Durkula and Thor

[Souhiro]

I don't know if this has been addressed before, at least, I didn't saw it in the last pages of this forum:

Do you think that the comic will explore the new relationship with Durkula and Thor? Durkon was a fervient follower of Thor. He didn't wine "Thor has abandoned me" when Azure City was lost, or when he was the only one all alone during new years eve, or worse: when he was surrounded by trees! But now, Durkula is oficially a non-theistic cleric.

It still has to be show how Evil is Durkula (I just cannot imagine him aggreeing to do pranks with Belkar) But maybe, if he sees another cleric of Thor, or just his old holy symbol, he could just... think about it.

And it would be interesting, darn! Durkon just looks like the character of a shy player would take: A Healbot who don't talk too much, tries to gain the friendship of the ones among him, and follow the rules. Most of their Character Development they got is with BIG NPCs, usually gods.

[Copperdragon]

I don't know if this has been addressed before, at least, I didn't saw it in the last pages of this forum:

Yes, it has been discussed.

In general it goes in this direction: A LE Vampire cannot be a follower of Thor. First, Thor is good. Second, dwarves have that thing with the afterlife, where you have to be properly dead. I doubt the Northern Gods have much left for undead.

Instead, Durkon worships a concept: his alignment. That is possible for clerics in D&D who do not have a god, something we can assume for Durkon.

And I am very sure it will get addressed. The change here is a very massive hit to Durkon's character who only (only!) has been a follower of Thor, nothing else.
He also was not afraid to die as he knew all would be fine in his afterlife. That probably has changed by now and is going to get addressed.

Durkon will have to answer one very important question, one that is even more important than "I am Evil now and need to drink the blood of the living, what does that make me?" which is also very important. But the real issues will arise when Durkon asks himself this:
"I only have been a worshipper of Thor and basically nothing else. Thor being taken away from me: Who and what am I and what do I want?"

I think a lot of the character development in OotS really comes down to the two questions from Babylon 5:
"Who am I?"
"What do I want?"
Durkon is going to face those very soon and in a drastic way that none of the others has (even more drastic than Vaarsuvius, who found himself deep down to be a mass-murdering, horrible person).

[F.Harr]

Do you think that the comic will explore the new relationship with Durkula and Thor?

I certanly hope so. That would be a great arc. I'm still not convinced, by the way, that Durkula is LE or anything, yet. All of the arguments seem to me at least, to based on conception of what a vampire is or should be in various naritive frameworks or ultra-close parsing of some of the things he's said. And one incident of killing a irreconsilable foe while said foe was unconcious and then throwing the body into a pit. I realize that this is plenty of evidence for a lot of people, but not enough for me. I'm withholding judgement until Durkula has had more moral choices to make.

His perspective has got to be a LOT different, now, though. I look forward to that, too.

[Shred-Bot]

If Durkon is able to convince Thor that the blood he drinks is beer with beet juice in it, I imagine things will be just ducky between them.

Of course he'd also have to convince Thor that beet juice has important beard-strengthening effects for him to be on board with THAT... but OOTS Thor seems either dim or inattentive enough to buy it.

... in actuality, I'm wagering that he'll be dwarvenkind's first ever cleric of Hel. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html)

[Astroturtle]

but OOTS Thor seems either dim or inattentive enough to buy it.


Durkon would only have to explain if Thor notices. Thunder brah has been portrayed as trying to take Azazoth's title as 'Blind Idiot God'. Theres a good chance Durkon could get away with it for a couple millennia without being asked any hard questions.

[Shred-Bot]

Durkon would only have to explain if Thor notices. Thunder brah has been portrayed as trying to take Azazoth's title as 'Blind Idiot God'. Theres a good chance Durkon could get away with it for a couple millennia without being asked any hard questions.

Especially since the two of them will still be able to bond over their great big bushy beards and hatred of trees.

[Havokca]

Durkon would only have to explain if Thor notices. Thunder brah has been portrayed as trying to take Azazoth's title as 'Blind Idiot God'. Theres a good chance Durkon could get away with it for a couple millennia without being asked any hard questions.

but that would totally destroy the illusion that the gods are omnivorous, or omnidirectional, or whatever…!!!

[AKA_Bait]

I certanly hope so. That would be a great arc. I'm still not convinced, by the way, that Durkula is LE or anything, yet. All of the arguments seem to me at least, to based on conception of what a vampire is or should be in various naritive frameworks or ultra-close parsing of some of the things he's said.

I think that you may be overlooking the D&D rules argument (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm), unless that is part of what you mean by narrative frameworks. Specifically, the SRD has

Alignment
Always Evil (any)

*snip*
Vampire Characters
Vampires are always evil, which causes characters of certain classes to lose some class abilities.

[Tass]

All of this will surely be addressed. And not just briefly. The giant has confirmed that every Durkon strip after strip one has basically been leading up to this.

It is going to be interesting.

[Perseus]

I don't know if this has been addressed before, at least, I didn't saw it in the last pages of this forum:

Do you think that the comic will explore the new relationship with Durkula and Thor? Durkon was a fervient follower of Thor. He didn't wine "Thor has abandoned me" when Azure City was lost, or when he was the only one all alone during new years eve, or worse: when he was surrounded by trees! But now, Durkula is oficially a non-theistic cleric.

It still has to be show how Evil is Durkula (I just cannot imagine him aggreeing to do pranks with Belkar) But maybe, if he sees another cleric of Thor, or just his old holy symbol, he could just... think about it.

And it would be interesting, darn! Durkon just looks like the character of a shy player would take: A Healbot who don't talk too much, tries to gain the friendship of the ones among him, and follow the rules. Most of their Character Development they got is with BIG NPCs, usually gods.


Well technically in 3.5, Pelor gives a cleric evil spells so really Thor could still be his patron deity. Perhaps Durkon still wants to worship Thor? We don't know yet.

Though perhaps Pelor is evil, there is a pretty good theory on that...

[Snufkin]

Yeah in many ways, up until this point Durkon has been the stereotypical comic relief dwarf. I think he needed to have his connection with Thor (and everything else associated with that deity) severed to make room for any real character development.


(even more drastic than Vaarsuvius, who found himself deep down to be a mass-murdering, horrible person).

Off topic, but don't you think that's a little harsh? One mistake, no matter how severe - doesn't necessarily make you a horrible person.

[Wardog]

One thing that I think is quite useful when considering things like alignment change (particularly forced alignment change), or paladins falling, etc is to remember that Good and Evil in D&D are not just moral philosophies, but fundamental aspects of the universe - essentially energy, or radiation, or fundamental particles.

Forget about the names for the moment, and just consider them as "energy x" and "energy y".

Energy x and energy y are real physical things. They can be detected with "Detect X" and "Detect Y" spells, and other spells can (for example) protect against enemies that are contaminated with these energies. There are other planes that are awash with them, inhabited by beaings that are made of these energies.

Now, performing certain acts generates particles of these energies. Helping people, making sacrifices for the good of others, and altruism in general - basically most things philosophers consider to be "good" - will cause you to build up a charge of X particles. Murder, cruelty, and generally being a jerk - basically most things philosophers consider to be "good" - will cause you to build up a charge of Y particles, as will casting various spells. Philosophers may debate whether animating dead or casting "Deathwatch" (or enslaving an elemental to create a golem) are morally evil, but it is an objective fact that doing the former (but AFAIK not the latter) cause you to be contaminated with Y particles. And the aforementioned beings that are made of X or Y particles will detect as X or Y regardless of whether their behaviour or personalities are "good" or "evil".


Now, where am I going with this? Well, consider as an analogy what happens if you put diesel in a petrol car (or vice versa). It gums up the engine, and the car won't go. It doesn't matter if you did so unknowingly, or accidentally, or in desperation because you had run of fuel and needed to get somewhere to save lives. Physics and engineering don't care, and you car won't work until the engine gets cleaned and repaired, no mater how unfair you think it is.

Likewise, it could be that when the cleric of a Good god gets turned into a vampire, or a paladin commits an Evil act (even a very minor evil in order to ensure a great good) they become contaminated with Evil particles, which breaks their connection with their Good source of power.

So even if the vampirized cleric is strong-willed enough to maintain their beliefs and attitudes, and refrain from commiting any evil acts, their god can no longer provide them with spells. If a paladin steals a trinket from an orphan (because it is the only way to acquire the maguffin that will stop Dark Lord Evilon killing everyone on the continent) he still falls (even if he gives it back afterwars and apologises).

It isn't their patron god saying "You offended me - I won't help you any more (even though you need my help to do something I need you to do)", it is the laws of nature (metaphorically) saying "You've broken your powers. They don't work any more".

This also makes the Attonement spell make more sense (and seem less cheesy): it's not enough to repent of your actions, or make amends, or be forgiven by those your wronged, or even be forgiven by your god. You need to perform a special ritual to remove the Evil particles, and retune/realign/recalibrate your connection with your source of Good power.


(Of course, that's all just one way it could be ruled, but I think it quite nicely explains and justifies a lot of the odder aspects of alignment and "falling").

[Astroturtle]

Off topic, but don't you think that's a little harsh? One mistake, no matter how severe - doesn't necessarily make you a horrible person.


Arguably, V's use of familicide may have saved the world. Had the Draketooth's(teeth?) still been there, the Gate would have still been standing when Xykon popped in and murdered them all. Bam. God killing weapon for the Dark One. However, their deaths enabled a chain of events leading to the Gate being destroyed a round or three before he arrived.

So, committing the largest act of mass murder in the history of the OotS world could be argued as being for the greater good as it protected many more people from, at best, the ascent of evil god and, at worst, the complete unraveling of all that is, was, or will ever be.

Also, I think the Gods would probably excuse an accidental(or intentional) global atrocity that protected them from getting a face full of Snarl. And if Thor would let it slide, who're we to disagree?

[Kish]

Yeah in many ways, up until this point Durkon has been the stereotypical comic relief dwarf. I think he needed to have his connection with Thor (and everything else associated with that deity) severed to make room for any real character development.



Off topic, but don't you think that's a little harsh? One mistake, no matter how severe - doesn't necessarily make you a horrible person.
I wish people would quit calling it a mistake.

"Oops, I kind of accidentally on purpose killed dozens or hundreds of people (most of them nonhumanoid but all of them sapient) for being related to an enemy of mine!"

If Vaarsuvius mouths excuses like "it was a mistake" and "well, they were evil black dragons, it's not actually like I killed people," instead of looking herself/himself in the mirror and acknowledging that s/he is looking at a sadistic mass murderer who tortures enemies without hesitation, that is what will most effectively ensure s/he cannot have redemption. As Soon said, the first step is to acknowledge what you did.

And if Thor would let it slide, who're we to disagree?
I'm Kish. Who are you? No only do I disagree with the moral judgments of the OotS gods (prominently including Thor) all the time, I observe that their author generally writes them as self-centered morons, certainly not as all-trumping moral authorities. I do not believe "never mind the moral implications of anything any member of the Order did, they prevented the world from being destroyed so the gods are writing them all Go To Celestia Free tickets" is something there is even the tiniest, most remote chance Rich is going to write.

[Snufkin]

If Vaarsuvius mouths excuses like "it was a mistake" and "well, they were evil black dragons, it's not actually like I killed people," instead of looking herself/himself in the mirror and acknowledging that s/he is looking at a sadistic mass murderer who tortures enemies without hesitation, that is what will most effectively ensure s/he cannot have redemption. As Soon said, the first step is to acknowledge what you did.

But that is the whole point... V feels terrible about what he/she has done.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html

[Havokca]

But that is the whole point... V feels terrible about what he/she has done.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html

Which was brought about by the realization that he was becoming a horrible, mass-murdering person.

His revulsion at that, was the catalyst for the character development that brought him to the point where the first words out of his mouth are no longer "disintegrate".

[jere7my]

Which was brought about by the realization that he was becoming a horrible, mass-murdering person.

Well, remember that most of what she killed were black dragons, which are "always evil" and don't count as murder.

*ducks and runs*

[Ramien]

If Durkon is able to convince Thor that the blood he drinks is beer with beet juice in it, I imagine things will be just ducky between them.

Of course he'd also have to convince Thor that beet juice has important beard-strengthening effects for him to be on board with THAT... but OOTS Thor seems either dim or inattentive enough to buy it.

... in actuality, I'm wagering that he'll be dwarvenkind's first ever cleric of Hel. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html)

Beer with beet juice? I think Durkon's already covered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead_of_Poetry) by precedent in Norse mythology. He'll just have to break out a limerick or two now and then and he's good.

[Obscure Blade]

As I recall the Giant has already stated that Durkon is presently a non-denominational cleric powered by negative energy, not any particular god. However given his lifelong dedication to a god I wouldn't be surprised to see him seek out a new one to replace Thor. Hel being one possibility; he could be her first cleric. And it does seem a potential bit of plot foreshadowing that it was specifically mentioned that no dwarf worships her or serves as her priest; perhaps she's in the market for one.

[AstralFire]

Yeah in many ways, up until this point Durkon has been the stereotypical comic relief dwarf. I think he needed to have his connection with Thor (and everything else associated with that deity) severed to make room for any real character development.



Off topic, but don't you think that's a little harsh? One mistake, no matter how severe - doesn't necessarily make you a horrible person.

Genocide is not a "mistake."

I believe V can morally recover from this, because it was a vile, evil, wicked action taken of duress and not made of deliberated, premeditated horribleness. But we're talking years and years down the road. Frankly, he's gotten off pretty light up 'til now.

[Mike Havran]

Arguably, V's use of familicide may have saved the world. Had the Draketooth's(teeth?) still been there, the Gate would have still been standing when Xykon popped in and murdered them all. Bam. God killing weapon for the Dark One. However, their deaths enabled a chain of events leading to the Gate being destroyed a round or three before he arrived.
And what about this - the Draketooths are alive and when Xykon 'ports in, he'll have dozens of high-level spelcasters on his bony ass. They will Anchor him, destroy him and destroy the phylactery. Bam. Two gates are standing, the world is safe and the Order could start the quest about the reconstruction of the rest.

Oh, and I forget to mention the thousands of dragons and Draketooth-relatives would have been still alive. We could even learn whether Penelope actually iked Tarquin or not!

[warrl]

I wish people would quit calling it a mistake.

It was a mistake. Not an accident, a mistake. An error of judgment.

And it was not merely an error of judgment solely because V did not think about the non-dragon scope that Familicide might encompass (although "that too"), but because V thought it a suitable spell to cast at all.

[Souhiro]

Like Jack the Ripper said "Let's go, part by part"

I had an Eureka moment just a minute ago, about how alignment is about how do you feel about yourself and your actions:
A good people can be forced to do something evil, something truly heinous, but if he repents doing it, he's still a good person. You don't "Lose" your alignment like if it was the points of your driving license, you "Lose" your "Neutral Good" because you're putting your sincere trust in authorities just because they're the authorities (Now you're Lawful Good) It's not "I like THIS king (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/JZTDsC3k1aY6tZKHv6O.gif)" but "Let's see the king, I don't know him but we can help each other"

So, Vaarsuvius (in my game table, at least) would see that he's counted among the good ones... but only when it counts (I like suspense)


About Durkula, clerichood and such

The Giant has stated (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15060436#post15060436) that Durkon is a Non-Theistic cleric. I knew it when I wrote this topic. But I meant that altough our beloved bloodsucker won't revere Thor anymore, maybe he has the posibility to reflect about that. In the OotS-verse, gods are highly responsive to prayers, involved and such.

And it wouldn't be a "Pretty please, allow me to get back into your clergy" but "How much did we change" prayer and such.

Also, about the ones who say "He should have resentment against Thor", Durkon didn't say "Thor, Save me!" but he only had aceptance into his plan. I think that a Durkula and Thor small talk would be more than interesting

[AKA_Bait]

The Giant has stated (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15060436#post15060436) that Durkon is a Non-Theistic cleric. I knew it when I wrote this topic. But I meant that altough our beloved bloodsucker won't revere Thor anymore, maybe he has the posibility to reflect about that. In the OotS-verse, gods are highly responsive to prayers, involved and such.


I don't think the Giant's quote means that Durkon is a non-theistic cleric. That reads to me simply as him pointing out that there are non-theistic clerics in D&D and thus, even without a god, Durkon would still be able to cast spells.


Also, about the ones who say "He should have resentment against Thor", Durkon didn't say "Thor, Save me!" but he only had aceptance into his plan. I think that a Durkula and Thor small talk would be more than interesting

Except that he did ask Thor for help and got no response (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html).

[Perseus]

I wish people would quit calling it a mistake.

"Oops, I kind of accidentally on purpose killed dozens or hundreds of people (most of them nonhumanoid but all of them sapient) for being related to an enemy of mine!"

If Vaarsuvius mouths excuses like "it was a mistake" and "well, they were evil black dragons, it's not actually like I killed people," instead of looking herself/himself in the mirror and acknowledging that s/he is looking at a sadistic mass murderer who tortures enemies without hesitation, that is what will most effectively ensure s/he cannot have redemption. As Soon said, the first step is to acknowledge what you did.

I'm Kish. Who are you? No only do I disagree with the moral judgments of the OotS gods (prominently including Thor) all the time, I observe that their author generally writes them as self-centered morons, certainly not as all-trumping moral authorities. I do not believe "never mind the moral implications of anything any member of the Order did, they prevented the world from being destroyed so the gods are writing them all Go To Celestia Free tickets" is something there is even the tiniest, most remote chance Rich is going to write.


It seems that Rich has written The Order of the Stick gods to be more like the real world ancient Greek gods (and other gods but these are the best example I can cone up with)

Really the nicest guy was Hades, he did some messed up stuff though... Poseidon is now considered good but he was one messed up dude, and don't even look at Zues if you are looking for a good aligned god.

They were kinda like... The Chaotic Neutral Rogue archetype ... Completely NOT evil *wink wink* and does whatever they want.

Which with all this divinity = capital G Good that goes around it is refreshing to see a work go old school.

So I wouldn't be surprised if Thor at some point would throw spells to Durkon. Not because Thor is this good guy who is helping a guy out, but because it would piss off the other dwarven god and it could be fun to have an undead beer drinking lightning tossing member among his ranks.

You would at least think Thor would be a bit curious as to why his highest level cleric suddenly stopped worshiping him and then try to get him back in order to save face with the other gods.

[Dwy]

TLDR: I'd be seriously disappointed it the whole faith thing is blown off with "Ach, screw it lad, I'm to EVUUUL for the god I've devoted my life to now. My worldview has been reduced to praising the Dark side. For, ye know, reasons."

Personally I think it would be perfectly in line with Durkon's old character to stay on the metaphorical sinking ship. That is, to keep praising Thor, like any dutiful dwarf would do, despite the fact that he no longer can get anything meaningful back from it. He may not like it, but his Hilgya duty speech comes to mind. It's the dwarven thing to do.

Sure, he'll have to get his powers like a non-theistic LE cleric, but the Durkon we've known pre-vampirism would never forsake his personal faith, worldview and god, just like that. He died in honorable combat once for what he believed in, now he'll just have to stick around as long as he can while his friends need him to save the world... And then die in honorable combat once more, just to be sure.

NOTE: As you probably understand, I don't buy Redcloak's view on undead, nor that Durkon's changed quite enough to justify a new name, until I see explicit proof of it in the comic (and I disregard killing Z as that proof).

[Trillium]

Let's not forget, that Durkon is the most powerful dwarven cleric around, maybe even the most powerful dwarf around (maybe even if Kraagor survived).

Thor may be unwilling to forfeit such a powerful worshipper, evil or not-evil. Especially since Durkon still fights to save the world, rather than to enjoy his epic evilness.

[Aasimar]

I'm just going to go ahead and point out that Durkon the vampire will almost certainly be destroyed by a tree at some point. (either because someone throws it at him or because it's a treeant or something)

There's just too much foreshadowing for anything else. (Though it's possible he will instead go on a crusade against trees to prevent just that eventuality)

My 2cp about the deity issue: It's simple, he hasn't quite had the time to work through it all, he may or may not still consider himself a follower of Thor, regardless of where he gets his magic from, but it's very likely that as soon as they are out of 'imminent risk of death'-mode, he will have to work through exactly where he stands.

I think there's a very real possibility he'll convert to Hel.

[Souhiro]

My 2cp about the deity issue: It's simple, he hasn't quite had the time to work through it all, he may or may not still consider himself a follower of ThorI agree with that!

Keep in mind: Durkula STILL wears his holy simbol. He don't "Carry", but WEARS it. Maybe he'll throw it away, or maybe he'll keep it, or he will still wear it for his remaining life.

The "Durkula != Durkon" is simple: Malak has stated that Vampire!Malak wasn't "the original lizardfolk shaman that died and was vampirized 200 years ago". How much Durkon is in Durkula... it still has to be seen, also maybe even if Durkula es 99.999% Durkon, and he agrees to be un-vampirized (Via an excruciating death and a resurrection ritual) he may still want to keep his vampiric powers until the entire "End of the Wolrd" issue has been resolved.

[Perseus]

I agree with that!

Keep in mind: Durkula STILL wears his holy simbol. He don't "Carry", but WEARS it. Maybe he'll throw it away, or maybe he'll keep it, or he will still wear it for his remaining life.

The "Durkula != Durkon" is simple: Malak has stated that Vampire!Malak wasn't "the original lizardfolk shaman that died and was vampirized 200 years ago". How much Durkon is in Durkula... it still has to be seen, also maybe even if Durkula es 99.999% Durkon, and he agrees to be un-vampirized (Via an excruciating death and a resurrection ritual) he may still want to keep his vampiric powers until the entire "End of the Wolrd" issue has been resolved.

What people miss about Malack saying that is that there was 200 years of being an undead. 200 years is a long time to grow as a person and trust me, anyone would change in that time. Hell they say that most people in the real world are drastically different even over 7 years.

It isn't that vampirism changed him, but the 200 did and he is no longer the same person and may hate what he was.

I used to be a shy and weak highschooler who was told was "the most non confratational person ever" to the point where it was a huge flaw. If someone said hey let me turn you back into him, I would have to decline, I am not that weak willed shy boy anymore. Actually I would rather die than become what I was... Am I a totally different human being than high school me? No, I grew as a person and became something better.

Durkon is still himself, he may have some evil influence (or less reason not to do thing) but he is still Durkon. This isn't Buffy the not-vampire slayer, this is a story based on D&D and until Rich says otherwise we have no proof that this isn't Durkon. Actually in story as with Xykon, we have proof that higher forms of undead are still the original or do people think that there is a Xykon soul somewhere being tortured in the great fire below?

[HeeJay]

I'm still not convinced, by the way, that Durkula is LE or anything, yet

Of course he's not. He's still Lawful Good, and Spiky is not a devil, he's an angel.

You see, Spiky used Alter Self to make himself look like an incarnation of pure Law and Evil, for a lark.

[AKA_Bait]

Of course he's not. He's still Lawful Good, and Spiky is not a devil, he's an angel.

You see, Spiky used Alter Self to make himself look like an incarnation of pure Law and Evil, for a lark.

There is some precedent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html) for that. :smallwink:

[Evandar]

I have a weird feeling that blue text implies a tongue-in-cheek joke. Don't ask me how I know, my powers of perception are just uncanny.

I'm actually expecting Thor to just roll with it, rules be damned.

[F.Harr]

If Durkon is able to convince Thor that the blood he drinks is beer with beet juice in it, I imagine things will be just ducky between them.

Of course he'd also have to convince Thor that beet juice has important beard-strengthening effects for him to be on board with THAT... but OOTS Thor seems either dim or inattentive enough to buy it.

... in actuality, I'm wagering that he'll be dwarvenkind's first ever cleric of Hel. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html)

Ooh! A subplot. He could do something about the squabbling. If Hel's rep is improved, perhaps he won't have bicker for souls.


I think that you may be overlooking the D&D rules argument (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm), unless that is part of what you mean by narrative frameworks. . .[/SPOILER]

Yes. Yes it was.


Arguably, V's use of familicide may have saved the world. Had the Draketooth's(teeth?). . .

Draketooths. Deffinately Draketooths.


As I recall the Giant has already stated that Durkon is presently a non-denominational cleric powered by negative energy, not any particular god. However given his lifelong dedication to a god I wouldn't be surprised to see him seek out a new one to replace Thor. Hel being one possibility; he could be her first cleric. And it does seem a potential bit of plot foreshadowing that it was specifically mentioned that no dwarf worships her or serves as her priest; perhaps she's in the market for one.


I don't think the Giant's quote means that Durkon is a non-theistic cleric. That reads to me simply as him pointing out that there are non-theistic clerics in D&D and thus, even without a god, Durkon would still be able to cast spells.



Except that he did ask Thor for help and got no response (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html).

1. I agree with your reading of the giant's message.

2. Yes he did get one. He got piece. It was the best Thor could do in the circumstances.


I'm just going to go ahead and point out that Durkon the vampire will almost certainly be destroyed by a tree at some point. (either because someone throws it at him or because it's a treeant or something).

And, funny.



My 2cp about the deity issue: It's simple, he hasn't quite had the time to work through it all, he may or may not still consider himself a follower of Thor, regardless of where he gets his magic from, but it's very likely that as soon as they are out of 'imminent risk of death'-mode, he will have to work through exactly where he stands.



I agree.


I have a weird feeling that blue text implies a tongue-in-cheek joke. Don't ask me how I know, my powers of perception are just uncanny.

I'm actually expecting Thor to just roll with it, rules be damned.

I'm rolling with that. I certanly didn't suggest Durkon was ANY alignment yet. His perspective has changed and it will continue to do so. We don't know where that leads, yet.

[littlebum2002]

I'd actually really like to see a Durkon-Thor interaction when he prays for spells at dusk tonight. If it doesn't happen then, I don't see it happening at all. After all, why would they have a joke about Thor leaving Durkon months after it happens?



I have a weird feeling that blue text implies a tongue-in-cheek joke. Don't ask me how I know, my powers of perception are just uncanny.

I'm actually expecting Thor to just roll with it, rules be damned.


Blue text usually means sarcasm. Not EXACTLY the same as tongue-in-cheek, but close enough.

[Perseus]

I have a weird feeling that blue text implies a tongue-in-cheek joke. Don't ask me how I know, my powers of perception are just uncanny.

I'm actually expecting Thor to just roll with it, rules be damned.

He is known to bend the rules when it is cool or awesome to do so...

[F.Harr]

I'd actually really like to see a Durkon-Thor interaction when he prays for spells at dusk tonight. If it doesn't happen then, I don't see it happening at all. After all, why would they have a joke about Thor leaving Durkon months after it happens?


That would be a cool scene.

[orrion]

Well, remember that most of what she killed were black dragons, which are "always evil" and don't count as murder.

*ducks and runs*

Wait, what? Did you really just say that if someone is evil then killing them is not murder?


He is known to bend the rules when it is cool or awesome to do so...

In what way would it be cool for a Good deity to have a Vampire running around killing people and drinking their blood?

This ain't Buffy. Durkon is now Evil. By the rules he can no longer worship Thor.

However, nothing says that he couldn't pick another deity. My guess is that he simply hasn't had time to do it. A cleric doesn't need a deity to cast spells, though, which is why Durkon was still able to summon Spiky after being vamped.

[ChristianSt]

This ain't Buffy. Durkon is now Evil. By the rules he can no longer worship Thor.

However, nothing says that he couldn't pick another deity. My guess is that he simply hasn't had time to do it. A cleric doesn't need a deity to cast spells, though, which is why Durkon was still able to summon Spiky after being vamped.

I don't think that it is necessary that Durkon abandons worshipping Thor - even rules-wise.
Sure he can't gain spells from him, but I don't really think anybody could stop him from still directing a prayer or two in Thor's direction.
The last time I checked other people than clerics could worship a god.

I think we will see how this will play out - but I would find it odd if we will not see some kind of mentioning it. Thor was a central part of Durkon's life - it is certainly possible that that is still true.
But since we don't know how exactly vampirism in OotS works, we will have to wait to see what happens.

[Bulldog Psion]

Until further notice, I'm going to assume that Durk Malackssen now worships Nergal.

[Havokca]

This ain't Buffy. Durkon is now Evil. By the rules he can no longer worship Thor.


He can worship whomever he pleases. By the rules, Thor won't listen.

The distinction is subtle, but (possibly un)important.

[Perseus]

He can worship whomever he pleases. By the rules, Thor won't listen.

The distinction is subtle, but (possibly un)important.

Actually Thor can still give him spells.

Pelor gave evil spells to a cleric in 3.5. Pelor is a good deity...

So its up to Thor.

Durkon can become good again (and be a vampire), although dicey technically nothing stops Durkon from changing alignments later on if he so wishes.

@Orrin

Durkon doesn't drink dwarven blood, only other races?

I know this isn't Buffy the Not-Vampire slayer, Durkon is still Durkon.

[orrion]

@Orrin

Durkon doesn't drink dwarven blood, only other races?

I know this isn't Buffy the Not-Vampire slayer, Durkon is still Durkon.

Just because we've mainly seen the worship of Thor be tied to dwarfs doesn't mean he's solely theirs, or that Thor, who is Good, wouldn't be concerned if Durkon killed/drank from people who weren't dwarfs.

[Ramien]

Actually Thor can still give him spells.

Pelor gave evil spells to a cleric in 3.5. Pelor is a good deity...

So its up to Thor.

Citation needed. Most circumstances in 3.5 where this happens in canon it's usually shown to be another deity pretending to be Pelor. (Or it's in Eberron, where the gods don't really seem to care about such things)

[Perseus]

Just because we've mainly seen the worship of Thor be tied to dwarfs doesn't mean he's solely theirs, or that Thor, who is Good, wouldn't be concerned if Durkon killed/drank from people who weren't dwarfs.

Maybe maybe not. Who knows. Maybe only drink from evil races, or don't kill when he feeds. Feeding from a creature doesn't auto convert the creature. Hell feeding from them wouldn't be cannibalism and it is a bit nicer way to take out your enemy than slicing them up slowly... Or casting spells that burn a creature to death...

Some good gods don't care if you slaughter and pillage certain other races.

Also from what we have seen so far, he is primarily a dwarven god.

[Yuki Akuma]

Actually Thor can still give him spells.

Pelor gave evil spells to a cleric in 3.5. Pelor is a good deity...

You're really basing your argument on an art mistake due to missing a change in the revised Third Edition PHB? Due to Symbol of Pain not being [Evil] in 3e, but having been given that tag in 3.5?

Really?

[Astroturtle]

Maybe maybe not. Who knows. Maybe only drink from evil races, or don't kill when he feeds.

As per Malack's bloodwart tea, he can probably survive on second hand blood. Also, he's an adventurer. Something tries to kill him on almost a daily basis. Its like a roll on the Random Dinner table.

[Perseus]

You're really basing your argument on an art mistake due to missing a change in the revised Third Edition PHB? Due to Symbol of Pain not being [Evil] in 3e, but having been given that tag in 3.5?

Really?

Actually I'm basing it on a multi-edition conspiracy that Pelor isn't actually a good god and is in fact evil.

But as an evil god pretending to be good, he still gives spells to good clerics.

Fun stuff that D&D.

[Souhiro]

Well, I think that Roy, Haley or the rest (Save for Belkar) wouldn't mind if durkon drinks a quick sip of their blood. Everybody who player VtM knows that vampires don't need to kill their prey everytime they feed. Many good vampires keeps their "hoard": Humans which don't mind (or even enjoy) being fed to vampires... as long as they survive the process!

But I never said that Durkon still were a priest of Thor, but that he PRAYED to Thor, to talk with him. And Thor answered.

[ChristianSt]

As per Malack's bloodwart tea, he can probably survive on second hand blood. Also, he's an adventurer. Something tries to kill him on almost a daily basis. Its like a roll on the Random Dinner table.

We don't really know how much blood a vampire needs, and if it needs to be fresh.
It could be possible that he needs quite a large supper of fresh blood - but we haven't seen Malack for long enough continuous time to know that.

So the bloodwart tea might not been that nourishing (it might have helped a bit) compared to the meal he took after in private, but I certainly imagine that he prefers bloodwart tea compared to normal tea (just like Durkon preferred it with alcohol than without :smallwink:) (and in some vampire myths vampires don't find enjoyment in normal food).

And personally if I would DM a group with a newly turned vampire I probably wouldn't make it that easy to provide food through random encounters. So maybe reducing the number of random encounters, or having random encounters which provide no nourishment for a vampire. I don't think that vampires can feed on most undead, elementals or some of the stranger monster that are available in D&D.
After all being a vampire has drawbacks, and needing another type of food is certainly one of them - and I kinda except that Rich explores the changes that vampirism brings, and not just handwaves all changes away.

[Perseus]

Well, I think that Roy, Haley or the rest (Save for Belkar) wouldn't mind if durkon drinks a quick sip of their blood. Everybody who player VtM knows that vampires don't need to kill their prey everytime they feed. Many good vampires keeps their "hoard": Humans which don't mind (or even enjoy) being fed to vampires... as long as they survive the process!

But I never said that Durkon still were a priest of Thor, but that he PRAYED to Thor, to talk with him. And Thor answered.

Totally want to make a Prestige Class that is based around the player being a Vampire's meal.

It would be the most ridiculous prestige class ever...

[Obscure Blade]

Totally want to make a Prestige Class that is based around the player being a Vampire's meal.

It would be the most ridiculous prestige class ever...It involves alchemical treatments that turn your blood into an addictive love potion for vampires...

[Storm_Of_Snow]

As I recall the Giant has already stated that Durkon is presently a non-denominational cleric powered by negative energy, not any particular god. However given his lifelong dedication to a god I wouldn't be surprised to see him seek out a new one to replace Thor. Hel being one possibility; he could be her first cleric. And it does seem a potential bit of plot foreshadowing that it was specifically mentioned that no dwarf worships her or serves as her priest; perhaps she's in the market for one.
And what's more, The Giant stated way back in DCF that he really likes writing Thor, so I can't believe we've seen the last of him.

[Souhiro]

Totally want to make a Prestige Class that is based around the player being a Vampire's meal.

It would be the most ridiculous prestige class ever...

Well, keep in mind that a vampire's bite never has been portrayed as "Painful", but rather otherwise. Even in WoD, it was said that many mortals were addicted to the pleasure of "the kiss of the vampire" and such WoD-things. OotS-verse don't seem to be the case: Durkon wasn't enjoying being drained, but at least, he didn't looked to be suffering.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Well, keep in mind that a vampire's bite never has been portrayed as "Painful", but rather otherwise.
Tell that to Spike when Druscilla turned him in Fool For Love.

Although, bearing in mind a Vampire's usual domination abilities, in most cases, they probably override their victims pain responses so that they don't squirm around, and don't raise an alarm.

[Perseus]

It involves alchemical treatments that turn your blood into an addictive love potion for vampires...

Nah, I don't want people thinking of twilight... Or going tsukiko on us...


Well, keep in mind that a vampire's bite never has been portrayed as "Painful", but rather otherwise. Even in WoD, it was said that many mortals were addicted to the pleasure of "the kiss of the vampire" and such WoD-things. OotS-verse don't seem to be the case: Durkon wasn't enjoying being drained, but at least, he didn't looked to be suffering.

Durkon may not have liked the fact his friend was sucking on his neck, not because blood was coming out but because in his LG point of view it isn't proper before marriage (or love, inter species, or male x male)... :p


Tell that to Spike when Druscilla turned him in Fool For Love.

Although, bearing in mind a Vampire's usual domination abilities, in most cases, they probably override their victims pain responses so that they don't squirm around, and don't raise an alarm.

I was actually thinking of fluffing the PrC so that the PC feels he is getting stronger or more resistant... But doesn't really know why... Like building up an immunity to charms and such while your body learns how to not lose so much blood (heart slows down or whatever) thus you have more HP... (Edited)

Which you know is hilarious cause we see the game in terms of levels and can explain why that makes no sense (players choose their levels and in fact would make that choice too) but the character doesn't know what's going on.

Fun roleplaying at least.

[martianmister]

Thor would change his own alignment for Durkon.

[Dwy]

Durkon may not have liked the fact his friend was sucking on his neck, not because blood was coming out but because in his LG point of view it isn't proper before marriage (or love, inter species, or male x male)... :p


Pre-marital sucking on necks? Thor understands these things. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html)

And while I know that OOTS-Thor isn't based on the Norse god, it still needs to be mentioned that Thor, the manliest of all gods, in one popular tale from the Norse mythology cross-dressed(along with his smarter buddy, Loki) and married a male "troll" (can't find the right word in english) to get his hammer back, after it got stolen from him in his sleep. So Thor might understand that whole male x male, inter-species thing too.

[Kish]

Especially since Durkon said (OtOoPCs) that he sees nothing wrong with being gay, though he isn't himself.

[Perseus]

Thor would change his own alignment for Durkon.

Though that would be awesome... Alignments aren't really something that changes like that... Though he is a deity ...



Especially since Durkon said (OtOoPCs) that he sees nothing wrong with being gay, though he isn't himself.

Yup. I have nothing against it but I wouldn't appreciate any of my gay (or straight friends) be they male or female, sucking on my neck... And I'm sure my wife would have something to say about it too haha. :smalltongue:

[Ramien]

You know what? Come dusk, I think Durkon's going to tell Elan to get out Banjo. We've already seen that Banjo isn't picky about his followers' alignment, after all.

[Evandar]

You know, I just remembered that Roy only had his alignment judged after he was dead. D'you think it's possible that Durkon can just keep on truckin' if he doesn't do anything unjustifiably Evil and deal with Thor when he's dead?

Also I bet Nergal would take him on.

[Souhiro]

Nergal is a Chaotic Evil deity, I don't think he would find interesting to have a Lawful cleric in his ranks.

Also, I think that Banchtulhu would be more akin to Durkula's tastes! But if I were tasked to find a god for Durkula, it would be... Walter Peck (http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/wiki/Walter_Peck)!

He's Lawful, He's Evil, and since they say that vampires descend from Osiris, who upon his resurrection lost something... I won't say anything more :p

[Kish]

Nergal is a Chaotic Evil deity, I don't think he would find interesting to have a Lawful cleric in his ranks.
Really? One wonders how you'd explain Malack then.

(And where you get that Nergal is Chaotic in OotS; put that book down.)

[Souhiro]

Really? One wonders how you'd explain Malack then.

(And where you get that Nergal is Chaotic in OotS; put that book down.)

Malak summoned a demon, an incarnation of everything which is Chaotic and Evil. Durkula summoned Spiky, a Lawful Devil. It's more a "Malak is... or was, Chaotic Evil", and clerics usually are depicted with the same alignment of their gods.

:S I think we don't see Thor in action until this Elan/Tarquin/Roy arc is over. But I would like to see him using The Dark One as a nail to build a shelf

[Harbinger]

Malak summoned a demon, an incarnation of everything which is Chaotic and Evil. Durkula summoned Spiky, a Lawful Devil. It's more a "Malak is... or was, Chaotic Evil", and clerics usually are depicted with the same alignment of their gods.

:S I think we don't see Thor in action until this Elan/Tarquin/Roy arc is over. But I would like to see him using The Dark One as a nail to build a shelf

gooby, pls

Malack didn't summon anything. Durkula summoned a devil, and Zz'dtri summon a daemon. Z was Neutral Evil, and so are daemons. If Malack had summoned anything, it almost certainly would have been a devil, based on Malack's behavior. I'd sooner believe he was Lawful Neutral than Chaotic Evil.

[Evandar]

Yeah, the fact he wanted an orderly regime of death and destruction settled Malack for me, really.

Honestly, assuming Gods can choose who gets their powers and the alignment thing doesn't have to be a hard restriction (and the Order is actually doing something Good about the rifts, which admittedly I'm beginning to have doubts about since the IFCC started intervening), it's really possible Thor will overlook Durkon's recent deceased status and let him keep on keepin' on.

[Perseus]

I could see Thor granting Durkon spells and just "accidentally" not checking Durkon's alignment as long Durkon is still fighting the good fight.

Then one day Loki or Odin brings it up...

Actually I could also see Thor asking a favor of Loki, to watch Thor's greatest follower, perhaps as a way to say sorry to Durkon or at least a "My Bad, here let me make it up to you".

Then our other favorite cleric of loki may show up (no not him...).

[halfeye]

Do we know the alignment of Loki in OotS?

In the Marvel comics he's pretty evil.

[Perseus]

Do we know the alignment of Loki in OotS?

In the Marvel comics he's pretty evil.

I believe he is evil, or perhaps just Anti-Thor?

I think Hylga and then the human cleric of Loki were both evil or at the very least N on that axis.

[Ramien]

Do we know the alignment of Loki in OotS?

In the Marvel comics he's pretty evil.

Loki is generally portrayed as CE(sometimes with CN tendencies) in most D&D sources.

[hamishspence]

Do we know the alignment of Loki in OotS?

In the Marvel comics he's pretty evil.

In SoD,

he's mentioned as one of the "older evil gods" who defended The Dark One against the gods who wanted to destroy him, when he ascended to godhood.

[Shred-Bot]

Thor would change his own alignment for Durkon.

Once you go beardy it never gets weird-y?

[Astroturtle]

it's really possible Thor will overlook Durkon's recent deceased status and let him keep on keepin' on.

Especially given that Thor is perfectly willing to bend the rules.(Control Weather)

Is Thor's alignment ever clearly stated somewhere, actually? I always thought 'Lawful Good' but reconsidering his actions he seems more Chaotic Good.

[Kish]

Thor's alignment has never been stated in OotS.

He has a D&D writeup, which Rich either explicitly said or very-clearly-implied he is not using, which is Chaotic Good.

Durkon was Lawful Good, which by the letter of the rules requires Thor to be Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, or Neutral Good, unless he has some special exemption, which is not all that uncommon in D&D rules, or simply doesn't care about the one-step rule--which (the author ignoring rules he chooses to) is not uncommon in Rich's writing.

[hamishspence]

He's not on the list of characters whom The Giant has explicitly given an alignment to in one of his posts, in The Index of The Giant's Comments.

[Porthos]

In SoD,

he's mentioned as one of the "older evil gods" who defended The Dark One against the gods who wanted to destroy him, when he ascended to godhood.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7486/hilgya.png: "I am the servant of Loki, God of Flames and Chaos!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html) would suggest Chaotic Evil in that case. :smallwink:

[rodneyAnonymous]

I see Chaos, and Flames, but no Evil.

[boolean]

Of course he's not. He's still Lawful Good, and Spiky is not a devil, he's an angel.

You see, Spiky used Alter Self to make himself look like an incarnation of pure Law and Evil, for a lark.


There is some precedent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html) for that. :smallwink:

OMG! Laurin is Eugene Greenhilt in disguise!

[ChristianSt]

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7486/hilgya.png: "I am the servant of Loki, God of Flames and Chaos!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html) would suggest Chaotic Evil in that case. :smallwink:


I see Chaos, and Flames, but no Evil.

I think more "evidence" for being Evil is the :durkon:: "Why do I have tha nagging feelin' that with a few more ranks a' Knowledge (Religion), I'd be a lot more worried aboot all a' this" from the same strip [Sure it is certainly no proof, but it would be much less funnier if Loki is not evil]

[Kish]

I see Chaos, and Flames, but no Evil.
I believe what Porthos is saying is that Start of Darkness saying Loki is evil, plus Hilgya saying Loki is God of Chaos, totals out at "Chaotic Evil."

[Jay R]

I could see Thor granting Durkon spells and just "accidentally" not checking Durkon's alignment as long Durkon is still fighting the good fight.

You can drop the quote marks around "accidentally". Based on how he's been portrayed in this comic, Thor not paying attention and not noticing is far more likely than Thor making a clever and subtle decision.

Ironically, I have to use the quote marks in order to suggest dropping them.

[F.Harr]

Especially given that Thor is perfectly willing to bend the rules.(Control Weather)

Is Thor's alignment ever clearly stated somewhere, actually? I always thought 'Lawful Good' but reconsidering his actions he seems more Chaotic Good.

More like chaotic goofy.

He's just a fun lad who tries to do good when he's not bored.

[Perseus]

You can drop the quote marks around "accidentally". Based on how he's been portrayed in this comic, Thor not paying attention and not noticing is far more likely than Thor making a clever and subtle decision.

Ironically, I have to use the quote marks in order to suggest dropping them.

I actually watched Zoolander and have been making fun of that movie, it has been mixing over into my typing.

In my head I was actually thinking of myself doing air quotations haha.

But you are right, Thor may just didn't pay attention as of right now.

I can see Loki dropping subtle hints at Thor and Thor not catching on haha.

[AstralFire]

There's a possibility that Thor is like Roy on a different axis - where Roy is arguably an innate LN or TN constantly trying hard to be LG, Thor is more of an innate NG with CG tendencies that's constantly trying to be LG.

By contrast, Elan does not actively try to be CG, he simply is. Durkon (at least pre-vamping) was the same way for LG.

[AKA_Bait]

Does it make a difference that when Vampire Durkon summoned the demon he was still a thrall of Malack? In other words, being a thrall, would he have been accessing planar allies based on his own alignment, that if his deity (whoever that might be), or that of Malack's deity (Nergal)?

[Perseus]

Does it make a difference that when Vampire Durkon summoned the demon he was still a thrall of Malack? In other words, being a thrall, would he have been accessing planar allies based on his own alignment, that if his deity (whoever that might be), or that of Malack's deity (Nergal)?

Who knows, I'm not sure about being a thrall but..

Durkon wasn't getting spells from Nergal, he never prayed for spells from Nergal.

That spell was one that came from Thor, Durkon said he had it prepared earlier but was going to call in an angel or whatever to guard the gate.

So he had the spell ready to go, he just used it for calling an evil creature instead of good.

By D&D this makes sense... A deity that doesn't check up on you and he already gave you spells... Summoning/Calling spells aren't memorized as in "Summon Monster 4, summon celestial sloth" but just "Summon Monster 4" and then you choose what to bring in. Planar ally is the same way, you get the spell and get to choose at the time of casting what to call.

Which is a bit mean, prepared casters should at least have to prepare what they are going to call a head of time...

So what you saw Vamp Durkon cast was from Thor, using divine magic gained from a good (ish) god... But for evil.

So now what we have is at dusk Durkon will do one of three things.

Pray to Thor for spells (fun times when Thor/Thor's Angela don't recognize the caller id)

Pray to Nergal for spells (who might be like wtf? Who is this new guy and why should I give him spells... Why hasn't malack called in yet and who is this puny normal lizardfolk walking through my gates...)

Meditate and try to get spells from the negative energy plain or from whatever god will throw him a bone... Which I suspect many evil gods would literally kill for a high level cleric.

[Spoomeister]

After all our collective speculation, I would be most amused if Durkula tells one of the other characters that it's none of their damned business where and how he gets his spells, and that really, all they care about is that D keeps the healing and tactical support a-comin'. And then never says a word about it again.

Kind of like in Star Trek TNG when Worf was asked once about the bumpy forehead Klingons vs. smooth-headed ones, and he said point-blank "among our people we do not discuss that".

Take something fans have been wondering about and firmly put it completely off-camera, indefinitely. Heh.

And this is from someone who really thinks there's a lot of potential for drama and pathos from this plot point, and who does think we should see it on-panel.

[AstralFire]

Worf was shrugging off an issue that was sprouted by the limits of TV show SFX when the original series was made; Durkon's a cleric who takes his faith very seriously and has previously had the least development. While it's entirely possible that the issue will never be addressed, the reasons are not as compelling.

[AKA_Bait]

Planar ally is the same way, you get the spell and get to choose at the time of casting what to call.

Which is a bit mean, prepared casters should at least have to prepare what they are going to call a head of time...

So what you saw Vamp Durkon cast was from Thor, using divine magic gained from a good (ish) god... But for evil.

Except, when I went and looked at the text of the spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAlly.htm), that's not exactly how Planar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyLesser.htm)Ally (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyGreater.htm)really works.

RAW:
"By casting this spell, you request your deity to send you an elemental or outsider (of [planar ally type] HD or less) of the deity’s choice. If you serve no particular deity, the spell is a general plea answered by a creature sharing your philosophical alignment. If you know an individual creature’s name, you may request that individual by speaking the name during the spell (though you might get a different creature anyway)."

In other words, you don't get just what you asked for. You get what you god sends you at the time of the casting of the spell or, if you have no god, something that shares your alignment. This means that either (a) Vampire Durkon's Deity sent it (if he has one), (b) Nergal sent it (if Thrall Vampire Durkon worshiped Nergal because of thrallness, or (c) the devil has the same alignment as Durkon.

[rodneyAnonymous]

In other words, you don't get just what you asked for. You get what you god sends you at the time of the casting of the spell or, if you have no god, something that shares your alignment. This means that either (a) Vampire Durkon's Deity sent it (if he has one), (b) Nergal sent it (if Thrall Vampire Durkon worshiped Nergal because of thrallness, or (c) the devil has the same alignment as Durkon.

It has to be (c). (a) would take deliberate action, which Durkon hadn't had a chance to take, and (b) would be bizarre, in no other D&D case does any kind of mind control affect the deity you worship, even technically.

To say "'it's possible' is weak support for an argument" would be very generous. It's possible that vampire thrall domination works fundamentally differently than every other mind control effect in the game, but it's also possible that the Sun exploded a few minutes ago, and nobody considers that evidence it happened.

PS: The fact that Durkon's planar ally called a devil is pretty strong evidence that he no longer worships Thor, who wouldn't have sent it I don't think.

[Ghost Nappa]

You know what? Come dusk, I think Durkon's going to tell Elan to get out Banjo. We've already seen that Banjo isn't picky about his followers' alignment, after all.

Odin and Thor WERE more than willing to include Banjo in the Pantheon...

[Bulldog Psion]

Odin and Thor WERE more than willing to include Banjo in the Pantheon...

Yes, they were downright eager. :smallbiggrin:

I think that Giggles might be more Durkon's speed now, though.

[Ramien]

Yes, they were downright eager. :smallbiggrin:

I think that Giggles might be more Durkon's speed now, though.

I doubt it. Durkon never really lent himself well to slapstick.

[AKA_Bait]

PS: The fact that Durkon's planar ally called a devil is pretty strong evidence that he no longer worships Thor, who wouldn't have sent it I don't think.

This is the point I was ultimately trying to get at. It seems like the only scenario where that devil shows up is if Durkon's thralldom somehow meant that it was Nergal getting to pick what showed up.

Well, that or the Giant houseruled Planar Ally to operate in the way that I think most groups actually use it. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Clerics of no particular deity get planar allies based on their alignment, rather than servants of a deity, sent by it.

Vampires clerics normally choose two out four domains (Chaos, Evil, Destruction, and Trickery) instead of the normal domains of the deity they worshipped in life.

By implication therefore, they are "clerics of no particular deity".

Result- if Durkon is LE, and "a vampire cleric of no particular deity" - LE outsiders will answer his planar ally spells.

[AKA_Bait]

Clerics of no particular deity get planar allies based on their alignment, rather than servants of a deity, sent by it.

Vampires clerics normally choose two out four domains (Chaos, Evil, Destruction, and Trickery) instead of the normal domains of the deity they worshipped in life.

By implication therefore, they are "clerics of no particular deity".

Result- if Durkon is LE, and "a vampire cleric of no particular deity" - LE outsiders will answer his planar ally spells.

Right, I should have been clearer above. I meant that the only scenario in which Durkon still worships Thor and that devil shows up is one where the thralldom somehow dictated that Nergal got to send the planar ally. Otherwise, if Durkon still worshiped Thor he would have gotten something else.

[eilandesq]

I could see Thor granting Durkon spells and just "accidentally" not checking Durkon's alignment as long Durkon is still fighting the good fight.

Then one day Loki or Odin brings it up...

Actually I could also see Thor asking a favor of Loki, to watch Thor's greatest follower, perhaps as a way to say sorry to Durkon or at least a "My Bad, here let me make it up to you".

Then our other favorite cleric of loki may show up (no not him...).

The funny thing is that when Durkon broke it off with said lady cleric of Loki, he seemed more horrified and offended by the *chaotic* part of her actions (leaving her marriage and responsibilities back home) than the actual *evil* parts (repeatedly trying to murder her husband with no good reason other than wanting to be rid of him). Durkon seems to be as Lawful as ever, so the main difference would probably be that he won't cry this time when he chases her off. Which is a reminder that though the old Durkon's personality still substantially influences the vampire's newly forming one, the vampire is *not* Durkon (at best, he might be convinced to consent to becoming Durkon again, but even that's going to be a hard sell).

[eilandesq]

Especially given that Thor is perfectly willing to bend the rules.(Control Weather)

Is Thor's alignment ever clearly stated somewhere, actually? I always thought 'Lawful Good' but reconsidering his actions he seems more Chaotic Good.

More to the point, he was willing to bend the rules even when it meant committing the #1 No-No for OotS-verse deities in the post-Snarl era: no meddling in the other deities' areas of influence. Odin might object to the idea of cleric alignment infractions by Thor and Durkon*, but the "barnyard animal pantheon" (thanks for the useful derogatory religious reference, Girard!) presumably couldn't care less.

*--I'm not saying this is happening or will happen, since we seem to have Word of Giant to the contrary--I'm just saying that Thor probably wouldn't have any deep *ethical* concerns about the matter: if he decided to keep Durkon as a cleric for his own reasons and Durkon was willing to go along with it (risky from his POV, because his vampiric tendencies would probably deeply tick off the still Good Thor or his servants at some point, leading to smiting), and there was no absolute rule of the universe (in this case, the Giant's rules, not those of 3.5 unchanged) stopping it, then it would be so.

[eilandesq]

You can drop the quote marks around "accidentally". Based on how he's been portrayed in this comic, Thor not paying attention and not noticing is far more likely than Thor making a clever and subtle decision.

Ironically, I have to use the quote marks in order to suggest dropping them.

He does both, which raises the old problem that Thor seems an awful lot closer to his canonical D&D alignment (for all editions using the List of Nine) of Chaotic Good (or even a Haley-like Chaotic Good-ish--she chose her new deity well!) than the Neutral Good that 3.5 rules would suggest he would have to be for Lawful Good Dwarves to be clerics for him. I can see Thor occasionally getting a memo from Odin's bureaucratic devas reminding him that he needs to maintain his Neutral Good alignment to keep those dwarves in tow, and Thor rolling his eyes and throwing it into an overflowing wastebasket (and Odin--not wanting to deal with it--throwing the accompanying memos from his people warning him of the multiple infractions in his own trashcan). Paperpushers get no respect in the Northern Pantheon. :-)

[hamishspence]

How about True Neutral? Some True Neutral deities (although not all) allow clerics of every alignment.

[eilandesq]

I doubt it. Durkon never really lent himself well to slapstick.

Oh, I don't know about that:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0169.html ;

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0161.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0162.html

And The War On Trees Aside:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html

LOL--"Cleric's Feather Fall." :-)

[Ramien]

Oh, I don't know about that:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0169.html ;

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0161.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0162.html

And The War On Trees Aside:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html

LOL--"Cleric's Feather Fall." :-)

Most of that really doesn't fall under slapstick, though. The closest one that really fits is :
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0682.html
And even that was on the receiving end of the situation. Not something that would make him amenable to Giggles' teachings.

[orrion]

How about True Neutral? Some True Neutral deities (although not all) allow clerics of every alignment.

Possible, but we've seen no evidence that Thor condones Evil or acts in an Evil capacity.

Remember how Thor and Loki were "bleh" at the Durkon/Hilgya scene? Why would that have bothered them if Thor were True Neutral? Also, why would Thor have been fighting Loki at all?

[Ramien]

Possible, but we've seen no evidence that Thor condones Evil or acts in an Evil capacity.

Remember how Thor and Loki were "bleh" at the Durkon/Hilgya scene? Why would that have bothered them if Thor were True Neutral? Also, why would Thor have been fighting Loki at all?

Because dwarf sex is not pretty except to the dwarves in question?
Because Loki and Thor don't get along?

[orrion]

Because dwarf sex is not pretty except to the dwarves in question?
Because Loki and Thor don't get along?

The whole point of that scene to me was that neither of them would have sensed anything if it wasn't an alignment clash.

Why would Thor care about Loki's "wicked ways" if he was True Neutral?

[Ramien]

The whole point of that scene to me was that neither of them would have sensed anything if it wasn't an alignment clash.

Why would Thor care about Loki's "wicked ways" if he was True Neutral?

Because True Neutral doesn't necessarily like Evil either? Good can be annoying and sanctimonious, but Evil can be outright destructive.

[hamishspence]

Possible, but we've seen no evidence that Thor condones Evil or acts in an Evil capacity.

Some strips could be argued as evidence for "not exactly Good" even if it's for comedy:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0007.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html

[ChristianSt]

Some strips could be argued as evidence for "not exactly Good" even if it's for comedy:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html

I think those strips doesn't really tell much about Thor's Alignment on the Good/Evil axis, but they sure let him seem more Chaotic.

[hamishspence]

A certain amount of callousness towards mortals seems present. Not malice, but at least some indifference.

[F.Harr]

(c) the devil has the same alignment as Durkon.

You mean "thrall Durkon".

[Benthesquid]

Worf was shrugging off an issue that was sprouted by the limits of TV show SFX when the original series was made; Durkon's a cleric who takes his faith very seriously and has previously had the least development. While it's entirely possible that the issue will never be addressed, the reasons are not as compelling.

Plus, the smooth vs. bumpy head issue was later explored in Enterprise.

[orrion]

You mean "thrall Durkon".

Either way, Durkon was still Evil at the time.

He's a Vampire, they are Evil by definition. Even if the Giant decides to play with that later we know Durkon is Evil right now for 2 reasons:

1) Vampires are Evil by default.

2) He told Roy he was "no more evil than Belkar."

[Perseus]

Either way, Durkon was still Evil at the time.

He's a Vampire, they are Evil by definition. Even if the Giant decides to play with that later we know Durkon is Evil right now for 2 reasons:

1) Vampires are Evil by default.

2) He told Roy he was "no more evil than Belkar."

Well vampires don't have to stay evil, so I wouldn't say by default. Upon creation vampires become evil but there is nothing in D&D that would stop a Vampire from becoming a LG Cleric or even a LG Paladin... Just need to pick their god correctly.

I think Durkon knows he is evil and it may be refreshing, for the first time in his life he isn't being held back by his mortal morals. While he still likes his friends and allies (and wants to save the world) he doesn't have the "shoulder angel" to stop him from doing things (aka conscience). Durkon is still learning about himself and his new perspective on life, so while he knows Vampires are evil he probably doesn't know how evil he himself is, thus the quote about being no more evil than Belkar since that is the funniest/easiest person to compare himself to.

[orrion]

Well vampires don't have to stay evil, so I wouldn't say by default. Upon creation vampires become evil but there is nothing in D&D that would stop a Vampire from becoming a LG Cleric or even a LG Paladin... Just need to pick their god correctly.

Upon creation is by default.

If you'd prefer to use "factory settings" or some other similar phrase instead, be my guest. It all comes out to the same thing, though.

[rodneyAnonymous]

You mean "thrall Durkon".

Being a thrall would probably not affect his alignment, no other mind control effects do.

[AKA_Bait]

You mean "thrall Durkon".

Actually, I didn't. But, now that you mention it, it's also a possible interpretation that a vampire's thralls all have the same alignment as the master vampire for purposes of alignment affecting/responsive spells. The SRD doesn't say any such thing though and that seems even more unusual than Malack's choice of god affecting which deity answered the phone. The latter case it seems not entirely unreasonable to me because Durkon is being treated like a magical item that can cast planar ally, activated Malack. The former requires something more than that, as Rodney A points out.

[Kish]

Actually, I didn't. But, now that you mention it, it's also a possible interpretation that a vampire's thralls all have the same alignment as the master vampire for purposes of alignment affecting/responsive spells. The SRD doesn't say any such thing though and that seems even more unusual than Malack's choice of god affecting which deity answered the phone.
The SRD also doesn't say that victims of a cleric's Control Undead ability, victims of a Suggestion spell, intelligent undead still under the control of their creator, and victims of a Charm Person spell, all act like remarkably similar robots.

Rich's handling of mind control effects is very far from RAW.

[AKA_Bait]

The SRD also doesn't say that victims of a cleric's Control Undead ability, victims of a Suggestion spell, intelligent undead still under the control of their creator, and victims of a Charm Person spell, all act like remarkably similar robots.

Rich's handling of mind control effects is very far from RAW.

I don't think that Rich has treated those effects in ways dissimilar from RAW. For example, Belkar talks back and doesn't take any actions he wouldn't necessarily be willing to otherwise. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16337462&postcount=95) The ghouls, however, are willing to do whatever they are told (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html).

Really, only the abuse of suggestion with the baby black dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0183.html) strikes me as a departure from raw and that because it acts more like dominate monster than suggestion is supposed to.

Can you explain why you think Rich has departed so far from RAW otherwise?

[brionl]

Either way, Durkon was still Evil at the time.

He's a Vampire, they are Evil by definition. Even if the Giant decides to play with that later we know Durkon is Evil right now for 2 reasons:

1) Vampires are Evil by default.

2) He told Roy he was "no more evil than Belkar."

Also, when tried to spontaneously convert a spell, it came out as harm instead of heal. So either he is some flavor of evil, or he's neutral and decided to channel negative energy for some reason.

[Adeptus]

Vampires clerics normally choose two out four domains (Chaos, Evil, Destruction, and Trickery) instead of the normal domains of the deity they worshipped in life.

Hmm, destruction from being a vampire cleric, death from Hel maybe?

Bringing death and destruction, remember. I like the hypothesis that D will be Hel's first (?) cleric.

[Kish]

I don't think that Rich has treated those effects in ways dissimilar from RAW. For example, Belkar talks back and doesn't take any actions he wouldn't necessarily be willing to otherwise. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16337462&postcount=95) The ghouls, however, are willing to do whatever they are told (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html).

Really, only the abuse of suggestion with the baby black dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0183.html) strikes me as a departure from raw and that because it acts more like dominate monster than suggestion is supposed to.

Can you explain why you think Rich has departed so far from RAW otherwise?
Charm Person by RAW: The victim thinks of the caster as a friend. The victim otherwise acts the same. The caster's orders should be phrased as suggestions one might make to a friend, and anything that goes against the victim's nature will be protested.
Charm Person in OotS: THe victim becomes an obedient robot, to the point of handing over his sword in the middle of a fight so that the hobgoblin he was fighting can kill him without effort (the guard Nale charmed in Azure City). Orders are phrased like orders; a blatantly suicidal order is obeyed without hesitation, and an order that goes against the victim's nature (telling Belkar to bring his companions' magic items to Nale) is rejected, in a fashion more resembling a computer program hitting a logic error than a confused "friend" who doesn't understand why his "friend" would ask him to do such a thing.
Suggestion: Functions like Dominate, as you noted.
Tsukiko's wights: Act like near-mindless robots, not average-Intelligence 11 average-Wisdom 13 Lawful Evil creatures who happen to be bound to obey Tsukiko.
Malack's Thrall Durkon: Acts like a near-mindless robot, not like a character with Intelligence and Wisdom higher than living Durkon's who happens to be bound to obey Malack.

Any other examples of mind control in the comic?

[rodneyAnonymous]

Any other examples of mind control in the comic?

Tsukiko dominating Thanh. Similar.

Although despite deviating pretty far from RAW, as described, it would still be inconsistent for Durkon's alignment to be affected by his thralldom. Less unlikely, I see, but still unlikely IMO.

[F.Harr]

Either way, Durkon was still Evil at the time.

He's a Vampire, they are Evil by definition. Even if the Giant decides to play with that later we know Durkon is Evil right now for 2 reasons:

That seems to be inconsistent with the Giant's views on morality. But he could go along with you.


1) Vampires are Evil by default.

So what?


2) He told Roy he was "no more evil than Belkar."

That covered SO much territory. Elan is not more evil than Belkar. V. is no more evil than Belkar. There is SO much in the universe that is no more evil than Belkar.


Also, when tried to spontaneously convert a spell, it came out as harm instead of heal. So either he is some flavor of evil, or he's neutral and decided to channel negative energy for some reason.

That's possible. It could also be part-and parcel of being a vampire and have nothing to do with morality at all.

We'll have to see how the Giant explores it.

[brionl]

Hmm, destruction from being a vampire cleric, death from Hel maybe?

Bringing death and destruction, remember. I like the hypothesis that D will be Hel's first (?) cleric.

Death is Xykon, and Destruction is Redcloak. He's "bringing" them in the sense that they are all converging on the same gate.

[brionl]

That's possible. It could also be part-and parcel of being a vampire and have nothing to do with morality at all.

We'll have to see how the Giant explores it.

It is part-and-parcel of being a Vampire. Vampires are always Evil. Evil clerics channel negative energy. Ipso-facto, Durkon is now some flavor of Evil alignment.

[orrion]

That covered SO much territory. Elan is not more evil than Belkar. V. is no more evil than Belkar. There is SO much in the universe that is no more evil than Belkar.


Geez, you're really insistent on that "unless it's spelled out explicitly then everything is possible," aren't you?

Why do you think he chose to use Belkar specifically in that example? Perhaps it's because Belkar is the party member whom we know is evil?

Regardless, in that same comic Durkon converted a spell to an Inflict spell. Only Neutral and Evil clerics can do that. Neutral clerics have to choose. Given Durkon's surprise, he didn't choose to do that. Therefore, he's currently Evil.


Even if we take the broadest interpretation possible and ignore all the other implications and dialogue, the best that he could be right now is Neutral.

[F.Harr]

It is part-and-parcel of being a Vampire. Vampires are always Evil. Evil clerics channel negative energy. Ipso-facto, Durkon is now some flavor of Evil alignment.

Well, that's SRD and RaW as ar as I know. But not necessarily AGW, that is, As Giant Writes.


Geez, you're really insistent on that "unless it's spelled out explicitly then everything is possible," aren't you?

It's the only way to not close off options unnecessarily. I can't tell you how many times I've seen possibilities that I'd ignored turn out to be the case. Keeping an only mind is the only long-term strategy that makes sense.


Why do you think he chose to use Belkar specifically in that example?

How the hell should I know? It made the point didn't it? Durkon's back on the team and they can sort out what exactly his morality is later on. Maybe DURKON doesn't really know, yet.


Regardless, in that same comic Durkon converted a spell to an Inflict spell.

I'm going to assume you ALREADY know what I said about that.


Only Neutral and Evil clerics can do that. Neutral clerics have to choose. Given Durkon's surprise, he didn't choose to do that. Therefore, he's currently Evil.

If Durkon was surprised, then he didn't make a choice to do it. If he didn't make a choice, then his morality can't have anything to do with the matter.



Even if we take the broadest interpretation possible and ignore all the other implications and dialogue, the best that he could be right now is Neutral.

I honestly don't think anything is off the table right now. I don't know what his moral choices are going to be in the future. Maybe he doesn't either. As for the other five, I'm pretty sure I DO know what their moral choices are going to be. So as far as I'm concerned, Durkon has a question mark over his head.

[orrion]

It's the only way to not close off options unnecessarily. I can't tell you how many times I've seen possibilities that I'd ignored turn out to be the case. Keeping an only mind is the only long-term strategy that makes sense.

Keeping an open mind means you make a decision, but you'll reinterpret that decision based on subsequent events.

You're doing the opposite of that. You're not making a decision at all. You're instead trying to keep every possible interpretation on the table even if some of them are off the wall.

I don't doubt that there are times when Rich intends to fool us, but this subject just doesn't seem like one of those times. Where's the gain in fooling the reader as to what alignment Durkon is?



How the hell should I know? It made the point didn't it? Durkon's back on the team and they can sort out what exactly his morality is later on. Maybe DURKON doesn't really know, yet.

... Yes, it made the point. Yet here you are disputing what that point was.



If Durkon was surprised, then he didn't make a choice to do it. If he didn't make a choice, then his morality can't have anything to do with the matter.

He was surprised, therefore Evil.

I know the comic doesn't always play the rules straight, but this one is fairly straight forward. What he did has a direct impact on his morality, because only certain moralities can do what he did in that comic.



I honestly don't think anything is off the table right now. I don't know what his moral choices are going to be in the future. Maybe he doesn't either. As for the other five, I'm pretty sure I DO know what their moral choices are going to be. So as far as I'm concerned, Durkon has a question mark over his head.

There's a reason I said RIGHT NOW. As of this instant, Durkon CANNOT be Good. The best he can be is Neutral, because he converted a spell into an Inflict spell. Good clerics cannot do that. Period.

Can he change that later? Sure, why not. Personally, that wouldn't be particularly interesting, but whatever. For now, though, he's not Good, he's Evil.

[F.Harr]

Keeping an open mind means you make a decision, but you'll reinterpret that decision based on subsequent events.

You're doing the opposite of that. You're not making a decision at all. You're instead trying to keep every possible interpretation on the table even if some of them are off the wall.


You and I disagree on what's an "off the wall" opinion. Durkon becoming a chaotic neutral cleric of Biggins the got stinky cheese is off the wall. Durkon having to discover and decide on what his morality should be now that life-span is officially "until further notice" and that he now has some VERY unpopular appities is grounds for good drama and character development.

[orrion]

You and I disagree on what's an "off the wall" opinion. Durkon becoming a chaotic neutral cleric of Biggins the got stinky cheese is off the wall. Durkon having to discover and decide on what his morality should be now that life-span is officially "until further notice" and that he now has some VERY unpopular appities is grounds for good drama and character development.

Saying that he is Evil at this moment does nothing to diminish the drama and character development.

If anything, it enhances both at the start by causing alignment whiplash from a 180 degree turn on the Good-Evil axis.

[Perseus]

Hot damn just thought of something that will get on Tarquins nerves... Roy is following in It's foot steps more than his son... By having a best friend vampire cleric

:p

[brionl]

Saying that he is Evil at this moment does nothing to diminish the drama and character development.

If anything, it enhances both at the start by causing alignment whiplash from a 180 degree turn on the Good-Evil axis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY6wwAhvirY

What Ed said.

[F.Harr]

Saying that he is Evil at this moment does nothing to diminish the drama and character development.


Drama comes from choices. If Durkon is going to be evil regardless of any choices he has made it becomes a mechanical thing and there is no drama. There is no drama in a falling safe. The drama is in seeing who tragically desideds to walk under it.


Hot damn just thought of something that will get on Tarquins nerves... Roy is following in It's foot steps more than his son... By having a best friend vampire cleric

:p

HA! I love it.

[Jay R]

Drama comes from choices. If Durkon is going to be evil regardless of any choices he has made it becomes a mechanical thing and there is no drama. There is no drama in a falling safe. The drama is in seeing who tragically desideds to walk under it.

There is no drama in an alignment, either. Durkon is evil, but there are many choices that can be made within that alignment, and that's where the dram will come from.

Not from whether or not he is "Evil", but from what will he eat when he's hungry and the only food around is blood from the party?

Not from the name of his alignment, but from what he does when he is facing his kin, and he needs to get past them quickly to defeat Xykon.

After all, nobody in the order changed alignment up until now (except possibly Vaarsuvius and Belkar, but there has been plenty of drama in other plotlines, hasn't there?

[orrion]

Drama comes from choices. If Durkon is going to be evil regardless of any choices he has made it becomes a mechanical thing and there is no drama. There is no drama in a falling safe. The drama is in seeing who tragically desideds to walk under it.


By that logic there can be no drama for anyone except Durkon because every other character we've run into has already made their choices outside of the audience's viewpoint.

[Bulldog Psion]

Drama comes from choices. If Durkon is going to be evil regardless of any choices he has made it becomes a mechanical thing and there is no drama. There is no drama in a falling safe. The drama is in seeing who tragically desideds to walk under it.


I believe the drama will come from struggling against evil impulses.

The spontaneous inflict spell shows that he is mechanically evil at the moment. Now he's got to struggle to overcome it. Or embrace the darkness with a welcoming grin, if that's the road he chooses.

[Ghost Nappa]

Well, that's SRD and RaW as ar as I know. But not necessarily AGW, that is, As Giant Writes.

It's the only way to not close off options unnecessarily. I can't tell you how many times I've seen possibilities that I'd ignored turn out to be the case. Keeping an only mind is the only long-term strategy that makes sense.

How the hell should I know? It made the point didn't it? Durkon's back on the team and they can sort out what exactly his morality is later on. Maybe DURKON doesn't really know, yet.

If Durkon was surprised, then he didn't make a choice to do it. If he didn't make a choice, then his morality can't have anything to do with the matter.

I honestly don't think anything is off the table right now. I don't know what his moral choices are going to be in the future. Maybe he doesn't either. As for the other five, I'm pretty sure I DO know what their moral choices are going to be. So as far as I'm concerned, Durkon has a question mark over his head.

Why are we still having this conversation after almost 6 months? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15060436&postcount=85) Durkon is, undeniably without 100% for all D&D mechanical purposes now to be considered an evil, non-theistic vampire cleric.

Evidence: 1) Durkon as a Vampire Thrall. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html) Vampires are Evil upon creation. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm)


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

2) Thrall!Durkon summons a FIEND. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0883.html) A fiend is an evil creature. Pre-Vampire LG Durkon would NEVER summon a fiend, but a celestial.

3) And HERE he calls it a devil! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0905.html) A Lawful Evil Creature. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm)

4) Durkon explicitly kills another Sentient Being for the very first time. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html) If you remember, he was more of a fan of talking people down. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0359.html) Note that
4.1) Durkon does NOT deny being Evil. He merely doesn't know HOW Evil he is and used Belkar as an upper limit.
4.2) The GIANT doesn't deny Durkon being Evil. If there was a post where he explicitly says "Count Durkula Thundershield is - yes - Evil," please put it here:

4.3) He casts INFLICT Minor Wounds: a task that is impossible for a LG Cleric. Obvious sign of an alignment change from LG.


Conclusion: Durkon is currently mechanically LE. We have not seen the full interpersonal significance of this because he's only been a Vampire for 30 strips, of which about half he spent as a mindless thrall and the other half has been a battle where he has not had access to his magic, (meaning he can't go out and being a sadistic vampire nearly as easily).


I believe the drama will come from struggling against evil impulses.

The spontaneous inflict spell shows that he is mechanically evil at the moment. Now he's got to struggle to overcome it. Or embrace the darkness with a welcoming grin, if that's the road he chooses.

Yes. To all of this.

[Aasimar]

4.3) He casts INFLICT Minor Wounds: a task that is impossible for a LG Cleric.

He's obviously evil at this point (I honestly can't see why people are arguing otherwise other than that they don't WANT it to be so)

But this point of yours is still wrong.

LG clerics can cast inflict spells left and right, they just have to prepare them, unlike evil clerics and neutral clerics who choose to channel negative energy, who can cast them spontaneously.

[AstralFire]

He's obviously evil at this point (I honestly can't see why people are arguing otherwise other than that they don't WANT it to be so)

But this point of yours is still wrong.

LG clerics can cast inflict spells left and right, they just have to prepare them, unlike evil clerics and neutral clerics who choose to channel negative energy, who can cast them spontaneously.

...but he did it spontaneously when he was trying to heal.

[orrion]

He's obviously evil at this point (I honestly can't see why people are arguing otherwise other than that they don't WANT it to be so)

But this point of yours is still wrong.

LG clerics can cast inflict spells left and right, they just have to prepare them, unlike evil clerics and neutral clerics who choose to channel negative energy, who can cast them spontaneously.

He did do that spontaneously. The only nitpick is that Ghost phrased it wrong.

[Aasimar]

...and I was nit-picking his phrasing

[F.Harr]

There is no drama in an alignment, either.

I don't think there is, either. I think it's only there to help people think in terms of their character rather than themselves.


...but he did it spontaneously when he was trying to heal.

Well, I think choices matter. Morality is all about choice. So I would think what Durkon TRIED to do is important.

[AstralFire]

I don't think there is, either. I think it's only there to help people think in terms of their character rather than themselves.



Well, I think choices matter. Morality is all about choice. So I would think what Durkon TRIED to do is important.

Real-world morality and D&D alignment are not the same, especially not in the case of a forced alignment switch.

Stepping away from D&D convention, Durkon is still a good guy in my eyes; he hasn't proved otherwise. But he's powered by the very essence of Evil, so rather than starting from tabula rasa that he has colored in himself with Lawful Good, he's just been slathered in black paint.

He might be able to scrape it off. He might not.

Even if Vampire Durkon becomes a horrible, evil, nasty little person I will never hold that against Vanilla Durkon. There's a clear continuity but also the clear injection of an alien purpose that he never asked for.

[orrion]

Well, I think choices matter. Morality is all about choice. So I would think what Durkon TRIED to do is important.

Just because Durkon is now Evil doesn't mean he has no choices to make. DnD alignment is not black and white, and I'm not sure how you could have read the comic this far and come to the conclusion that it is.

[halfeye]

Just because Durkon is now Evil doesn't mean he has no choices to make. DnD alignment is not black and white, and I'm not sure how you could have read the comic this far and come to the conclusion that it is.
Err, did you just say D&D alignment is not about good vs evil? I suspect you did.

[AstralFire]

Err, did you just say D&D alignment is not about good vs evil? I suspect you did.

No, he just said that D&D alignment isn't an easy yes/no box when it comes to morality. Which is true. That is why many of us discard the system as far as having any mechanical effect - it's a nightmare to use for some types of games if it's got any sort of mechanical part attached to it.

[orrion]

Err, did you just say D&D alignment is not about good vs evil? I suspect you did.

No, I said there were meaningful and varied choices to make even within that system.

[F.Harr]

Real-world morality and D&D alignment are not the same, especially not in the case of a forced alignment switch.

Stepping away from D&D convention, Durkon is still a good guy in my eyes; he hasn't proved otherwise. But he's powered by the very essence of Evil, so rather than starting from tabula rasa that he has colored in himself with Lawful Good, he's just been slathered in black paint.

He might be able to scrape it off. He might not.

Even if Vampire Durkon becomes a horrible, evil, nasty little person I will never hold that against Vanilla Durkon. There's a clear continuity but also the clear injection of an alien purpose that he never asked for.


Just because Durkon is now Evil doesn't mean he has no choices to make. DnD alignment is not black and white, and I'm not sure how you could have read the comic this far and come to the conclusion that it is.

"Bippidy bippidy bop, you're evil now" is the DULLEST character development ever. If it's that simple, why bother with the whole thing? What's the point? You're not SAYING anything except that our morality is not up to us, but to whatever magical or deific or other extral-natural forces happen to latch onto us. You might feel that it fits into the general framework of the comic, but I don't.

[AstralFire]

"Bippidy bippidy bop, you're evil now" is the DULLEST character development ever. If it's that simple, why bother with the whole thing? What's the point? You're not SAYING anything except that our morality is not up to us, but to whatever magical or deific or other extral-natural forces happen to latch onto us. You might feel that it fits into the general framework of the comic, but I don't.

Let me try to use an analogy:

Durkon is blameless. He has committed no criminal acts by a fair and just system. However, he has now (and most likely for a long time will) have his impulses skewed horribly by an outside presence. This is a similar situation to a good man under the influence of a particularly pervasive, forced drug.

I have no doubt that our hypothetical good man would have continued to be a good person without the injection of this mood-altering drug. I might hold him criminally responsible for his actions under the drug, depending on how much of his agency this drug removed. Nevertheless, were I around this man, even before he had committed any crimes, I would be very cautious and careful around him, because his impulses and behavior are not the same as before, through no fault of his own.

This is a similar but not exact situation which Durkon faces. The man being able to fight and control this poisonous influence, win or lose, makes for an interesting story. It's the basic element of every compelling vampire story, such as any exist.

Remove the alignment labels from your conception entirely. They function on multiple levels, and in this case (because we are not dealing with a mere mortal anymore), they are not speaking to his moral choices in the past, they are speaking to the toxic influence which he is struggling against.

[orrion]

"Bippidy bippidy bop, you're evil now" is the DULLEST character development ever. If it's that simple, why bother with the whole thing? What's the point? You're not SAYING anything except that our morality is not up to us, but to whatever magical or deific or other extral-natural forces happen to latch onto us. You might feel that it fits into the general framework of the comic, but I don't.


In this case, the point is that the Giant apparently wanted Durkon turned into a vampire from day 1. Like it or not, vampires have certain restrictions on them, one of which is that they start evil.

It is now the Giant's job as a writer to make that transition as interesting as possible, and I believe he'll do it. I greatly dislike your attitude that he has failed before he started.

[Nilehus]

"Bippidy bippidy bop, you're evil now" is the DULLEST character development ever. If it's that simple, why bother with the whole thing? What's the point? You're not SAYING anything except that our morality is not up to us, but to whatever magical or deific or other extral-natural forces happen to latch onto us. You might feel that it fits into the general framework of the comic, but I don't.

Durkon was a good dwarf, empowered by Thor to act as an emissary of sorts to his will. Righting wrongs, getting drunk, etc. One of the biggest traits he had on top of that was hating undead. Now he's been murdered and turned into what he hates most, an undead. All for protecting someone who, frankly, doesn't deserve protection. And while, from his point of view, his god that be served loyally for however many years turned a deaf ear to his calls for help.

You honestly can't see why this might have affected him enough to rethink his viewpoint of the world?

[AKA_Bait]

Durkon was a good dwarf, empowered by Thor to act as an emissary of sorts to his will. Righting wrongs, getting drunk, etc. One of the biggest traits he had on top of that was hating undead. Now he's been murdered and turned into what he hates most, an undead. All for protecting someone who, frankly, doesn't deserve protection. And while, from his point of view, his god that be served loyally for however many years turned a deaf ear to his calls for help.

You honestly can't see why this might have affected him enough to rethink his viewpoint of the world?

While I agree with most of this, Durkon was protecting the entire party, not only Belkar.

[Jay R]

Well, I think choices matter. Morality is all about choice. So I would think what Durkon TRIED to do is important.

Nobody has denied that what Durkon tried to do is important.

Durkon is an evil person trying to save the world. Redcloak is an evil person trying to improve the lot of his people. Neither of these are being portrayed as if choice doesn't matter, or as if what they tried to do is unimportant.

You are reducing the complications of D&D alignment to an absurdly simplistic notion that is not consistent with either what's happened in this comic or what the D&D rules say, and then complaining that Rich's comic has come up with this stupidly simplistic notion.


"Bippidy bippidy bop, you're evil now" is the DULLEST character development ever.

Fortunately, nothing that stupidly simplistic has occurred.

The idea of vampires, evil eldritch undead creatures that spread their evil to others, has been around for centuries.

Durkon's blood was drained by a vampire, who then raised him from the dead as a vampire thrall - originally without free will at all. He was a dead body animated by foul, unnatural forces.

He is now a dead body animated by foul, unnatural forces, who has free will. Bits of skin and bones and dark energy, glued together by magic into the form of a dwarf. Just a complex weapon that Malack made to aim at other people. The only difference is how direct or subtle his control of Durkon is. And now Malack's control is gone, so this evil abomination of nature has the free will of a once Lawful Good dwarf, but who is in fact in an evil body, filled with evil yearnings and evil needs. The simple fact of his existence is evil, an affront to the universe. He can only survive by drinking blood. He will spend the rest of the adventure surrounded by maddeningly tempting bags of food, which are his allies - and which he will want to drain.

This will be - indeed, already has been, an intriguing story line, which will explore the meaning of Evil and alignment and morality and temptation.


If it's that simple, why bother with the whole thing? What's the point?

It's not that simple, and the point is to explore the complications that you are trying to deny.


You're not SAYING anything except that our morality is not up to us, but to whatever magical or deific or other extral-natural forces happen to latch onto us. You might feel that it fits into the general framework of the comic, but I don't.

Oh. You think Rich is inventing this. He's not - D&D alignment is not simply morality.

In D&D, alignment is in fact to some extent external. It can be detected from outside, it can be determined by species, and it can affect which items can hurt you and which spells can heal you. Separate from that, your decisions also affect what you do.

I think of an Evil alignment as a nearly overpowering temptation - like an alcoholic or a drug addict. These are actual physical changes to the body, which have a huge effect on what a person can make himself or herself do.

And yes, this means that D&D alignment is in many different ways inconsistent with real-world moral systems. I expect Rich to explore those differences.

It is complicated and subtle, and I'm looking forward to Rich's exploration of it. So far it appears to be similar to the philosophical discussions in the Italian Renaissance, when the meaning of Honor was changing from the external aspects as described by Aristotle to the modern idea of the internal virtues that cause people to give you honor.

Like honor, alignment has deep subtleties and contradictions that can justify careful thought. Nobody has suggested that Durkon's choices won't matter. They matter a lot. But just as a drug addict's choices are restricted, made more difficult, or otherwise affected by his physical state, so too are Durkon's.

[F.Harr]

That's one way to go. But it's not they same as simply flipping the switch marked "evil" on Durkon's character sheet. We all have evil desires from time to time, but how we act on them is what defines our morality. And keep in mind, I'm not rejecting the idea that Durkon may prove to be evil. I'm just saying that if it's as simple as "all vampires are evil", then that's pretty duo and it doesn't seem to fit in with how the Giant writes.

[johnbragg]

That's one way to go. But it's not they same as simply flipping the switch marked "evil" on Durkon's character sheet. We all have evil desires from time to time, but how we act on them is what defines our morality. And keep in mind, I'm not rejecting the idea that Durkon may prove to be evil. I'm just saying that if it's as simple as "all vampires are evil", then that's pretty duo and it doesn't seem to fit in with how the Giant writes.

"Vampires are inherently evil." That's a category statement, which is true of the category. Vampires-as-a-category die a mortal death, rising three days later as thralls. They then spend a significant amount of time as thralls to a more powerful evil vampire. It is very reasonable to suppose that the three-days-dead erodes the original personality to some extent. It is also very reasonable to suppose that the thrall period serves as a period of corruption of the original personality into the diabolical fiend known as the standard vampire.

Durkula is a different case. He was (as far as he is concerned--Durkon-in-Valhalla may disagree) Durkon less than an hour ago. The normal process of personality disintegration and rebuilding did not happen. He has a vampire's undead biology and hunger for blood, but his vampire-character was not shaped by the apprenticeship-in-evil that is being a vampire thrall under the control of an evil vampire lord.

That said, his holy symbol has changed. He fed on Belkar's blood. He has summoned a devil as a Planar Ally. He saw his death as perhaps part of Thor's plan--he may see things differently now.

Durkula may be close-to-unique, as a free-willed vampire who doesn't have decades or at least years of corruption as a thrall under his belt.

[orrion]

That's one way to go. But it's not they same as simply flipping the switch marked "evil" on Durkon's character sheet. We all have evil desires from time to time, but how we act on them is what defines our morality. And keep in mind, I'm not rejecting the idea that Durkon may prove to be evil. I'm just saying that if it's as simple as "all vampires are evil", then that's pretty duo and it doesn't seem to fit in with how the Giant writes.

Durkon has already proven to be evil.

[Jay R]

That's one way to go. But it's not they same as simply flipping the switch marked "evil" on Durkon's character sheet.

Could you be a little more precise like the rest of us, and use "evil" when you are referring to morality and capital "Evil" when you are referring to the D&D mechanic? Otherwise it looks like you are equating the two, thus forcing a level of over-simplistic thought that the rest of us are trying to rise above.

There is no morality switch on his, or anybody's, character sheet. He has been switched from the alignment "Lawful Good" to the alignment "Lawful Evil".


We all have evil desires from time to time, but how we act on them is what defines our morality. And keep in mind, I'm not rejecting the idea that Durkon may prove to be evil.

"... may prove to be evil"? He has cast Cause Moderate Wounds when he was trying for Cure Moderate Wounds. That by itself absolutely proves that his alignment is Evil.

Yes, of course he will do good actions. All evil people do, occasionally. Belkar has done some good deeds. Nale has shown loyalty to his team, concern for his lover, patience, etc.

That statement about morality does not change the fact that his alignment is Evil.


I'm just saying that if it's as simple as "all vampires are evil", ...

Again, we are saying that all vampires are of the Evil alignment. [Actually, the rules are saying it.] That does not mean that they cannot ever do good acts. It's not as simplistic as you are trying to make it.


... then that's pretty duo and it doesn't seem to fit in with how the Giant writes.

Here's how the Giant writes:

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. But self-image certainly matters

So even if, just like the rules and all his actions indicate, Durkon is in fact Evil now, that's not simple, and it's not "duo". (For one thing, there are nine alignments, not two.) It's just a murky cocktail of temperament, goals, actions, and results. Please stop pretending that this is simple.

[johnbragg]

Durkon has already proven to be evil.

How exactly? Since rising as a vampire, he's
EDIT: Had his Holy Symbol change from yellow-and-green to yellow-and-black. 878
Drained blood from Belkar. 879. Evil, but Durkula was not self-willed.
Growled at Tarquin 882
Cast (Greater?) Planar Ally and summoned Spiky (off panel before 895)
Fetched Malack's staff, as ordered. 906.
Durkon concedes that he may have changed. 907
Snaps Zzzzdrti's neck, threatens to drink Nale's blood. 908.
Says he's no more evil than Belkar. 908.
Spontaneously casts Inflict Moderate Wounds. 908.

Doesn't retaliate when Belkar attacks him. 909.

So he's definitely Evil, but what exactly that means is to be determined.

Point: Around 875, he says that he can't cast Thor's Might because the dungeon is too small. Does that mean he still has Thor's Might?

Could he be holding out on the Order?

Of course, Thor's Righteous Unholy Might isn't as useful for Durkula--+4 Strength is a nice boost, but +2 to Con and the DR are irrelevant, since he has no Con and has DR 10/silver. And the +2 natural armor is still balanced against -1 AC for size.

Maybe he's saving it to use as an Inflict Critical Wounds on a priority target?

[orrion]

How exactly? Since rising as a vampire, he's
Drained blood from Belkar. 879. Evil, but Durkula was not self-willed.
Growled at Tarquin 882
Cast (Greater?) Planar Ally and summoned Spiky (off panel before 895)
Fetched Malack's staff, as ordered. 906.
Durkon concedes that he may have changed. 907
Snaps Zzzzdrti's neck, threatens to drink Nale's blood. 908.
Says he's no more evil than Belkar. 908.
Spontaneously casts Inflict Moderate Wounds. 908.

Doesn't retaliate when Belkar attacks him. 909.

So he's definitely Evil, but what exactly that means is to be determined.

Point: Around 875, he says that he can't cast Thor's Might because the dungeon is too small. Does that mean he still has Thor's Might?

Could he be holding out on the Order?

Of course, Thor's Righteous Unholy Might isn't as useful for Durkula--+4 Strength is a nice boost, but +2 to Con and the DR are irrelevant, since he has no Con and has DR 10/silver. And the +2 natural armor is still balanced against -1 AC for size.

Maybe he's saving it to use as an Inflict Critical Wounds on a priority target?

Well, summoning the Lawful Evil devil and spontaneously casting an Inflict Wounds spell (seemingly by accident, yay Rule of Funny) cement his current alignment. Note that the alignment is really what the debate has been about.

Now, what does it mean that Durkon is now "evil"? Don't know, really, but it's going to be fun watching.

[halfeye]

Could you be a little more precise like the rest of us, and use "evil" when you are referring to morality and capital "Evil" when you are referring to the D&D mechanic?
Gah, I absolutely hate it when people use the same word for two different things at the same time. Quark was a fine new word for a new particle, strangeness and charm? totally rubbish abductions of fine words that already had established meanings.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Using the words spin, color, strangeness, charm, etc to describe particles is not going to confuse anyone.

Well, at least not because of the word choice :)

[halfeye]

Using the words spin, color, strangeness, charm, etc to describe particles is not going to confuse anyone.

Well, at least not because of the word choice :)
Spin doesn't mean spin at all?

Oh boy, add that to the hate list.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I don't understand the hate, many English words have more than one meaning. That's only confusing when you don't know which the speaker means.

[halfeye]

I don't understand the hate, many English words have more than one meaning.
You could theoretically have a language with only one word, but it would be very difficult to understand.

Ideally, language should make understanding as easy as possible, but no easier.

[orrion]

You could theoretically have a language with only one word, but it would be very difficult to understand.

Ideally, language should make understanding as easy as possible, but no easier.

In this case there's merely 2 different methods. Overall evil, and specific evil.

Overall evil is the alignment, specific evil is acts thereof.

There is no "two different things at the same time." It's two different things at two different times defined by circumstance.

[Jay R]

Gah, I absolutely hate it when people use the same word for two different things at the same time. Quark was a fine new word for a new particle, strangeness and charm? totally rubbish abductions of fine words that already had established meanings.

Yeah, I understand. I've disapproved of the alignment system since the seventies. Nobody told Gygax that he doesn't get to define what "good" and "evil" are.

That's why I'm trying to establish some clarity by referring to somebody as "having the Evil alignment", and making the distinction between that and being evil.

[johnbragg]

Yeah, I understand. I've disapproved of the alignment system since the seventies. Nobody told Gygax that he doesn't get to define what "good" and "evil" are.

That's why I'm trying to establish some clarity by referring to somebody as "having the Evil alignment", and making the distinction between that and being evil.

Somewhere on a cloud, Miko is screaming I TOLD YOU! Evil! EEEEEVILL!

[Catbeller Mouse]

If the choices you make have any meaning, then Durkon should not be enslaved to evil against his will.

The idea that a vampire is automatically evil is a tenet of the Buffyverse; the idea there is that the soul is ripped away (goes to its reward?) and a demon moves in and takes its place. The intellect, the brain of the victim is unaffected, yet somehow is driven by a demon's presence to be irredeemably a creature of hell.

In D&D, I assume its much the same idea.

Yet. I loathe the idea. If the choices you make have any meaning, if we are anything but puppets in the hands of an indifferent fate, we need to be who we are. Vampires are an example of an unspoken trope: Evil Always Wins, Get Over It. It's a pervasive one, I'll grant you. It's the basis of every popular horror flick, and why I never liked them very much. People *root* for the bad guy (admit it). I often think its because people don't get out of their own circles very often and actually meet some evil. Evil isn't very fun.

Durkon has been a faithful servant of Good. His life choices should not be reduced to a bit switched from 1 to 0 against his will. He followed Thor and rendered him all honor. He should not lose both the meaning of his life, and the rewards of that life that comes after, and the regard of his patron god, because an infected snake-man murdered him after a noble struggle, at the end of which, it must be noted, his last wish was that his friends would be spared. If all of these years of character struggle is not a pathetic joke, he should have the absolute right to fight what has been done to him, to remain himself, a servant of his god and of the right. Vampire against his will, that is a burden and a shame. But evil against his will? What the hell does "will" mean if that can be done? What would be the point of anything?

Durkon should free himself. Vampire he may be, but his choices should matter.

[orrion]

If the choices you make have any meaning, then Durkon should not be enslaved to evil against his will.

The idea that a vampire is automatically evil is a tenet of the Buffyverse; the idea there is that the soul is ripped away (goes to its reward?) and a demon moves in and takes its place. The intellect, the brain of the victim is unaffected, yet somehow is driven by a demon's presence to be irredeemably a creature of hell.

In D&D, I assume its much the same idea.

DnD has been around long before the Buffyverse. Buffy the series started in 1997, DnD was first released in 1977. So if anything it's the other way around. The rules state that vampires start out evil.

Also, pretty sure it's still Durkon's soul in there.



Durkon should free himself. Vampire he may be, but his choices should matter.

Again -

Just because Durkon is Evil doesn't mean he has no choices and/or that his choices don't matter.

Seriously, this idea that he has no choices is debunked in the first 2 comics we see him regain his free will. The first thing he does is attack Nale and Zz'dtri and kill the latter. The second thing he does is go save Roy from his devil and reaffirm that he's still on board the save the world quest.

His choices do matter. Stop thinking that the alignment switch imposed by becoming a vampire locks Durkon down.

[Jay R]

If the choices you make have any meaning, then Durkon should not be enslaved to evil against his will.

Until you stop equating being evil with the Evil alignment, you will never understand this. D&D rules do not treat morality in a way completely consistent with the real world. It is to some extent external, and can be detected by magic.

He is enslaved to having to drink blood to stay alive, casting Cause <various> Wounds spontaneously, being subject tro a Protection from Evil spell, living in a dead body which by all laws of nature should be laid to rest, etc. But he also has freedom of choice again.


The idea that a vampire is automatically evil is a tenet of the Buffyverse ...

D&D rules pre-date Buffy by a quarter century, and are not in any way affected by it. The idea that vampires - or any undead - are automatically evil is centuries old.


In D&D, I assume its much the same idea.

Yet. I loathe the idea. If the choices you make have any meaning, if we are anything but puppets in the hands of an indifferent fate, we need to be who we are. Vampires are an example of an unspoken trope: Evil Always Wins, Get Over It.

Not at all. Vampires don't always win. The spoken trope is that raising the dead to be monstrous mockeries of life is always evil, drinking the blood of innocents is always evil, etc.

Note that Durkon was a puppet of Evil, as Malack's thrall, but now has his freedom of choice again.


Durkon should free himself. Vampire he may be, but his choices should matter.

His choices do matter; he's just making his choices in a very different environment now.

The Giant's explanation of it is this:

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. But self-image certainly matters.

I find that the best way to think of an Evil alignment is similar to a drug addict. He can choose his actions, but he is subject to strong physical and mental temptations. Durkon has an Evil temperament, is living in a re-animated dead body, and must drink blood to continue. But he will choose his actions.

[Catbeller Mouse]

Genocide is not a "mistake."

I believe V can morally recover from this, because it was a vile, evil, wicked action taken of duress and not made of deliberated, premeditated horribleness. But we're talking years and years down the road. Frankly, he's gotten off pretty light up 'til now.

Genocide is a loaded term in this context, a D&D universe. As someone earlier mentioned, in this universe evil is an actual force, to be opposed. Black dragons are evil. To kill one is an act of good.

Varsuvius thought s/he was performing an act of wholesale good, rather than the specific retail good of killing that particular black dragon. That dragon had stated it was about to torture and kill hir entire family, recall. Varsuvius, enraged, mirrored and completed that threat back at the evil creature, and killed its family. Varsuvius, thinking s/he was committing the usual and expected justified act of killing an evil creature, simply expanded the strike while s/he had the power and killed all the evil dragons... not thinking, as s/he raged, that there would be hybrid offspring that would not be evil. The error was a lack of imagination in that moment, a heated moment. Had Varsuvius known of all the non-evil relations of the dragon, s/he would have stopped. There are limits. Error it was.

[AstralFire]

Genocide is a loaded term in this context, a D&D universe. As someone earlier mentioned, in this universe evil is an actual force, to be opposed. Black dragons are evil. To kill one is an act of good.

Varsuvius thought s/he was performing an act of wholesale good, rather than the specific retail good of killing that particular black dragon. That dragon had stated it was about to torture and kill hir entire family, recall. Varsuvius, enraged, mirrored and completed that threat back at the evil creature, and killed its family. Varsuvius, thinking s/he was committing the usual and expected justified act of killing an evil creature, simply expanded the strike while s/he had the power and killed all the evil dragons... not thinking, as s/he raged, that there would be hybrid offspring that would not be evil. The error was a lack of imagination in that moment, a heated moment. Had Varsuvius known of all the non-evil relations of the dragon, s/he would have stopped. There are limits. Error it was.

The Azure City paladins wiping out Goblins were also convinced they were performing acts of wholesale good. Does that make it any less genocide?

I already gave V allowances by mentioning that it was not premeditated and done in a very difficult situation. But to simply call it an "error" is understatement.

[Kish]

A number of things that demonstrate utter incomprehension of everything the author of the webcomic under discussion has written, and which also make the preceding "Durkon shouldn't be automatically evil" post extremely ironic.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12718550#post12718550
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16038595&postcount=290
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16037258&postcount=234

[Bulldog Psion]

No, noooooooo... not the black dragon genocide thing bursting into another thread!!!! :smalleek:

There's only one possible response to this. (http://nooooooooooooooo.com/)

[zimmerwald1915]

Genocide is a loaded term in this context, a D&D universe. As someone earlier mentioned, in this universe evil is an actual force, to be opposed. Black dragons are evil. To kill one is an act of good.
Please purchase Don't Split the Party. Not only will you be supporting the Giant financially, allowing him to make more art, but you'll have the pleasure of reading author commentary that explicitly calls this attitude out as ill-conceived and wrongheaded.


I already gave V allowances by mentioning that it was not premeditated and done in a very difficult situation. But to simply call it an "error" is understatement.
Haerta was a wizard. By definition she - or anyone borrowing her spell slots the way V was - cannot cast an un-premeditated spell.

Oh wait, this thread's about Durkon? Erm...well, at the moment, there's not a lot to discuss, because Durkon hasn't done all that much since getting his free will back, and certainly hasn't shown us much of his inner life. We'll just have to wait and see. Maybe a hundred strips down the line he'll be worth getting morally exercised about.

[sum1won]

You could theoretically have a language with only one word, but it would be very difficult to understand.

Ideally, language should make understanding as easy as possible, but no easier.

Hi! I want to introduce you to the word 'qua.' It means 'in the sense of'

So, if we were to say 'color qua particle physics' then we would know that color was being used in that sense, rather than the lay sense. Its usually used for finer distinctions for loan words between fields with highly technical language, but you should find it helpful anyways.


Genocide is a loaded term in this context, a D&D universe. As someone earlier mentioned, in this universe evil is an actual force, to be opposed. Black dragons are evil. To kill one is an act of good.

Varsuvius thought s/he was performing an act of wholesale good, rather than the specific retail good of killing that particular black dragon. That dragon had stated it was about to torture and kill hir entire family, recall. Varsuvius, enraged, mirrored and completed that threat back at the evil creature, and killed its family. Varsuvius, thinking s/he was committing the usual and expected justified act of killing an evil creature, simply expanded the strike while s/he had the power and killed all the evil dragons... not thinking, as s/he raged, that there would be hybrid offspring that would not be evil. The error was a lack of imagination in that moment, a heated moment. Had Varsuvius known of all the non-evil relations of the dragon, s/he would have stopped. There are limits. Error it was.

Murderers are evil. Is killing one automatically an act of good? What if they aren't murdering? It's not simply a matter of color-coded teams, its an entirely different set of behavior, and a key element of 'good' should involve not killing simply because they are the wrong color alignment, but for specific reasons and according to a greater theme of justice.

[halfeye]

Hi! I want to introduce you to the word 'qua.' It means 'in the sense of'

So, if we were to say 'color qua particle physics' then we would know that color was being used in that sense, rather than the lay sense. Its usually used for finer distinctions for loan words between fields with highly technical language, but you should find it helpful anyways.
I know "qua" thanks. My problem is with reading not writing, and physicists don't use "colour qua particle physics" when writing, so that's no help.

[Spoomeister]

V's Genocide is like the Godwin's Law of the OOTS forum, I swear.

Durkon is, to quote him, "a frickin' vampire". He's Evil, full stop. It would be disappointing if his relationship to his god wasn't addressed SOMEwhere, even in throwaway lines here and there, over the rest of the series.

[halfeye]

V's Genocide is like the Godwin's Law of the OOTS forum, I swear.

Durkon is, to quote him, "a frickin' vampire". He's Evil, full stop.
However, from what I'm hearing, not necessarily evil. Which is very peculiar.

[Perseus]

However, from what I'm hearing, not necessarily evil. Which is very peculiar.

Upon creation vampires gain the evil alignment, however nothing stops them from acting good or becoming good aligned later.

Actually Durkon could have the Lawful Evil alignment but still act LG for the rest of the strip, eventually his alignment would match his actions.