Which afterlife will Durkon get [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

FujinAkari

2013-09-03, 06:41 PM

If I remember the canon 3.5 D&D cosmology on undead, which I may not, Durkon is already in the LG afterlife right now. Although Vampire Durkon is Durkon a continuity of form sense, his spirit is no longer there. What Vampire Durkon does, and what his alignment is, does not affect what living Durkon's spiritual disposition will be.

I'm not sure what is ever stated in the rules, but in OOTS becoming a Vampire definately keeps your soul out of the afterlife. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html)

As to the original question, however, I would argue it would depend on what Durkon does. Durkon isn't mind controlled, if he revels in his new evil and decided to start murdering for no reason than because he can (a la Malack) then he is likely destined for the Nine Hells. However, if he restrains himself and only kills when it is necessary (like when he's hungry) then I imagine he won't be penalized for a forced alignment change.

It is up to the autho- err, Deva.

malloyd

2013-09-03, 07:26 PM

I'm not sure what is ever stated in the rules, but in OOTS becoming a Vampire definately keeps your soul out of the afterlife. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html)

Is it? Xykon knows from personal experience that something that has his memories is still in the world. He really has no way of knowing whether the soul connected to those memories and his phylactary is his original one or not. Well OK, I suppose in principle there is some combination of Plane Shift and location spells that might allow him to find his original soul if it had been sent to the Abyss, but I doubt he's tried to prove himself wrong.

In a science fiction setting this is the problem of continuity - is a perfect copy of you really you, or does the real you die when you go through the teleporter, upload your mind to a computer or a younger clone etc.?

snoopy13a

2013-09-03, 07:39 PM

I'm not sure what is ever stated in the rules, but in OOTS becoming a Vampire definately keeps your soul out of the afterlife. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html)

What Xykon says or believes isn't necessarily the truth.

FujinAkari

2013-09-03, 08:01 PM

What Xykon says or believes isn't necessarily the truth.

True, but he is certainly the leading expert on undead and its affects on the afterlife.

While it is possible that he is wrong, until there is something in the comic which contradicts him, then his testimony represents the facts of this case, and stands uncontested.

Tebryn

2013-09-03, 08:13 PM

True, but he is certainly the leading expert on undead and its affects on the afterlife.

Is he? How do we get to that point? Because he's undead and...? He doesn't have Knowledge: Religion or anything that could -give- him that information. He didn't know about becoming a Lich, that was Redcloak. He's not even really cast as a person to care about the finer points of the afterlife or any of that stuff. We don't have any reason to disbelieve him but there is certainly little evidence to show that he's a "leading expert" in anything.

FujinAkari

2013-09-03, 08:32 PM

Is he? How do we get to that point?

Because he is a source of the highest level of canon. -Any- direct reference from the comic is automatically an expert, unless it is contested by another source.

That is simply the way canon works :)

DaveMcW

2013-09-03, 08:36 PM

Xykon missed the obvious way to avoid the Big Fire Below - be good aligned. :smallwink:

Edric O

2013-09-03, 08:53 PM

Well it's quite clear that intelligent undead (e.g. Xykon, Vamp-Durkon) believe they are the same person they were before becoming undead. And why wouldn't they? After all, they have all the memories of their living selves.

But they could in fact be slightly-modified evil copies of their living selves, with the souls of the originals either being in the afterlife or trapped inside the undead bodies (as if by a Soul Bind spell).

Edit: And the possibility that the original Xykon is currently either being tortured in the Abyss or banging against the walls of his soul-prison and cursing Redcloak for binding him there is absolutely delightful. :)

Anarion

2013-09-03, 10:31 PM

The issue does seem to be one of drastic change vs. less drastic change. Xykon was an evil sorcerer, and then he became an evil lich sorcerer very directly. He retained all his memories and knowledge, with minimal personality change (although becoming undead made him enjoy things in life less and enjoy the suffering of others more).

Durkon, on the other hand, has probably suffered a drastic change on his outlook. He too apparently retains all of his memories and knowledge, but now views causing harm to other sentient beings differently than he previously did. On top of that, Durkon did not choose his transformation, whereas Xykon did, thus making Xykon more responsible for his post-transformation actions than Durkon.

Given the weirdness that would be two versions of Durkon existing at the same time (and reachable via spells that contact another plane), I don't think there's a unique and separate Durkon soul running around enjoying the dwarven afterlife with Thor. But neither do I think the vampire counts as Durkon. It's a different creature, whose actions should not reflect on Durkon's soul whenever it does get around to being judged. Even if the soul is in there right now.

sr123

2013-09-03, 11:04 PM

Redcloak seems to believe that any true soul is gone in undeath (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html). They are no longer a real person in any sense, just an approximation of varying accuracy.

Xykon wouldn't agree, as discussed, and sees his lich soul as the same as his human one.

Malack's idea that resurrection would bring back only his pre-vampire self (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html), in situ from the day he was vamped, seems to support the notion that intelligent undead have a duplicated soul.

Three theories in this thread with three different lines of support in the comic. Perhaps Rich is asking this question this very question in-comic?

Forikroder

2013-09-03, 11:50 PM

Maybe there is a simple answer to this. I just find it confusing that a being that has been lawful good his entire life suddenly turns lawful evil upon becoming undead.

Now what happens if Durkon is destroyed in his current form. Which afterlife would he go to? I would normally say the LG one, as he was technically dead as a vampire. But then take Malack as an example. He lived a considerable time as undead. Does he get to choose upon being destroyed and the soul finally enters the afterlife?

hes a dwarf, there is onyl one thing to judge: did he die honourably in battle

since its almost impossible for a vampire to die by accident hes almost guranteed to ahve died twice honourably in battle so hes pretty much got a reserved seat in Valhalla

veti

2013-09-04, 12:19 AM

hes a dwarf, there is onyl one thing to judge: did he die honourably in battle

since its almost impossible for a vampire to die by accident hes almost guranteed to ahve died twice honourably in battle so hes pretty much got a reserved seat in Valhalla

Sadly, that's incorrect. Dwarfs that die "with honour" don't go automatically to Hel, but they do go to the plane of their alignment - not automatically to Valhalla. Source: Durkon himself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html).

factotum

2013-09-04, 02:49 AM

Malack's idea that resurrection would bring back only his pre-vampire self (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html), in situ from the day he was vamped, seems to support the notion that intelligent undead have a duplicated soul.

I don't think it *does* support that. All it supports is that the memories gained by a soul are not necessarily remembered by the body that soul is attached to, and we know for a fact that this can happen--Roy doesn't remember anything much of what happened to him post-mortem apart from the stuff he saw while wandering around as a ghost.

Silverionmox

2013-09-04, 06:00 AM

Malack's idea that resurrection would bring back only his pre-vampire self (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html), in situ from the day he was vamped, seems to support the notion that intelligent undead have a duplicated soul.
I don't think he meant it literally. I think he says that becoming a vampire is part of his personal development, and undoing that is the same as undoing his personality, i.e. killing him.

D&D has two absolutely contradictory notions on alignment: what people do determines their alignment, and alignment is an objective quality that determines their actions. It can't work both ways.

I totally agree that the Giant deliberately worked different visions on undead in the narrative.

Kish

2013-09-04, 06:05 AM

Because he is a source of the highest level of canon. -Any- direct reference from the comic is automatically an expert, unless it is contested by another source.

That is simply the way canon works :)
No, it really isn't. It is "canon" that Xykon said it.

It is not "canon" that Xykon necessarily knows what he's talking about. There may be reasons to believe he does; there may be reasons to believe he doesn't. But, "A character said it, therefore it's official" is an excellent way to get confused by all but the very simplest and most one-dimensional of fiction*.

*I know someone who was massively, massively thrown--to the point of feeling betrayed--by the revelation that the character who was the villain of a novel...was the villain of the novel. It had been made extremely obvious, in many ways, before the actual revelation in the novel. But those ways didn't include him saying, "Hi, I'm evil," and obviously the character in question had told a lot of lies about what he was doing and why, and so the person I know had treated his word as trumping the evidence that he was lying. I don't know where you get the idea that that's "simply the way canon works," but no, it isn't.

Xelbiuj

2013-09-04, 07:10 AM

I think this just highlights the ridiculousness of the idea of souls but that's a whole other discussion.

I'm going to go with Vamping creates a new entity and traps the current soul.
Durkula is a sentience being with access to Durkon's memories because they're stored in the brain but he isn't Durkon and it doesn't have a soul.

Souhiro

2013-09-04, 08:12 AM

As far I know, Durkula isn't 100% Durkon. Just as Malak said: Before being a vampire, he was only a Shaman in a tribe, Killing the vampire and resurrecting the shaman would be to bring a diferent guy. I think Durkon is imprisoned inside Durkula, watching everything Durkula does. Sometimes influencing the Vampire, and sometimes failing at all. Eventually in the future Durkula will be destroyed, only then Durkon soul will be released and able to get into the afterlife; and then it would be judged with his deeds in life, and if he enjoyed Durkula's actions.

Personally, I think that UNDEAD DON'T HAVE A SOUL. They are a kind of construct (Sometimes is physical, like a Skeleton a zombie or a Vampire, sometimes is 100% spiritual like a ghost) that held captive a soul, and use it in a way or another (Skeletons and Zombies only uses for basic commands and motor functions. Sentient undead uses their souls at almost full potential)

Keep in mind: For someone to turn evil, he has to EMBRACE evil. Durkon never did, he just was bitten, and then, Poof! Pale skin, Fangs, and Instant evil. So I keep Durkon and Durkula as diferent entities.

Also, Malak had a LOT of Knowledge Religion, Knowledge Arcana (To create new spells) and I presume some Knowledge (Planes) So I would give him a little credit when it comes about souls, undead and afterlifes...

Torrasque

2013-09-04, 08:16 AM

That is simply the way canon works :)

As Kish points out, it really is not the way canon works. What Xykon says is canon for Xykon, not for a speculatory discussion about unrevealed aspects of the fictional world.

Souhiro

2013-09-04, 09:26 AM

As Kish points out, it really is not the way canon works. What Xykon says is canon for Xykon, not for a speculatory discussion about unrevealed aspects of the fictional world.

Well, Xykon isn't the sharper knife in the drawer, but he has an entire lifetime worth of experience with death and undead. And he's a necromancer: A scholar of death. But in the other hand, he has at least 20 ranks in Knowledge Arcana, but he don't need to have any ranks in Knowledge Religion or Knowledge Planes, which would give you more lore about Souls, and Planes of Destination.

But there are two topics that we can have for sure:
- When somebody is raised as an undead, he cannot be resurrected until the undead is destroyed first (Even if True Resurrection is used!)
- Most of Undeads are always EVIL.
- Malak WAS a Cleric, he had vast knowledge (Religion) and said that Resurrecting the Lizardfolk would erase Vampire!Malak conciensce from exist.

The first one almost comfirms us that Durkon's soul is inside Durkula and not in Valhalla or Mount Celestia. Tainted with evil or not, but he's imprisoned in Durkula.
The second and the third makes me think about the "Souless prison for a soul".
I can figure Durkon looking through Durkula's eyes. And since Durkula is an empty Shell, full of evil, but nothing more, he takes Durkon's identity; acts like he would do... but with his new code of conduct (Durkon would see abominable to feast upon a peasant, Durkula, in the other hand, if he's hungry...)
So, an Evil creature, when turned into an undead, wouldn't notice that he's now only an spectator of his own life, since "That's exactly how I think, that's exactly what would I do, therefore, this vampire is me" But a good creature would look in terror how the undead does evil deeds.

== == ==
Feel free to correct my afwul gramar and rub it on my face. It's the only way to learn :p

AKA_Bait

2013-09-04, 09:48 AM

And he's a necromancer: A scholar of death.

I don't really think the Xykon is a scholar of anything. He's a sorcerer, he has a talent for magic, including necromancy.

snikrept

2013-09-04, 10:29 AM

I'm guessing Durkon is already getting the lawful good afterlife while a thing of dark energy assembled into the shape of a man hijacks his memories.

Souhiro

2013-09-04, 10:39 AM

I'm guessing Durkon is already getting the lawful good afterlife while a thing of dark energy assembled into the shape of a man hijacks his memories.

Sadly, I fear it's not the case: Undead aren't called "Restless souls" for anything!

For clarifing the "Undead State" Keep in mind that even the ones who undertake a Vow of Peace, which forbids you to attack anybody, are still allowed to unleash their fury upon the undeads: It's because you aren't killing a living being, but a puppet, and in the process you're releasing the imprisoned soul, which can only look, but don't act, while his body does horrible things.

Think about the Old World of Darkness and some Sabbat creation rites: They embrace you, giving only a mere drop of blood. When you awaken, you sucumb to frenzy and fed upon your loved ones: your wife, your childs, your parents, even your cat! There's only hunger, and then blood. Then you recover your senses and see what have you done.
D&D Undeads are like this, but without the "Recover your senses", but you KNOW what are your body doing.

Enough High Octane Nightmare Fuel for you?

blazingshadow

2013-09-04, 12:37 PM

IMO durkon is going to the big fire below just like anyone that has been turned into an undead. necromancy and being undead to me means that your soul is corrupted and tainted with evil and you now have a bias towards punching rabbits and stuff. that is why necromancy is evil, it robs you and any of your victims from going to a good afterlife

LadyEowyn

2013-09-04, 01:03 PM

Rich has said that the point of the vampire arc is to give Durkon greater character development, which doesn't work if "Durkon" is dead and in heaven and the vampire's just walking around with his body. The vampire also has Durkon's accent, mannerisms, and retains the same friends and enemies as the old Durkon. However, the grin on his face when he kills Zz'dtri shows that he's not just like the old Durkon.

So based on what we've seen of Durkula in the comic, it looks like he is Durkon, but with evil influencing his actions - sort of like if the soul splices had genuinely been able to influence V rather than just being "cheerleaders".

Rich has repeatedly stated his opposition to the idea that your creature type can automatically determine your alignment, and there's precedent in D&D for even demons not having to be Evil (people have mentioned the case of a Lawful Good succubus paladin). Durkon's going to have strong inclinations towards Evil, but what his alignment actually becomes - and hence which afterlife he goes to - will depend on his actions.

If he died right now, I'd expect him to go to the Lawful Good afterlife, since the only non-Good thing he's done since being vamped is kill Zz'dtri and enjoy it, and that's weighed against a lifetime of being Lawful Good and the mitigating factor of having been made a vampire.

SoC175

2013-09-04, 02:37 PM

The standard assumption is that high level intelligent undead keep their souls. They are just twisted by becoming undead. E.g. someone who puts on a helm of opposite alignment doesn't lose his soul in the process.

Malak's statement shouldn't be taken literally. It's more like a professional athlete not wanting to live if his legs have to be taken off after an accident, since he believes he would never be the same.

FujinAkari

2013-09-04, 02:45 PM

No, it really isn't. It is "canon" that Xykon said it.

It is not "canon" that Xykon necessarily knows what he's talking about. There may be reasons to believe he does; there may be reasons to believe he doesn't. But, "A character said it, therefore it's official" is an excellent way to get confused by all but the very simplest and most one-dimensional of fiction*.

Except, that isn't what I said. AT ALL.

What I said was "It is a canonical statement which, unless contested, is the only canonical statement we have on the matter."

To date, the only other canonical statement we have regarding undeath and souls is Malack's statement that resurrecting him would undo all of the personality "growth" he has experienced in the last 200 years, which doesn't really address the question of where that soul actually resides.

*I know someone who was massively, massively thrown--to the point of feeling betrayed--by the revelation that the character who was the villain of a novel...was the villain of the novel. It had been made extremely obvious, in many ways, before the actual revelation in the novel.

Well then it sounds like there is a lot of canonical evidence that said villain is a villain and may not be honest. Is there any evidence that Xykon is lying here and that his soul was actually a fair target for soul splicing? I can't think of any and, thus far, no one has provided any.

veti

2013-09-04, 02:59 PM

What I said was "It is a canonical statement which, unless contested, is the only canonical statement we have on the matter."

OK, for the sake of argument let's go with your definition of 'canonical'. It's not quite what most people understand by it, but let's accept it for now.

This being the case: do you believe the existence of that canonical statement is, in itself, sufficient reason for believing what it says to be correct?

If so, I guess you're also happy to assume that Belkar really is a sexy shoeless god of war. After all, no-one's said otherwise.

FujinAkari

2013-09-04, 03:11 PM

If so, I guess you're also happy to assume that Belkar really is a sexy shoeless god of war. After all, no-one's said otherwise.

No, because we have repeated statements that Belkar is, in fact, a halfling. We have a prophesy that he is going to die, and we have the established gods of the setting already laid out and none of them include Belkar.

There is sufficient reason, within the text of the comic, to presume that statement is an exaggeration. There is nothing, within the text of the comic, to presume that Xykon is lying about where his soul ended up.

I really don't understand why people keep trying to twist my statements into "It was said once, therefore it is true!" What I am repeatedly saying is that statements from the comic can only be contested by other evidence from the comic. If no contestation exists then we must assume the statement is true.

veti

2013-09-04, 03:29 PM

No, because we have repeated statements that Belkar is, in fact, a halfling. We have a prophesy that he is going to die, and we have the established gods of the setting already laid out and none of them include Belkar.

Do we have anything that purports to be an exhaustive list of all gods? No. And even if we did, we know that new gods can come into being (Dark One, Banjo).

Do we have any statement or implication to the effect that halflings can't be gods, or vice versa? Not that I've seen.

Is there any reason to believe that dying is incompatible with godhood? To the contrary.

Therefore, this is no evidence at all. Just prejudice. Whereas what Belkar says - about his own nature, mind you, a matter on which he is the only plausible authority - is, by your definition, evidence.

Anarion

2013-09-04, 04:21 PM

I really don't understand why people keep trying to twist my statements into "It was said once, therefore it is true!" What I am repeatedly saying is that statements from the comic can only be contested by other evidence from the comic. If no contestation exists then we must assume the statement is true.

I don't agree with this. Statements from the comic can be contested with all sorts of things: logic, for example. Also the D&D rules where the comic hasn't contradicted them.

In this case, we have a statement from Xykon about his opinion that becoming a vampire avoids the great fire below.

However, we also have the fact that it feels unfair for an automatic alignment change to alter someone's soul, especially one which is the result of being killed and which the character has no control over.

Given these two things and the fact that nothing about Xykon's statement defines it as authoritative, it makes sense to interpret it differently, such as by suggesting that the soul is trapped in the body but not in control, or that becoming a vampire creates a different being with the memories of the previous being and Xykon simply doesn't differentiate.

Also we do have contradicting canon, anyway.

:redcloak: The undead are tools. Powerful dangerous tools. From the lowliest zombie to Xykon himself, the undead are just complex weapons that we make and aim at each other." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html)

Redcloak's explanation has strong implications that the undead have no souls because he refers to them as tools and weapons, that is he likens them to things rather than people.

karkus

2013-09-04, 04:33 PM

Which afterlife will Durkon get?

Probably the LG one with Thor, etc. (Durkon can't be destroyed as a vampire).

I mean, are you guys even aware of how difficult it is to finally destroy a vampire? Nale got lucky.

Redcloak's explanation has strong implications that the undead have no souls because he refers to them as tools and weapons, that is he likens them to things rather than people.

Enchanters will oftenly refer to living beings as "simple tools to be controlled."

It's just a coincidence that his class's main feature is the ability to command the unliving, right? :smallamused:

Kish

2013-09-04, 05:20 PM

Except, that isn't what I said. AT ALL.

What I said was "It is a canonical statement which, unless contested, is the only canonical statement we have on the matter."

Which grants any random idiot's in-comic statements an authority they do not have. No...anything any comic character says does not need to be explicitly refuted to be rejected.

Is there any evidence that Xykon is lying here and that his soul was actually a fair target for soul splicing? I can't think of any and, thus far, no one has provided any.
You're not following. I'm saying your premise is invalid. Not that your premise doesn't lead to what you're claiming.

I do not believe that any sapient undead creature's soul is anywhere but in that undead creature's body. I do not believe Durkon or Xykon are actually in the afterlife already. But "Xykon said so" isn't on my list of reasons. "It would be a worse story, in both Xykon's case and Durkon's" is. "The difference in the personality of Xykon and the difference in the personality of Durkon are both extremely slight, at least so far" is. "I don't think the end of the Blood Oath plot thread is going to be, 'Psyche! The sorcerer Xykon died long ago! None of your efforts combatting his empty shell even related to the Blood Oath!'" is. That the conclusion I arrive at based on those things agrees with the subjective claim made by the character "Xykon" and disagrees with the subjective claim made by the character "Redcloak" is neither here nor there; those claims are very interesting for what they say about the speakers, not because the fact that a character said them grants them some imagined authority.

FujinAkari

2013-09-04, 11:16 PM

Therefore, this is no evidence at all. Just prejudice. Whereas what Belkar says - about his own nature, mind you, a matter on which he is the only plausible authority - is, by your definition, evidence.

It is. Evidence which is extremely simple to refute, but evidence nonetheless.

Which grants any random idiot's in-comic statements an authority they do not have. No...anything any comic character says does not need to be explicitly refuted to be rejected.

If Rich is going to take the time to have one of his characters make a statement of fact regarding the world in which they live, then yes, there does need to be -some- reason to presume that statement is wrong.

I am not asking for explicit refutation (similar to how I do not require someone to explicitly say that Belkar is not the Sexy Shoeless God of War, above) but I do require -something.-

Cavenskull

2013-09-05, 02:14 AM

Kish

2013-09-05, 05:41 AM

I am not asking for explicit refutation (similar to how I do not require someone to explicitly say that Belkar is not the Sexy Shoeless God of War, above) but I do require -something.-
Yes, I know you require it. Which is why you keep going around with people like this.

Souhiro

2013-09-05, 05:46 AM

Isn't it possible that perhaps Durkon has reason to be somewhat disillusioned with the Lawful Good alignment? As a cleric, Durkon put his faith completely in his deity, and Thor hasn't exactly done a sterling job in looking after Durkon. Durkon was as devoted a follower as they come, and Thor did nothing while Durkon was denied even the dignity of an honorable death. Instead, Thor allowed Durkon to become the same sort of undead abomination that he spent his life fighting against. So if Durkon isn't quite as pious as he used to be, maybe it's because he felt betrayed by the god he faithfully and diligently devoted his life to.

Well, This IS speculation, just like "Belkar will become a god" or my theory of "Undead are prisons for souls, sentience is just listening to the soul" The only comfirmed and canon is that Durkula don't pray Thor for spells.

Will he reconcile with his old faith? Will he become a follower of Nergal? Or maybe Banjhuchu? Only time and The Giant will tell (And i rather prefer to see Durkon/Durkula having a good talk with Roy about how does he feel, than just a post in the forum: THAT IS THE POINT OF A COMIC!)

The comic is known for subverting things. In my tabletop world, the "Undead are a prison for soul" is true, but here, things can be diferent. We don't even know if Durkula wants to revert to Old Durkon!

Silverionmox

2013-09-05, 05:49 AM

If Rich is going to take the time to have one of his characters make a statement of fact regarding the world in which they live, then yes, there does need to be -some- reason to presume that statement is wrong.

I am not asking for explicit refutation (similar to how I do not require someone to explicitly say that Belkar is not the Sexy Shoeless God of War, above) but I do require -something.-

If Redcloak says something about the undead, that is accurate insofar we're trying to get a handle on Redcloak's opinion on the undead. Just like various characters use male or female pronouns for V doesn't say anything about V's gender, just about what other people think V's gender is.

Cavenskull

2013-09-06, 01:09 AM

Well, This IS speculation, just like "Belkar will become a god" or my theory of "Undead are prisons for souls, sentience is just listening to the soul" The only comfirmed and canon is that Durkula don't pray Thor for spells.

Will he reconcile with his old faith? Will he become a follower of Nergal? Or maybe Banjhuchu? Only time and The Giant will tell (And i rather prefer to see Durkon/Durkula having a good talk with Roy about how does he feel, than just a post in the forum: THAT IS THE POINT OF A COMIC!)

The comic is known for subverting things. In my tabletop world, the "Undead are a prison for soul" is true, but here, things can be diferent. We don't even know if Durkula wants to revert to Old Durkon!
Yes, it's speculation. But in every thread I've seen, people seem to assume that if Durkon is evil, it must be an automatic mechanical effect of being turned into a vampire, rather than because of Durkon re-evaluating his beliefs. I'd rather any discussion about the possibility of Durkon being evil be based on something more substantial than "Durkon's evil because D&D says vampires are evil".

Amphiox

2013-09-06, 01:09 AM

FujinAkari

2013-09-06, 01:58 AM

Just like various characters use male or female pronouns for V doesn't say anything about V's gender, just about what other people think V's gender is.

Interesting example.

Tell me, if every single person in the strip referred to V using male pronouns, would there be a gender debate? No, the -reason- that any single person's choice of pronoun is irrelevant is because it is inconsistent, and therefore only betrays a single person's outlook.

To put it another way, if Tsukiko had said that the souls of the dead journeyed to the afterlife, but Xykon had said they didn't, then we would be at a matter of opinion.

The problem occurs when the strip does not offer differences, when it only offers one opinion on a given subject. How can we reasonably say that character is incorrect when there is no other explanation to be found?

Kish

2013-09-06, 07:17 AM

The problem occurs when the strip does not offer differences, when it only offers one opinion on a given subject. How can we reasonably say that character is incorrect when there is no other explanation to be found?
By not incorrectly weighting a character's statement of opinion as "something that is authoritative unless refuted." (Although, of course, it would be more logical to say, "That's that character's belief, goody for her/him, I'm still waiting for actual evidence" than "That character is incorrect," unless there is evidence the character is incorrect.)

(Also, ya know? If everyone in the comic who expressed an opinion said a given character who appeared androgynously was male, and that character turned out to be female, that wouldn't mean Rich had contradicted himself, or that the character went from officially male to officially female at some point, or that anyone on the comic forum who said "that character is male" was ever anything but wrong. That would mean that all the characters who said that were wrong, and people who chose to believe them--in the real world and in the comic--were thereby choosing to be wrong along with them. And the one person on the forum who said, "Wait, how do they know [that character] is male? Maybe she's female" would be the only one who was right. Or--at the risk of being like Sir Leorik--in Vampire of the Mists, when Sasha says of his fiancee "She's never hurt a soul," and it turns out that she's a bloodthirsty werewolf with a Xykonish attitude toward hurting and killing people, that doesn't mean anything more than "Sasha expressed a belief which was incorrect, and the reader could choose to remain skeptical or to join him in incorrectness." Or--a more directly applicable example still, with spoilers for Harry Potter--when, at the end of Book 6, Harry tells everyone else that Dumbledore mistakenly trusted Snape because Snape claimed to be very sorry that James and Lily were dead, even though he actually despised both Harry's parents, there was a debate on the Harry Potter newsgroup. One side took the position--a little more nuanced than "A character said it and no one contradicted it"--that Harry had taken over Dumbledore's novel-concluding exposition role now that Dumbledore was dead, and thus what he said in the summing-up scene should be taken as a direct message from the author. Their position may or may not have been bolstered by the fact that, early in the book, Snape had explained to two of Voldemort's followers how he had always remained loyal to Voldemort. The other side took the position that Harry sincerely believed everything he had said, which was not the same thing as there being evidence that it was true.

Guess which side turned out to be right and which side turned out to be wrong when Book 7 came out.)

Scow2

2013-09-06, 07:27 AM

It doesn't matter to Durkon. He died valiantly in Battle: He goes to Thor. It doesn't matter what happens afterward. Or, at least he will when he's finally interred with his family. Nothing else matters.

Roy went to the generic LG Afterlife because he's nontheistic. I figure those that follow faiths can get bumped/shuffled between the Alignment afterlives so they end up in the right place (Such as an LN cleric of an LG god still going to Celestia, or the NG cleric of a CG god going to Ysgard or Olympus)

Also - Not all undead are the same when it comes to souls. Xykon may understand that a Liche keeps his own soul upon undeath - but that's a trait unique to a liche because not giving up their soul so they become immortal is what they're all about.

Crod

2013-09-06, 09:22 AM

If what Malack says on the topic is correct then it does seem like the soul is somehow trapped yet not quite affected. Why else would he claim that raising him world bring back someone else.

Crod

2013-09-06, 09:25 AM

Can Durkula still pray to Thor for spells or would he have to choose another deity now that he's evil?

hamishspence

2013-09-06, 09:32 AM

Roy went to the generic LG Afterlife because he's nontheistic. I figure those that follow faiths can get bumped/shuffled between the Alignment afterlives so they end up in the right place (Such as an LN cleric of an LG god still going to Celestia, or the NG cleric of a CG god going to Ysgard or Olympus)

Also - Not all undead are the same when it comes to souls. Xykon may understand that a Liche keeps his own soul upon undeath - but that's a trait unique to a liche because not giving up their soul so they become immortal is what they're all about.
Complete Divine does support the notion that strongly devoted characters go to the home plane of their deity.

As to whether undead besides liches keep their soul- depends which undead, and which book you consult.

Silverionmox

2013-09-06, 10:38 AM

If what Malack says on the topic is correct then it does seem like the soul is somehow trapped yet not quite affected. Why else would he claim that raising him world bring back someone else.
What Malack said should be interpreted, IMO, as a way to express that he had been a vampire for so long that unvampirizing him would destroy one of the cornerstones of his personality, effectively making him a different person.

Cifer

2013-09-06, 12:29 PM

What Malack said should be interpreted, IMO, as a way to express that he had been a vampire for so long that unvampirizing him would destroy one of the cornerstones of his personality, effectively making him a different person.I vehemently disagree. If that was all there was to it, he could just politely thank his resurrectionist, grind a few more levels and then have Tarquin and friends go look for the next dark and foreboding castle to have the resident re-vamp him.

Nope, I think it's relatively clear that he was being quite literal: If you cast (True) Ressurection on the remains of a dusted Malack, what you get back is the lizardfolk shaman of 200 years ago.

Thus, since this shaman still spiritually exists (though as a shelved backup until Malack croaked), I'd say it's him that goes to any afterlife as well, with the alignment of the actions that result from the deeds of his life. The same would happen to Durkon. It's irrelevant that Durkula enjoys killing a little more than what can be considered healthy - Durkula's actions do not weigh on Durkon's soul since Durkon had no intention to get vamped. Xykon, on the other hand side, willingly became undead and unleashing an automatically evil monstrosity like a lich on the world is probably an evil act sufficient for most creatures to turn their alignment south on its own.

Kish

2013-09-06, 12:52 PM

Nope, I think it's relatively clear that he was being quite literal:
I agree with Silverionmox.

Even if there are common-knowledge castles with vampires who gladly turn any evil adventurer who knocks on the door and asks them to--a premise which I find pretty goofy on its own--Malack would then be a fledgling vampire and that vampire's thrall.

Scow2

2013-09-06, 01:07 PM

Where you go in the Afterlife is determined by your behavior in Life, not your behavior in death. Durkon was not Lawful Evil in life, and he cannot die anymore, merely be 'destroyed' because he's already dead. And, being Lawful, he can point out to the Deva that anything he does as Count Durkula was NOT done in life.

Psyren

2013-09-06, 01:13 PM

While there are subject-matter authorities on various topics in the comic - The IFCC are an authority on a number of subjects for instance - I don't think Xykon is necessarily one such for undead simply by virtue of being one. Certainly he didn't worry about becoming a brain in a jar etc. until after he became undead; In SoD. he knew he was getting old and he simply signed on with Redcloak to leave a legacy behind.

factotum

2013-09-07, 01:43 AM

Where you go in the Afterlife is determined by your behavior in Life, not your behavior in death.

Eugene had better hope that's correct, given how he's been behaving post-mortem... :smallsmile:

Anarion

2013-09-07, 02:08 AM

Eugene had better hope that's correct, given how he's been behaving post-mortem... :smallsmile:

Actually, he's probably a special circumstance, since his soul was kept out of heaven due to the blood oath and then he got summoned to the mortal world as a spirit.

I think if a soul is still active in the world and influencing events and people, it could easily change its afterlife by its actions.

Amphiox

2013-09-07, 09:30 AM

Eugene had better hope that's correct, given how he's been behaving post-mortem... :smallsmile:

I think that this has actually already been settled. Roy made some snark about Eugene "going to hell" in the deva's presence, and the deva said something along the lines of "at this point that's not a realistic projection anymore" which suggests Eugene's destination is already fixed.

Though I suppose it does not explicitly exclude him being dumped into the Neutral Good afterlife.

TheWolfe

2013-09-07, 03:20 PM

I'd say that there are three possible scenarios for how Durkon's soul is handled and judged.

1) Durkon's soul went directly to heaven/Valhalla/wherever good guys go in DnD when he died fighting Malack. If Durkon's soul is judged then, I can't imagine that he wouldn't be allowed into heaven. He's the epitome of Lawful Good: pious, dutiful, helpful, always doing the right thing. 'Durkula' is irrelevant to his soul. Durkula is just a shell/tool/copy of Durkon.

2) Durkon's soul is still in the vampire body and is in full control. However, he is under the influence of the evil energy that animates him, and that clouds his judgement. He is more inclined to use violence and is more egocentric. These effects become worse the longer he has gone without drinking blood, until he can't control it anymore, like when a man is so thirsty he would do literally anything for water. I would compare this to injecting a man with testosterone. He would become more aggressive, lustful, and would do things he would never have dreamt of doing, such as raping, killing etc. Durkula's actions contribute to his final judgement, which could potentially send him to an evil afterlife.

3) Sort if the same as 2, but while Durkon's soul won't be released until the destruction of Durkula, Durkula's actions will not impact his judgement, because Durkon is not responsible for being vamped and the subsequent influx of evil energy, just like I wouldn't be responsible for something I did if someone spiked my drink with tons of testosterone or some sort of mind control.

I sort of think it will be number 3, though I'm not sure. I don't know the nature of vampires, but becoming evil immediately after vampirization seems unjust. Imagine if Durkula had been destroyed a minute after he had risen and was then sent to an evil afterlife forever because he was a vampire at the time of death.

Only time will tell, though. Remember that in in-comic time only a few minutes have passed since Durkon was releases from thralldom, so I doubt he would even know how to feel about this.

Katuko

2013-09-07, 06:40 PM

Yes, it's speculation. But in every thread I've seen, people seem to assume that if Durkon is evil, it must be an automatic mechanical effect of being turned into a vampire, rather than because of Durkon re-evaluating his beliefs. I'd rather any discussion about the possibility of Durkon being evil be based on something more substantial than "Durkon's evil because D&D says vampires are evil".

Vampirization involves a violent death and being pumped full of negative energy/undead fuel/necromancy. It screws with your brain. As we see in real life, taking a knife to someone's brain is not healthy, and brain damage can lead to severe personality changes. There goes talk in my local community about one violent drunkard, who used to be a very pleasant guy before he got a nasty bump on the head in some accident.

I view him to be the same person - same soul, if you will - but with a change in brain. Likewise, I have no trouble with describing the current vamp!Durkon as Durkon with a brain change. That's the dangerous thing about realistic illusions, vampirization, etc. They may forcibly change the target's perception, but they do it in a way that makes the target think it's the way they want it.

I imagine it is like getting a shot as a kid. I may scream and trash and cry beforehand, but then the minor pain comes, and then it's over and I've gotten my shot. I'll think "hey, that wasn't so bad", and if someone who didn't get the shot falls ill, I will think "why did I ever protest against getting a shot?"

Or in a different light: I could huff some gas or drink a bit, then go laughing at everything even if it's not usually funny. Only after the intoxicating effects wear off will I start wondering what the hell I was laughing at. Evil has been described as a drug by some fantasy writers. Watch Peter Parker and the alien symbiote. Once it gets in his system, it works to enhance all his negative traits, and he doesn't realize it until it's almost too late because it just feels so right to him while he wears it.

Right now, Durkon might be going through the same deal, having forcibly received a good dose of evil. His brain has been forced into seeing vampirization as a good thing, or at least not as a bad of a thing as it could be. Evil comes in many forms, after all. His new evil might just manifest as hate towards Malack and the Linear Guild for making him into a vampire in the first place, and rage against Thor for letting it happen. He may renounce his former god and murder some dwarf priests in anger, fueled by a new, more violent temperament. He can still be same old pleasant Durkon towards Roy, and still be very happy about saving the world.

Similarly, a Redcloak forcibly converted to good would be pretty much the same person, except with less inclination towards torture. He would still try to fight for his people's equality, possibly with war, but his blatant speciesism towards humans might be somewhat reduced. It would pretty much be another version of his revelation about hobgoblins at Azure City, except with humans and war as the subject instead.

In D&D, I view alignment as coming from the person's natural inclination towards things (such as a good person objecting to theft and murder) and it's therefore a defining part of their character. Alignment may change as a person changes, but only rarely. Maybe a childhood tragedy pushes a Good character more and more into Neutral territory (think Batman getting more and more violent in his dealings with criminals) until they're teetering on the edge of Evil because they get consumed by rage or hate in the process.

Forced alignment shift is, to me, a magic effect which forces the person's mind to see things differently. If an illusion spell can scare you so hard that you go insane or die, or become unable to comprehend languages, or unable to remember something, I see no problem with having a different type of mind-affecting magic which changes personality a bit. The mind is a slave of the body, as it might be.

The soul actually being a thing makes undead creatures a bit hard to pin-poin. Roy's soul detached and went to the afterlife, unaffected by the later bone golem made from his corpse; but Xykon's soul is definitely still there and available for capture in a phylactery. Other souls can be captured, banished, bound etc., but the higher intelligent undead seem to have theirs as far as I can tell. Why else would lichdom and vampirism be described as a way to live on after death, but not regular zombification?

Dark Matter

2013-09-07, 10:27 PM

Well then it sounds like there is a lot of canonical evidence that said villain is a villain and may not be honest. Is there any evidence that Xykon is lying here and that his soul was actually a fair target for soul splicing? I can't think of any and, thus far, no one has provided any.Xykon is a habitually lying sadist who was trash talking in combat and who has been shown (ironically) to be fairly ignorant of the undead in general (SoD). Xykon doesn't tell the truth as a default, he says what will cause the most pain.

Rather than ask "is there any evidence he was lying" you need to ask "is there evidence he was telling the truth".

FujinAkari

2013-09-08, 12:19 AM

Rather than ask "is there any evidence he was lying" you need to ask "is there evidence he was telling the truth".

That isn't the way this works :)

When I produce a direct citation supporting a claim, your response can't be "Well, prove your evidence is valid!" I can't prove Xykon isn't lying because it is impossible to prove a negative.

Whenever evidence is presented, the burden of proof shifts to the opposition to either disprove the evidence or produce counter-evidence. It doesn't remain with the presenter.

That aside: Xykon? Habitually lying? I don't really recall him telling all that many lies, too be quite honest...

factotum

2013-09-08, 01:56 AM

I'd say lying is actually against Xykon's nature. He's highly Chaotic and gets bored easily--trying to maintain a believable lie for any length of time would be far more work than he can be bothered with, when he can just blast whatever's irritating him and move on. We've seen him lie by omission (e.g. telling Redcloak in #543 that he wouldn't put O-Chul in an enclosure with any "animal, magical beast or aberration", and then getting Tsukiko to whip up an undead opponent instead), but out-and-out untruths are pretty rare.

Kish

2013-09-08, 06:37 AM

Whenever evidence is presented, the burden of proof shifts to the opposition to either disprove the evidence or produce counter-evidence. It doesn't remain with the presenter.
That paragraph is correct. The two before it are not; the assumption underlying it, that "X character said it" constitutes evidence it's true, is not correct.

You can go right on trying to legislate away protests that your "evidence" isn't, but don't ever expect the people you're arguing with to grant you that authority.

I'd say lying is actually against Xykon's nature.

Actually, there's a self-contradiction in the statement under discussion. "Do anything to avoid the Big Fire Below," Xykon said. And yet, those of us who have read Start of Darkness know that Xykon never planned to become immortal; knowing he would be dead of old age in a few years, he planned to conquer the world so he could have an impressive legacy until Redcloak said, "I know a way we can get out of Lirian's prison." Xykon had never even heard of liches. Whyever he said it--and I tend to the theory that it was battle trash talk--it wasn't because Rich wanted the audience to know (through the extremely reliable mouthpiece Xykon) that anyone who doesn't avoid dying is a loser, and it wasn't because Rich wanted us to know any of Xykon's sub-premises, either.

veti

2013-09-08, 07:36 AM

Whenever evidence is presented, the burden of proof shifts to the opposition to either disprove the evidence or produce counter-evidence. It doesn't remain with the presenter.

You talk as if we're in a debating class, with a teacher about to give grades.

That's not where we are.

There is no "burden of proof". We have our opinions, we state reasons, and if a few people find those reasons persuasive, they might - just might - change their minds. A lot of other people won't.

That's okay. I don't really care whether other readers agree with me or not. Why should I?

But I do know this: there is no argument I can make, no evidence I can present, that will infallibly persuade everyone reading it of anything. You could post "That Xykon, he's not very nice, is he?", and link to 100 strips of brutality and malice, and I can tell you here and now there would still be some contrarians out there ready to defend him.

And that's the way it works.

dancrilis

2013-09-08, 07:42 AM

It is possible that there is no afterlife for Durkon or any other free-willed undead.

It is possible that becoming undead fundamentally damages the soul, binding it forever to the mortal plane - so that ever with the destruction of the body the soul still inhabits that body (or pieces thereof), completely cut off from any sense of where it is.

This spiritual corruption might than be reversed by a resurrection spell - after which someone would be able to pass on to the afterlife - although which would would likely depend on making up for misdeeds (if they want a good one that is - good people should probably not shrug off the enjoyment of killing a family).

But this is just thinking aloud really.

FujinAkari

2013-09-08, 09:37 AM

You talk as if we're in a debating class, with a teacher about to give grades.

That's not where we are.

You're right.

However, the problem with simply sitting back and discussing everything is that the -best- way to debate in that sort of environment is to simply sit back and nitpick the heck out of your opposition without ever actually making any assertions yourself. You can't be countered because you aren't actually making an argument and so, since your (lack of) argument cannot be attacked, you end up looking like you hold a stronger position.

The Rules of Debate solve this issue. They indicate that all (valid) evidence has an inherent value. What the value of any peice of evidence is varies, but the strategy of simply sitting around and nitpicking is completely negated by the standard rules of debate, as any argument with evidence is stronger than an argument with no support whatsoever.

You can demonstrate the weakness of a piece of evidence and indicate why it isn't conclusive, but at the end of the day the argument with weakened evidence still destroys the argument with no evidence. If we are actually attempting to rationalize anything and come to any sort of conclusion, then we need something beyond our opinion.

You know, we've ranged pretty far from the actual topic, so I'm going to drop this line of discussion. I don't mean to imply that you (or anyone) must debate, or that you (or anyone) are somehow wrong for not debating "properly." I just can't accept the "Well, no one is ever going to convince anyone" mindset, and so I always aim for a system in which things actually have a possibility of being settled.

You're right, you can't convince everyone, but you can convince some. (I've done it! I've also been convinced in the past.)

Wardog

2013-09-09, 04:04 PM

Vampirization involves a violent death and being pumped full of negative energy/undead fuel/necromancy. It screws with your brain. As we see in real life, taking a knife to someone's brain is not healthy, and brain damage can lead to severe personality changes. There goes talk in my local community about one violent drunkard, who used to be a very pleasant guy before he got a nasty bump on the head in some accident.

On top of that, in D&D:
1) Souls are real things, that can interact with and influence/be influenced by the reast of the world.
2) Evil is a thing (not just a philosophical concept or moral descriptor), that can interact with and influence/be influenced by the reast of the world.

I would say it is plausible that vampirization doesn't just affect the physical brain and/or perception of the world, but potentially alters/damages the soul as well.

Vampirization/lichification/etc making you Evil could be a result of any one of physical (brain damage), psychological (loss of empathy) or spiritual (soul damage) effects.

veti

2013-09-09, 04:55 PM

You can demonstrate the weakness of a piece of evidence and indicate why it isn't conclusive, but at the end of the day the argument with weakened evidence still destroys the argument with no evidence. If we are actually attempting to rationalize anything and come to any sort of conclusion, then we need something beyond our opinion.

Unfortunately, that only works if there's an objective, or at least agreed, standard for deciding what constitutes 'evidence'. This thread shows pretty clearly that there isn't. There are things that everyone agrees are evidence, and things that everyone agrees aren't, but no standard for assessing things that fall between the two.

If you were in court, and introducing Xykon as an expert witness in your case, you'd have to present his credentials and answer questions of the form "what makes him an expert?" and "how do we know he's impartial?" You haven't been able to do that in this case, so it's not unreasonable for others to reject his testimony as 'unfounded' (i.e. not-evidence).

Your present (recent) line of argument can be summed up as: "I know this argument is weak, and I can't make it any more persuasive, so I'll use a technicality to declare myself the winner." And that - with respect - is even more than usually pointless.

SavageWombat

2013-09-09, 08:13 PM

Actually, it's very easy to resolve this issue if we wait a few (hundred?) strips longer.

Eventually we're going to find out what Roy's Archon's secret instructions were. So the Seven Heavens will be back in the scene.

If Durkon's soul is up there, I'm betting we'll see him at that time. Because Rich will be making a statement about vampires and souls.

If Durkon's soul doesn't show up on panel, I'll be inclined to believe that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case.

cheesecake

2013-09-09, 08:58 PM

Sounds like a big loop hole to me.

Ok I want to take over the world and not go to hell. Ill be lawful good, worship *insert lg god here* be a good person then get turned to a vampire or lich.

I could understand in durkons case as he actually sacrificed himself to save his friends. But loop hole!

Id say you are you as an intelligent undead. Your physical being under goes the change.

A zombie would be just a shell given energy to function. The soul is gone.

Kish

2013-09-09, 09:06 PM

Sounds like a big loop hole to me.

Ok I want to take over the world and not go to hell. Ill be lawful good, worship *insert lg god here* be a good person then get turned to a vampire or lich.

I could understand in durkons case as he actually sacrificed himself to save his friends. But loop hole!
No loophole. The DM would give you an "implied facepalm" look and tell you, "No, your character, who planned to become an undead creature and conquer the world, was never actually good, and no lawful good god ever answered her prayers."

FujinAkari

2013-09-10, 01:34 AM

Your present (recent) line of argument can be summed up as: "I know this argument is weak, and I can't make it any more persuasive, so I'll use a technicality to declare myself the winner." And that - with respect - is even more than usually pointless.

I would argue that "The comic directly answers this question, it says this" is not a weak argument.

Yes, it is POSSIBLE that Xykon was lying... but then it is just about always POSSIBLE that any character ever was lying. This possibility does not make the argument weak.

I hate to keep kicking a dead horse, but unless there is some reason to suspect that Xykon is lying, the default assumption is going to have to be that he isn't.

Anarion

2013-09-10, 02:25 AM

I hate to keep kicking a dead horse, but unless there is some reason to suspect that Xykon is lying, the default assumption is going to have to be that he isn't.

The reason is that it doesn't make sense. I personally agree with your conclusion, namely that becoming undead does in fact prevent the soul from reaching the afterlife. I think that because I think it would be weird to be able to use spells that contact another plane to contact or even summon a creature that is Durkon while also being able to talk to the vampire with all of Durkon's memories and ideas.

But Xykon's statements about avoiding the fire below isn't a consistent statement implying any kind of knowledge on his part. It contradicts his own former statements while he was still a mortal about being willing to die and wanting to keep a legacy. It is supported by nothing and we have background that he's a character who we know doesn't study arcane lore deeply. Had he said something different, which led to a conclusion that I thought didn't make logical sense, I would disregard Xykon's statement in a heartbeat.

Kish

2013-09-10, 07:34 AM

I would argue that "The comic directly answers this question, it says this" is not a weak argument.

Yes, it is POSSIBLE that Xykon was lying... but then it is just about always POSSIBLE that any character ever was lying.

/or incorrect.

Which is why the person who is insisting we should treat every character's random statements as authoritative and blur between "X character says" and "the comic says" should stop doing that. But instead, she's using that fact as support for her position. Which just...huh?

Scow2

2013-09-10, 08:48 AM

-snippits!-

I'd largely agree with this, though my conclusion also has: "At the time of Death, all enchantments are broken, and effects of undeath are lifted" - Durkon's soul is hanging out tied to his vampiric body, but when he's staked/destroyed, his soul goes up to Thor, sees everything he's done as a vampire (Including renouncing Thor), is horrified, but the Big Friendly Guy says something like "Don't worry about it - you were a vampire, and couldn't help it: Look at who you were before, and what good you were able to hold onto after!"

factotum

2013-09-10, 10:29 AM

Which is why the person who is insisting we should treat every character's random statements as authoritative and blur between "X character says" and "the comic says" should stop doing that. But instead, she's using that fact as support for her position. Which just...huh?

I actually kind of see her point. If we have an instance where a character says something, and NO instances where something happens that out-and-out disproves what that character said, shouldn't we be assuming that character's statement to be accurate until proven otherwise?

Kish

2013-09-10, 10:44 AM

I actually kind of see her point. If we have an instance where a character says something, and NO instances where something happens that out-and-out disproves what that character said, shouldn't we be assuming that character's statement to be accurate until proven otherwise?
I don't understand. Why would we?

If we had a reason to believe the character knew what s/he is talking about, then that's one thing. But cases like this one, where a character who almost certainly has no ranks in Knowledge (Religion) and didn't even know ghosts were incorporeal enough to be resistant to energy damage, while trash-talking during a battle, makes a statement which implies something about the afterlife...we should assume that character's statement to be accurate until proven otherwise? Why?

I know why FujinAkari says that: She's allergic to the phrase "I don't know." But I don't know why you're agreeing with her; if you are, it's a character trait I was previously unaware of.

Jay R

2013-09-10, 11:03 AM

That isn't the way this works :)

When I produce a direct citation supporting a claim, your response can't be "Well, prove your evidence is valid!" I can't prove Xykon isn't lying because it is impossible to prove a negative.

Whenever evidence is presented, the burden of proof shifts to the opposition to either disprove the evidence or produce counter-evidence. It doesn't remain with the presenter.

That aside: Xykon? Habitually lying? I don't really recall him telling all that many lies, too be quite honest...

Nice try.

Your evidence is only evidence for what it shows, not for anything else.

In this case, you have shown compelling evidence that Xykon has said something. We accept it as evidence that Xykon has said something.

You want us to take it as evidence that the something Xykon said is true.

No. it is not evidence that Xykon was correct. Only that Xykon said it. If you want to build a case that Xykon is a Lawful entity that always speaks the truth, and that he is a deeply learned researcher who has investigated all aspects of vampires before he spoke, feel free to present that evidence as well. Until you do, you have provided evidence that Xykon said it, and nothing more.

Similarly, here is evidence that Haley said one of Tarquin's prison guards is a yellow-footed rock wallaby (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html). There is no evidence anywhere that he is not actually a yellow-footed rock wallaby.

But I haven't provided evidence that he is actually a yellow-footed rock wallaby; merely that Haley said he was. That does not put the burden of proof on anybody who wants to maintain that he is merely a prison guard.

Lecan

2013-09-10, 01:01 PM

No, because we have repeated statements that Belkar is, in fact, a halfling. We have a prophesy that he is going to die, and we have the established gods of the setting already laid out and none of them include Belkar.

There is sufficient reason, within the text of the comic, to presume that statement is an exaggeration. There is nothing, within the text of the comic, to presume that Xykon is lying about where his soul ended up.

I really don't understand why people keep trying to twist my statements into "It was said once, therefore it is true!" What I am repeatedly saying is that statements from the comic can only be contested by other evidence from the comic. If no contestation exists then we must assume the statement is true.
I believe what Fujin is saying is that since we do not have a complete knowledge of how the system works regarding undead and their souls' resting place, we must use the available information with applied understanding. The only information we have is two high level undead, one including a vampire in a list of ways to keep your soul from going to its final reward and the other stating that his vampire self is different from the person he was when he had a soul.

Fujin does allow that Xykon could be lying or misinformed, but as he is the best source of information we have on the subject, we have to take what he says on the matter. We can apply understanding by asking if he is a reliable source. He has experience in the matter and he is not known to be a liar, nor does he have reason to mislead the primary audience. If new information arises, this scene can be taken back into consideration to better understand the underlying mechanism.

TL;DR: Fujin believes that the information relayed by Xykon is the best in-comic information we have and that we must give it the appropriate weight in discussions.

Kish

2013-09-10, 02:05 PM

I don't believe any of the people who have been debating with her are unclear on that.

What we are unclear on, is why "This character who has no way of knowing said so" should have any weight at all. Or to put it another way, why "I don't know" is supposedly a worse answer than, "I don't actually know, but I have something that might pass in dim enough light for evidence, so I'm going to pretend I know."

factotum

2013-09-10, 02:14 PM

Similarly, here is evidence that Haley said one of Tarquin's prison guards is a yellow-footed rock wallaby (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html). There is no evidence anywhere that he is not actually a yellow-footed rock wallaby.

It's blatantly obvious from the *picture in the strip* that he isn't a yellow-footed rock wallaby, so of course there's evidence to the contrary. If you're going to use reductio ad absurdum, you might want to find an example that actually *works*. :smallsigh:

veti

2013-09-10, 03:36 PM

Scow2

2013-09-10, 03:39 PM

Similarly, here is evidence that Haley said one of Tarquin's prison guards is a yellow-footed rock wallaby (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html). There is no evidence anywhere that he is not actually a yellow-footed rock wallaby.That statement is explicitly stated to be a lie, through the Potion of Bluff and later saying "It only works on things that aren't true"

Pyron

2013-09-10, 04:11 PM

So where do you stand on Belkar's status as a sexy shoeless god of war?

Stated by a character (more than once)
Never contradicted or disproven

Must be true, right?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#immunities
Immunities
Deities have the following immunities. Individual deities may have more immunities. Unless otherwise indicated, these immunities do not apply if the attacker is a deity of equal or higher rank.

Energy Drain, Ability Drain, Ability Damage
A deity is not subject to energy drain, ability drain, or ability damage.

Mind-Affecting Effects
A deity is immune to mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).

If Belkar was truly a god of war then he'd be able to shrug off energy drains (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html) and domination (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html) like nobody's business.

dancrilis

2013-09-10, 05:38 PM

There is no evidence anywhere that he is not actually a yellow-footed rock wallaby.

A yellow-footed rock wallaby:
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/assets/images/yellow_footed_rock_wallaby_desktop.jpg

The guard looks nothing like this.
As such taking the context of the scene and the artwork I think we have been provided with compelling evidence that Haley was lying (she even says "Behold the power of lying").

Xykon's statements come from someone with high ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) which cover magic traditions, given his Astral Plane fortress tomb thingie (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0833.html)could assume that he has Knowledge The Planes (which covers matters concerning the planes - such as how to avoid entering them amongst other matters).

Xykon as a human was very different than Xykon as a Lich - and he admits this with his discussion on the nature of power.

As such it is reasonable to assume that Xykon has Knowledge (What The Hell He's Talking About) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0371.html).

Could he be wrong?
Yes - yes he could, he could also be lying.

But until either of those is shown I think assuming that he is correctly providing data is the most sensible course of action.

Anarion

2013-09-10, 05:55 PM

But until either of those is shown I think assuming that he is correctly providing data is the most sensible course of action.

I don't understand why this entire conversation has a bunch of people saying we should turn off our brains when it comes to in-comic statements.

We don't assume things are true because a character said them, nor do we assume they're false. We assume they're true because they're consistent with other things we know and make logical sense. Xykon the lich knows all the stuff that Xykon, the old man, knew. It thus seems likely that they're related and plausible that the same soul might be hanging around and not have flown off to the afterlife. Ditto for vampire Durkon.

A statement that something said in the comic is accurate unless contradicted is overbroad. Are you really going to claim that any uncontradicted in-comic statement, no matter how absurd, stupid, or silly must be accepted as accurate?

dancrilis

2013-09-10, 06:39 PM

Dark Matter

2013-09-10, 07:50 PM

I hate to keep kicking a dead horse, but unless there is some reason to suspect that Xykon is lying, the default assumption is going to have to be that he isn't.1) Xykon is a habitual liar (witness telling Roy he only needed 8 levels for a fair fight, witness SOD, etc).

2) Xykon had active reason to lie. This was a combat trash talk, and the central argument he was making was "Darth-V, you are no match for me because your linked mages aren't".

3) Note the central point Xykon was making in "2" above was wrong on the face of it, we've never seen Xykon do anything on the scale of Familicide.

4) Souls and the afterlife is a really hard "Knowledge: Religion" issue and Xykon has something close to zero ranks in that (SOD: Ignorance of undead to the point where he doesn't even know what a Lich is.)

Edit: 5) "Knowledge: Religion" is cross class for Xykon.

So the assumption needs to be that Xykon was both lying AND he didn't know what he was talking about.

The Vampire Lizard Cleric? He hits the radar as an expert who had no reason to lie to Durkon.

Anarion

2013-09-10, 09:27 PM

Consider of Xykon's statement had been:
Xykon: "Two of the most powerful souls in the Lower Planes? Redcloak is my soul one of them?"
Redcloak: "No sir"
Xykon: "Then you didn't get the best of the ones down there. Maximised Energy Drain, dumbass".

*Also change any reference that the phylactery or his body holds his souls to being holding his personality, so that it is up in the air as to whether where his soul is.

I think people would be justified in taking him at his word that his soul is on a Lower Plane.

It is not 'a bunch of people saying we should turn off our brains when it comes to in-comic statements' it is people saying that you look at the comic as a whole.

One can point to the fact that:
Start of Darkness Spoiler

Xykon flat out states that his soul is in his body, and Redcloak who knows about Liches accepts it.

One can point out the fact that Redcloak calls the phylactery his soul-hidey-place (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0117.html).

As such one can extrapolate that the souls of the undead reside in there bodies until the bodies destruction - at which point the soul is free and drawn to its destination (in a Lich's case the phylactery)

There are reasons to believe that the soul is in the body - one of those reasons is that Xykon said so and there is no real reason to assume that he is not familiar with the resting place of souls (particularly as he immediately knew what a soul-splice was).

Note this is not the only reason to believe it that the soul resides in the body, but I understand that the current debate is on if it is a reason at all - and I would hold that it is.

And then some: I used to think spells equalled power, too, back when I was alive. I've learned a lot since than. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html)

But that I suppose quoting him on that isn't a sensible move - after all he could be lying or incorrect.

I don't disagree with any of this. I would point out that throughout the conversation I have agreed with Xykon's conclusion. I think that the soul does stick around in the body and doesn't end up in the afterlife, though whether the soul is sort of imprisoned there as opposed to in active control isn't clear.

I even agree with most of your analysis there, other than quoting Xykon at the end, which is just him learning over time, a trait available to anything with int 2+ (and maybe int 1 even).

What you did, though, was logical analysis. You pointed to repeated statements in different contexts and multiple characters agreeing on things. That's a far cry from a lot of the conversation in this thread.

Also, since we're on some comparative evidence now, what do you think of Redcloak's later statement to Tsukiko that the undead are nothing but tools and weapons of varying complexity? The evidence you offer suggests that a Lich's phylactery contains the lich's soul, but that doesn't necessarily generalize to other types of undead that don't go through a process that specifically extracts the soul. Could it be that Redcloak's later statement and the evidence you offered suggests that lich's keep their souls, that Xykon was overgeneralizing while trashtalking V, and that other undead are essentially soulless?

Or maybe it's that only intelligent undead keep their souls?

veti

2013-09-10, 11:11 PM

Also, since we're on some comparative evidence now, what do you think of Redcloak's later statement to Tsukiko that the undead are nothing but tools and weapons of varying complexity? The evidence you offer suggests that a Lich's phylactery contains the lich's soul, but that doesn't necessarily generalize to other types of undead that don't go through a process that specifically extracts the soul. Could it be that Redcloak's later statement and the evidence you offered suggests that lich's keep their souls, that Xykon was overgeneralizing while trashtalking V, and that other undead are essentially soulless?

Or maybe it's that only intelligent undead keep their souls?

Redcloak and Tsukiko's discussion is, to my mind, likely to be more authoritative than anything Xykon says, because they're two characters who we know for a fact have more than a passing theoretical interest/knowledge in the undead. Redcloak was the one who created the world's only known lich, and Tsukiko - to be a mystic theurge she must have at least six ranks in Knowledge (Religion). Which puts her six ranks ahead of Xykon.

So let's look at (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html) that conversation:

:redcloak: See, the undead are tools. Powerful, dangerous tools. From the lowliest zombie to Xykon himself, the undead are just complex weapons that we make and aim at other people. All that differs is how direct or subtle our control of them is.
:redcloak: For your beloved wights, one use of my Command Undead ability when I walked in the room was more than up to the task. For our so-called master, more creative strategies are required.
:tsukiko: You don't control Xykon! He controls you!
:redcloak: Like I said: subtle.

What's most interesting here is that Redcloak doesn't recognise any real distinction between "free-willed" undead and "the lowliest zombie". Clearly there is a difference, and equally clearly Redcloak can't be hoping to bluff Tsukiko, of all people, into forgetting or overlooking that.

What that suggests to me is that RC is not talking about game mechanics, or anything else you can learn from having enough ranks in "Knowledge: Anydamnthing". Redcloak is making a more philosophical statement about how he sees and interacts with Xykon - as "a tool" - which is, interestingly enough, pretty much how Tarquin interacts with just about everyone.

So I conclude this exchange is not relevant to the present discussion. Redcloak's words are not meant to be taken literally. Which is a shame, because as I said up-front, he's likely to be better informed on the subject than most.

Dark Matter

2013-09-11, 06:14 AM

Zombies don't have souls. You can soul bind someone as they die and then make a zombie out of what's left.

Liches probably do, witness the "soul hidy place".

SavageWombat

2013-09-11, 08:46 AM

I think this discussion needs to go outside the confines of the strip a little.

One side is arguing that Xykon's statement, sans contradicting evidence, should be taken as gospel.

I submit that the reason this is believed is that, if the Giant hadn't meant this statement to have weight in our perceptions of his world, he wouldn't have had Xykon say that. It serves no narrative purpose as a misunderstanding or lie.

Do you agree with this interpretation? If not, what do you think Rich's intent was?

Kish

2013-09-11, 01:15 PM

Do you agree with this interpretation?

Absolutely not.

If not, what do you think Rich's intent was?
What do you think the point of having Xykon tell Soon he didn't remember killing the Sapphire Guard was? The purpose of combat trash-talk is trash-talk, as well as in this case conveying something about Xykon (that he's come from "I can't taste anything!" to "Anyone who isn't immortal is a loser!" or at least to expressing that belief), and beginning his lecture to Vaarsuvius on putting all her/his eggs in the "more spells" basket. If Rich had wanted to convey the knowledge that everyone who isn't some kind of immortal is a loser to us he would...have posted it on the forum probably; when has he ever used a character as a mouthpiece rather than having the character say what s/he would say? But if, for whatever reason, he had wanted to put a line in the comic for the purpose of making readers believe that undead creatures still have their souls*, he would have put it in the mouth of a character with a reason to know what he was talking about, i.e., an expert on Knowledge (Religion), not a character with few skill points for whom Knowledge (Religion) was cross-class.

There was an expert on Knowledge (Religion) right there. Goblin fellow. Known for wearing black armor. And as it happens, he, some time later, made a statement directly orthogonal to Xykon's; if you think of statements made by characters as letters from Rich to the audience rather than statements made by characters because the characters would say them, then you have to discard either Xykon's statement about what undead are or Redcloak's...and then you have to explain why Rich would send a false letter.

*Readers other than the ones who declared that The Comic Said that the IFCC only happened to show up because Vaarsuvius was the next candidate to come along. Of which there were a few. Not anyone currently present, that I remember.

Dark Matter

2013-09-11, 09:43 PM

It's implied by the rules Vampires don't have souls (Liches do).

Durkon dies.
His soul moves on (or is soul bound).
As far as I can tell, 3 days later his body still rises as a vampire.
Mindless has nothing to do with it.

Note this is consistent with Malock's statements that raising him would destroy him... and Malock is another expert on this sort of thing.

SavageWombat

2013-09-11, 10:31 PM

OK, so now we have Kish's thesis statement - that Xykon's line was "trash talk" with no informative value from Rich intended.

Any rebuttal?

lordzya

2013-09-12, 09:05 PM

I think there is a simple answer to this. Vampirism is a disease. Hel is a goddess of, among other things, disease. Barring extraordinary circumstances, I would say he's Hel's creature now. He'll probably even be praying to her for spells at come nightfall.

factotum

2013-09-13, 02:28 AM

I think there is a simple answer to this. Vampirism is a disease.

Not in D&D, it isn't--you have to be actually *dead* to become a vampire, so it's not an infection of any sort. You may be confusing it with Skyrim. :smallsmile:

snikrept

2013-09-13, 09:35 AM

If Durkon died now and if he gets the same Deva assigned to his file as Roy did (or if all Devas are more or less like her), I have little doubt that Durkon would get admitted to the Lawful Good afterlife. He's lived most of his life as a sterling example of Lawful Good, and he hasn't yet done much that would significantly tarnish that track record as a vampire.

And that particular Deva seemed imminently reasonable about these kinds of circumstances.

But as the story moves forward, and we get to see more of what the vampiric transformation has done to Durkon, who knows?

You know, thinking on this further, it's quite bizarre that in this universe you can get yourself into a better afterlife by arguing with a Deva. This seems to imply that high Charisma characters and those who invested in Diplomacy skill would be more likely to go to the afterlife of their choice, all other actions during their life being equal. That's ... really weird. It's a third axis determining your destination plane: good/evil, law/chaos, and also glib/inarticulate!

It's as weird as, say, having to arm-wrestle the Deva to get better consideration. Or dodge the Deva's thrown objects. Or beat the Deva in Chess.

Scow2

2013-09-15, 02:29 PM

OK, so now we have Kish's thesis statement - that Xykon's line was "trash talk" with no informative value from Rich intended.

Any rebuttal?Xykon loves belittling and lecturing his opponents (See: Xykon vs. Roy). It makes things more interesting.

In all D&D sources I've seen, intelligent undead still have their "soul" and part of their original identity... it's just blighted, and part of the reason you can't ressurect someone turned into an Undead creature without destroying it first. It doesn't mean that being undead - or the actions of an undead creature - has any bearing on the afterlife of the soul.

You know, thinking on this further, it's quite bizarre that in this universe you can get yourself into a better afterlife by arguing with a Deva. This seems to imply that high Charisma characters and those who invested in Diplomacy skill would be more likely to go to the afterlife of their choice, all other actions during their life being equal. That's ... really weird. It's a third axis determining your destination plane: good/evil, law/chaos, and also glib/inarticulate!

It's as weird as, say, having to arm-wrestle the Deva to get better consideration. Or dodge the Deva's thrown objects. Or beat the Deva in Chess.Charisma may not actually have anything to do with it... it could simply be trying to clear up abberrations in person's behavior, with the objective answer being what matters.

veti

2013-09-15, 04:27 PM

You know, thinking on this further, it's quite bizarre that in this universe you can get yourself into a better afterlife by arguing with a Deva.

I don't think you can.

The other planes don't exist to get Celestia's rejects, they exist to welcome their own. The only thing the Deva can, even nominally, control is whether you get into Celestia. Maybe she can toss you over to (say) Elysium or the Outlands, as she mentions doing with Roy - but she has no authority there, so they could just toss you right back.

I'm pretty sure the whole "entrance interview" thing is purely to get the "applicant" to review their own life, and honestly face up to their own shortcomings. Once they've done that, they're in. It might take a bit longer (as with Eugene), but there doesn't need to be any such thing as a "failure" mechanism.

BroomGuys

2013-09-15, 05:01 PM

I don't think you can.

The other planes don't exist to get Celestia's rejects, they exist to welcome their own. The only thing the Deva can, even nominally, control is whether you get into Celestia. Maybe she can toss you over to (say) Elysium or the Outlands, as she mentions doing with Roy - but she has no authority there, so they could just toss you right back.

I'm pretty sure the whole "entrance interview" thing is purely to get the "applicant" to review their own life, and honestly face up to their own shortcomings. Once they've done that, they're in. It might take a bit longer (as with Eugene), but there doesn't need to be any such thing as a "failure" mechanism.

I like this interpretation. Roy wouldn't really feel like he deserved his eternal reward unless he had to face his own past. It's just like moving up from the first level of the mountain when you get tired of all the free sex and booze, only it's an earlier step (from 0 to 1) on the road to enlightenment.

Quick note: from reading this thread, I can see a clear consensus, which is that we really just don't know what afterlife Durkon's gonna end up in. It seems very likely that his soul's still in his body because he acts similarly and the story's just more interesting that way, but as for what happens to his soul when his vampire form bites the dust *snicker* your guess is as good as mine. It would seem pretty unfair for him to be judged for turning evil as a result of his own heroic sacrifice, so if I had to guess I'd say he still goes into the LG afterlife-sort of an "at last, I'm free!" kind of thing when his undeath finally comes to an end. But there are any number of reasons why I might be totally wrong about this, so again, who knows? (Yeah, ok, this wasn't a quick note. Sorry!)