE. Just as 'Belkar wasn't CE'-opinioned people did way back when.

I believe the technically correct way to put it is "We can't be certain yet, reasons include Planar Ally/Create Spawn and the Vampire template being houseruled. Also, archangels aren't any more Evil than Belkar, either." :smallannoyed:

SavageWombat

2013-08-12, 09:27 AM

As has been said before by others, nice straw man.

hamishspence

2013-08-12, 09:28 AM

Rat swarms spread disease and miasma, horrifically maim and kill anything unlucky enough to get in their path (The game Dishonored doesn't even TOUCH on the horrors rat swarms are capable of inflicting), and are strongly associated with other, greater evils. They are so horrific that it's a great injustice to the universe to not be vulnerable to Smite Evil, Holy Smite, and Holy Word, and not show up to Detect Evil.

Seems a bit of a leap: "They're Horrific, therefore they ought to be Evil."

Kish

2013-08-12, 09:30 AM

Skeletons are made of Evil, though they do not commit it. The stuff animating them is foul, and thus hurt by things such as Holy Smite, Turn Undead, Smite Evil, Holy Word, and is enough to exude an aura of evil. Golems are not made and animated by evilstuff, and the trapped spirits animating them are not evil for being caged like that.
It would take less time to convey the same content if you had said, "Because they are."

hamishspence

2013-08-12, 09:35 AM

Also - it's not the individual rats that are evil, but the entire Swarm.

Why change the alignment of an individual creature, when taken as a group?

Solse

2013-08-12, 09:37 AM

Again, Durkon's alignment has fallen quite easly into a single box. The box has 'LE' stamped on the outside. Where his alignment will wander from now is called 'character development'.

This. Alignments change, but right now, he showed no qualms about killing the LG's members (at the very least, a Good character would sorta be squicked out), he summoned demons (or devils, or something else), and ... just screw Rule of Three. If we see Durkon do something good, then I'll call him good. But for now, he's evil. Evil people can work for good causes, can't they?

Komatik

2013-08-12, 09:55 AM

As has been said before by others, nice straw man.

Should I resort to "a careful planner who's had this thing planned out for years didn't see fit to use a different setup and could just be ignoring all that rules stuff that could've just been written slightly differently if he had a different future narrative in mind but chose to go with the implications-heavy stuff anyway. I mean, he could."

Because those are the only two things I've seen claimed thus far, and neither makes any damn sense (see signature link, point 7). Yes, I portray them with a ridiculous air, but the substance of the arguments is the same. I use the ridiculous air because people keep insisting such claims be given a shred of validity without providing more points than "He could", which he absolutely could.
Belkar could also set up a happy kitten orphanage the next strip. This is a work of fiction. The author can literally pull absolutely anything out of his ass. But that's not how Rich does things, and that's why the setup is meaningful.

tl;dr I'll stop being a grumpy jerk when people bring up some actual, concrete points.

Kish

2013-08-12, 09:58 AM

Komatik

2013-08-12, 10:04 AM

Your first paragraph is incomprehensible (as in, I don't even know what you're strawmanning, unless you're saying that people who don't think Durkon is Lawful Evil are literally incoherent), and your link has no link to it.

People tend to claim the Vampire template doesn't mean a thing because the Giant wants to make points about alignment, and that the Planar Ally doesn't count because Durkon was enslaved and thus it was some twisted, other personality controlling Thrall Durkon, not Durkon himself.
Someone even said that what you call with Planar Ally is minor and irrelevant.

They say Rich doesn't follow the rules that closely and could just ignore the implications and write a Good Durkon. Then we get to killing Zzz being a Neutral act and "not any more evil than Belkar" technically also applying to archangels and thus being proof/indication of nothing.

Thus I turn like this: :smallannoyed:

EDIT: Thanks for the note on the link. Would've been on this thread anyway.

Coat

2013-08-12, 10:29 AM

All that d20srd has to say on vampire alignment is this:

Alignment
Always evil (any).

i.e. 100% of the vampires that PCs meet will be evil. If non-evil free-willed vampires (temporarily) exist but choose to dust themselves rather than continue to be a vampire (on the grounds that continuing to be a vampire would be an Evil act), then this is still true, as the pre-dusted ones are rather hard to meet.

Particularly when the vampires will either be a thrall - which in OotS cannon is a volitionless slave, and has it's master's alignment if any - or a master that has willingly and deliberately enslaved others, and is therefore evil regardless of template.

That said, I read Durkon's merciless killing of Z as Evil, and something former Durkon would never have done. So I think he is currently evil, and the Giant is using the template that way. I just don't think the template thing is a convincing argument by itself.

SavageWombat

2013-08-12, 10:34 AM

Dude, nothing "counts" because we're not trying to "prove" anything. You act like the possibility that Rich may be going somewhere more nuanced is somehow a slap in your face.

BroomGuys

2013-08-12, 10:34 AM

Thing is, Lawful Evil is a pretty damn big box, like other alignments. Hell, Giant demonstrated that the "Paladin" box which is just a portion of Lawful Good and is usually thought to be abysmally small is, in fact, surprisingly spacious.

This appears to be a major sticking point, so I thought this particular bit was worth drawing attention to. Arguments to the effect of "Durkon's character and motivations are too complex to be shoehorned into LE" aren't really arguing on the same plane about this, because it's a disagreement on how alignment works in the first place. The whole thing about the causal relationship between alignment and actions associated with that alignment? This is exactly where it comes to a head.

When you flip a magical switch that changes Durkon from LG to LE (as I believe is overwhelmingly likely), what exactly happens? Some are arguing that it is evil urges, like, say, "the urge to commit murder so he can acquire sustenance." I don't think that's what is at play with a forced alignment change, though. Rather, it's a change to the person himself. The alignment shift is just the rough summation of what that change is: a Good person has now become Evil.

If Durkon is LE now, it means his actual person has been corrupted into something Evil, I think. But what does that mean? What does he want out of his unlife? Which people from his past life will he view as friends (other than, obviously, Roy and the OotS) and which will he view as enemies (other than the drow he just killed and Nale)? If he's on the level about saving the world (my money's on "yes with a 'but'") then what does he want to do after doing that?

None of these questions are answered by the fact that the word "Evil" is in his alignment. All we know (given my presumptions) is that his person is now Evil. I've seen arguments to the effect of "then this isn't Durkon," and I think that kind of misses the point: Durkon that was changed into the being that inhabits his body, and that being is evil. Whether or not you want to call that being Durkon is up to you.

In summary: flipping the "Evil" switch on Durkon would not be bad storytelling by shoehorning him into a small box because the box of LE is not small, as Komatik points out.

Komatik

2013-08-12, 10:39 AM

Particularly when the vampires will either be a thrall - which in OotS cannon is a volitionless slave, and has it's master's alignment if any - or a master that has willingly and deliberately enslaved others, and is therefore evil regardless of template.

That said, I read Durkon's merciless killing of Z as Evil, and something former Durkon would never have done. So I think he is currently evil, and the Giant is using the template that way. I just don't think the template thing is a convincing argument by itself.

A mind-controlled character retains his own alignment, he doesn't adopt the controller's one.

The Giant is clearly using the template, so how the would it not be? (Not that it matters, of course, given Planar Ally calling a Devil)

@ BroomGuys
Excellently put. Captured what I was going for to a T.

SavageWombat

2013-08-12, 10:52 AM

... flipping the "Evil" switch on Durkon would not be bad storytelling by shoehorning him into a small box ...

This is true - but neither would it be bad storytelling to suggest that giving someone "Evil" powers does not necessarily alter their worldview.

Most of the "Evil now" arguers seem to support the "he could work to become good" storyline. I personally don't see any problem with an equivalent "he could struggle to stay good despite the instincts of his newfound template."

Certain people want to argue that the RULES force him to be evil. I think the RULES want him to be evil, and act like he's evil, but he hasn't been shown to make that choice. (Yes, he does seem to enjoy killing Z too much.)

I'm willing to wait and see what further episodes say about Durkon. Other posters do not want to afford me that consideration.

Kish

2013-08-12, 10:54 AM

All that d20srd has to say on vampire alignment is this:

i.e. 100%

Not what Always means in D&D.

This appears to be a major sticking point, so I thought this particular bit was worth drawing attention to. Arguments to the effect of "Durkon's character and motivations are too complex to be shoehorned into LE" aren't really arguing on the same plane about this, because it's a disagreement on how alignment works in the first place.
Indeed. It's tantamount to, "Rich would not use the arbitrary and limited alignment system *ptooie!*" Which...is not an argument I would want to be making. Rich has consistently argued that the alignment system is far more functional and more nuanced than people who argue for dismissing it allow.

DeliaP

2013-08-12, 11:15 AM

Dude, nothing "counts" because we're not trying to "prove" anything. You act like the possibility that Rich may be going somewhere more nuanced is somehow a slap in your face.

These two statements are not incompatible:

1) Durkula is almost certainly currently LE, based on overwhelming in-comic evidence;

2) The Giant is going to tell us a very nuanced story about what that all means in terms of alignment, personality, and Durkon's character development.

Why is it that those who are objecting to the idea that Durkon is almost certainly LE, seem to think it necessarily means a bland simplistic mechanical Evil storyline at odds with everything we know of how the Giant tells stories? (yeah, yeah, strawman, strawman :smallsmile:)

Komatik

2013-08-12, 11:40 AM

This is true - but neither would it be bad storytelling to suggest that giving someone "Evil" powers does not necessarily alter their worldview.

Most of the "Evil now" arguers seem to support the "he could work to become good" storyline. I personally don't see any problem with an equivalent "he could struggle to stay good despite the instincts of his newfound template."

Certain people want to argue that the RULES force him to be evil. I think the RULES want him to be evil, and act like he's evil, but he hasn't been shown to make that choice. (Yes, he does seem to enjoy killing Z too much.)

I'm willing to wait and see what further episodes say about Durkon. Other posters do not want to afford me that consideration.

Being given Evil powers doesn't necessarily do that, no. See Vaarsuvius for example. Thing is, these are not Evil powers in general, these are a specific set that come with a new worldview.

The struggle to turn good storyline is just one possibility among many. The second one is another option, but would've had different setup. This is the Giant we're talking about. Again, Point 7 (link works now).

The rules do force him to be Evil. The rules the Giant chose beforehand to use with Vampires. You don't need to make the choice when overwhelming amounts of black magic say otherwise.

It's not about wanting to for the sake of being mean or something. We're just saying there's this one, relatively ambiguous but very meaningful thing about Durkon that's been settled. Nothing else. There's endless amounts of nuance and motivations left to explore and unveil.

It's like objecting to someone being a Paladin because that says in 200-foot tall flaming letters "This character is Lawful Good". We saw many splendid Paladin stories from Rich, and Paladin is a far more constraining frame to work with than "LE Vampire Dwarf Cleric".

@DeliaP
I want to copypaste and QFT that post like a million times or something.

MtlGuy

2013-08-12, 12:28 PM

So, Dukon kills Zzz and he's automatically evil.

Let's see... Halley killed crystal in an ambush while she was coming out of the shower and robbed her afterwards.

Roy decapitated several goblins who had been bored to sleep by V's verbosity attack.

V disintegrated that bad guy in front of elan despite the fact he was no immediate threat.

So, wow, I guess if Durkon is evil for offing Zzz then the whole order, except for Elan, of course, must be evil, and belkar was just the only one honest enough to admit it.

BTW, I kind of wonder if Durkon snapping Zzz's neck was inspired by the end of a certain recent superhero movie where a certain superhero breaks the bad guy's neck at the end to save innocents.

BTW, what was the name of the monster thrall durkon summoned? Someone named it but I can't find it.

Roy's attack on the sleeping goblins wasn't evil, it was premptive self-defense. Those goblins would have attacked the OotS had they been awake.

SavageWombat

2013-08-12, 12:31 PM

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "He's now LE based on rules evidence - end of discussion" and say there's still nuances about how that's going to be played.

You can't say "he's clearly evil because of the way he acted in two panels in one strip" and then deny arguments about how those actions can be interpreted.

If you declare him "obviously Evil" based only on what we've seen so far you are eliminating large chunks of potential nuance and storytelling.

All of the rules evidence you quote is only evidence that being a vampire has altered his magical abilities.

All of the role-playing character evidence you cite is subject to multiple interpretations. Similar to the "Roy killed those sleeping goblins - that's an evil act" argument, you're attempting to damn Durkon by one action. Give him the chance to commit a few more acts of brutality, please.

In the end, alignment is a murky cocktail of temperament, goals, actions, and results. There is no clearly defined formula for which of those counts the most.

Temperament = Probably evil, due to vampirism.
Goals = Possibly same as before, i.e. good. Possibly evil, due to vampirism. We don't know, aside from his remaining on the team.
Actions = Possibly evil, if the prevailing interpretation of the neck snap is correct. Subject to debate.
Results = No information. So far he's done nothing but help his group.

If future strips show that Durkon's Goals, Actions and Results remain largely as before - Lawful Good - and only his temperament is changed - why should he be categorized as Lawful Evil? His alignment is a murky cocktail of opposing forces at that point.

Until we see something that indicates Durkon's changed mind-set, I will assume that the Giant is being deliberately evasive on the subject.

Tris

2013-08-12, 12:46 PM

All of the rules evidence you quote is only evidence that being a vampire has altered his magical abilities.

The thing is, those magical abilities can only be used by evil people.

SavageWombat

2013-08-12, 12:50 PM

The thing is, those magical abilities can only be used by evil people.

Plenty of neutral clerics channel negative energy. Been discussed.

Math_Mage

2013-08-12, 12:55 PM

Yes, but if we're talking about an equivalence relation here, where A implies B and B implies A, then absence of one implies absence of other.
Well, the thing is, alignment isn't that neat and logical. Alignment is messy. A implies B a lot of the time and vice versa, but it's not consistent, and D&D's own inconsistency reflects that. Free will is similarly messy. This discussion arose from your contention that anyone whose nature forces them into the Always Evil box doesn't have agency because their moral choices are circumscribed by nature, and therefore they should be no more Evil than animals; but we are often circumscribed in our own moral choices by our inherent limits, and that does not make us incapable of moral agency.

Komatik

2013-08-12, 12:55 PM

@Wombat
Did you even read the thread. No, seriously. Did you. Because it doesn't feel like you did. At all.

The case with Durkon is about as simple as:

Sir Ruric is a Paladin. Done.

Sir Ruric is a Paladin tells us a hell of a lot about Sir Ruric. Many things. Many things very definitively. But it also leaves a hell of a lot unsaid, things that aren't captured by saying "Sir Ruric is a Paladin". We don't know he treats the stableboys a lot better than his colleague McScumbag. McScumbag has a drink every now and then, and shows understanding towards the drunkards at the tavern. Sir Ruric, unfortunately, was caught by the teetotaler bug and won't cease his (albeit well-intentioned) nagging to the infinite annoyance and irritation of the patrons of the Laughing Horse tavern near the barracks.

Saying Sir Ruric and McScumbag are Paladins doesn't tell us any of this.
Yet we can definitely say Sir Ruric is a Paladin, even if that isn't the whole story. We can say it with absolute, unwavering confidence. We can also say Sir Ruric is Lawful Good with absolute confidence because of how the fantasy world our story is set in works. That single sentence is at the same time wonderfully descriptive, and at the same time woefully incomplete.

That is literally it.