What's the deal with Durkon?

[spambi]

Do you think that OOTS will kill him for being a vampire? Don't they kind of have to at least try?

Now that he's undead, he can fulfill the Oracle's prophecy that he will return to his homeland "posthumously".

[Zrak]

I think Durkon/Durkula's point that he's almost certainly not more evil than Belkar carries a lot of weight. That said, I'd imagine they'll probably try and resurrect Durkon, rather than destroy "Durkula," if they can find a way to so.

[Ramien]

I think they already answered that question. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html) Of course, what happens once it's time to stake the vampire and resurrect Durkon is going to depend on what the dwarf wants.

[jogiff]

I don't see why they have to kill him simply for being a vampire. Yes, he's evil. And yes, undead bring negative energy into the world and are therefore inherently evil.

But I don't think any of the Order is that kind of dogmatic Good. Durkon was the only one who would oppose an evil creature solely because of its alignment/undead status.

The only reason I can see that they would do it (assuming Durkon doesn't do something really evil) is because they miss the old Durkon. But if they form a strong attachment to Vamp Durkon then I don't think they'll be any more eager to destroy him to get Live Durkon back.

[Trillium]

I think the question is not so much "Will they kill Durkon?", as "Can they kill Durkon?"

Living Durkon, technically, was the most powerful character in OOTS (barring V), IIRC. And now he is also an epic vampire.

[Messenger]

I don't see why they have to kill him simply for being a vampire. Yes, he's evil. And yes, undead bring negative energy into the world and are therefore inherently evil.

But I don't think any of the Order is that kind of dogmatic Good. Durkon was the only one who would oppose an evil creature solely because of its alignment/undead status.I don't think Durkon was so much dogmatic Good (like a certain formerly azure-colored female stick-up-the-butt paladin who shall remain unnamed) as that it was his job as a cleric. At the same time, that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0735.html) vampire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) was (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0739.html) actually (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0743.html) his (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html) friend (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0810.html) (note the title of the last linked update). Put together that Durkon is someone whose duties include making sure the dead are at rest (and stay at rest) and whose newly found kindred spirit who seemed not so bad turned out to be an unnatural abomination and he's got both professional and personal reasons to go after Malack. Even his reasoning for fighting Malack despite Malack not wanting to wasn't very unnamed-paladin-ish (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html).

When Roy and the rest of the Order ponders this problem, I think Roy will probably choose to attack him but very hesitantly. He, too, is not unnamed-paladin-ish, even though he's LG. Note that he's LG with NG tendencies. Certainly, he also has his friendship with Durkon to respect.

And right back at him. Maybe they won't have to fight. Maybe Durkon could just use his vampire powers and escape, openly telling the Order he doesn't wish to fight them out of camaraderie and is sparing them all the burden and ordeal. It'd actually be right up his alley. And, ironically, it would make him quite like Malack.

[konradknox]

I think Durkon will stay a vampire and we will hardly ever see live Durkon again, because it's kind of been illustrated that Thor is an idiot child god, and Durkon's impecable faith in him was a waste of a cleric and will play an important role in Durkon's disillusion in his former religion.

[Cerlis]

I think Durkon/Durkula's point that he's almost certainly not more evil than Belkar carries a lot of weight. That said, I'd imagine they'll probably try and resurrect Durkon, rather than destroy "Durkula," if they can find a way to so.

No one knows about his prophecy but a guy in a grave in the dwarven lands.


Even his reasoning for fighting Malack despite Malack not wanting to wasn't very unnamed-paladin-ish.

Please excuse any negativity of this next comment.

But you (and many many others) need to go back and look at that, because Durkon only brought up that not telling him that malak is the epitome of what Durkon opposes, THen Malak came up with two plans involving Durkon not helping to keep his friends alive, then Malak attacked him.

As far as we know* Durkon would have just ended their friendship

*(its more likely that this is the case since Durkon never attacks anyone outright unless they prove to try to kill him or his friends, and takes prisoners frequently)

----------------------

Anyways the major fact remains is that they aren't going to NOT try to Resurrect Durkon. And its impossible to do so while Durkula is around. (not to mention it might be like in 3.5 where Durkon's soul is trapped in there)

[Werbaer]

No one knows about his prophecy but a guy in a grave in the dwarven lands.
The High Priest of Thor is dead. The High Priest of Odin might still be alive. And the brewmaster (IIRC) also knows about the prophecy, but nobody knows he knows.

[factotum]

Do you think that OOTS will kill him for being a vampire? Don't they kind of have to at least try?

Er...why? Because he's Evil now? Because if that's the only excuse they need Belkar should have been dead a dozen times over by now. Because it's not really Durkon in there? There's no evidence of that--he seems to be acting largely as the living Durkon would toward his friends; it's his enemies that seem to be taking the brunt of his new moral attitude.

Fundamentally, the Order are not trying to wipe out every evil being in the world, they're trying to save it from Xykon. If they can get a nice, powerful evil being on their side while doing so, so much the better--it's certainly better than having said powerful evil being *opposing* them!

[Souhiro]

Keep in mind: When Durkon comes back to dwarf lands, he will bring death and destruction.

It could happen in many ways: He comes, and he, unknowly, guides Xykon, the hated Redcloac, or maybe the Snarl. Maybe he doesn't even know what has he done (He's wind-walking the party, and just happens to fly over Dwarf Lands)

The other way is that he has now the Death and Destruction domains... Yeah, he bring that domains with him!

[KillianHawkeye]

I'd imagine they'll probably try and resurrect Durkon, rather than destroy "Durkula," if they can find a way to so.

Can't do one without doing the other.

[Millennium]

The OOTS aren't much fans of Evil (Belkar notwithstanding), but they don't treat alignments as sides in a war: they hashed that out with Miko a long time ago. If Durkon gives them some other reason to destroy him, they'll probably try, but I don't think they'll do it until then.

I'm not sure his new status as a vampire even really counts as a strike against him with the group. Certainly not with Belkar, who is probably happy to have another (nominally) Evil character in the party, though he might hold a grudge for being bitten. Roy and Haley won't be able to pull a that's-not-Durkon on their longtime friend; he's held onto too much of his old personality. V's too pragmatic to care, and Elan's too oblivious.

I also suspect that Durkon wants to be resurrected, once circumstances permit. I just hope it doesn't go wrong and leave him all sparkly.

[Evandar]

Bringing Durkon back to life is just a complicated way of annihilating the dwarf he is today! Save your diamond dust and stake him instead!

[Jay R]

The question becomes clearer, I think, when recast as follows: Will the order allow an evil, unnatural entity that needs to drink the blood of the living to go free?

[Procyonpi]

But I don't think any of the Order is that kind of dogmatic Good. Durkon was the only one who would oppose an evil creature solely because of its alignment/undead status.

Even Durkon only opposed Malack because of his evil plans.

[factotum]

The question becomes clearer, I think, when recast as follows: Will the order allow an evil, unnatural entity that needs to drink the blood of the living to go free?

Depends entirely on whose (or what) blood he drinks, I'd say. If he can happily make do with animals, then what's the problem?

(Oh, and note that I don't think a D&D vampire actually *has* to drink blood in order to survive, although I may be misreading the SRD on that front).

[Grim Portent]

Depends entirely on whose (or what) blood he drinks, I'd say. If he can happily make do with animals, then what's the problem?

(Oh, and note that I don't think a D&D vampire actually *has* to drink blood in order to survive, although I may be misreading the SRD on that front).

Libris Mortis says that they need to drain energy and drink blood or they start to slow down I think. Though I think they can do just fine draining animals to survive.

[Khay]

Leaving aside ethics and morality for the moment ("What if Durkula doesn't agree? Isn't it murder, then?"), how many clerics are there who can even cast Resurrection? Back when Roy was dead, this was something of a plot point. Malack probably could, but he's dead. The high priest back in Azure City demonstratably could, but he's dead. Durkon can, but he can't exactly stake and then Resurrect himself. Redcloak... yeah, I wouldn't bet on that. :smalltongue:

They can't very well go back to Greysky City and the temple of Loki either. The rogue priest mentioned he swiped a Resurrection scroll (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html) and he presumably still has it, but good luck tracking him down again. That leaves what, the Dwarven high priest? Some elves? Neither of those are exactly in range.

(Of course, if Raise Dead would be enough, this post may or may not be moot. :smallredface:)

[Byzantine2]

Leaving aside ethics and morality for the moment ("What if Durkula doesn't agree? Isn't it murder, then?"), how many clerics are there who can even cast Resurrection? Back when Roy was dead, this was something of a plot point. Malack probably could, but he's dead. The high priest back in Azure City demonstratably could, but he's dead. Durkon can, but he can't exactly stake and then Resurrect himself. Redcloak... yeah, I wouldn't bet on that. :smalltongue:

They can't very well go back to Greysky City and the temple of Loki either. The rogue priest mentioned he swiped a Resurrection scroll (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html) and he presumably still has it, but good luck tracking him down again. That leaves what, the Dwarven high priest? Some elves? Neither of those are exactly in range.

(Of course, if Raise Dead would be enough, this post may or may not be moot. :smallredface:)

Raise dead would not be enough, as Durkon has been raised as an undead creature, which automatically ups the requirement to res (same as if you die due to a death effect).

The problem in Greysky was the thieves guild opposing them not a lack of clerics, but after that last display, and now with the whole party, the guild would likely just send the order a cleric to save their own asses while still being able to pretend they are in charge. Remember that the only reason the thieves guild wasn't killed to a man was because Celia negotiated a treaty, and that was with the OOtS only having 2 members present.

[Khay]

Ah, I can see your point; it'd take a while, but I could see the Order being theoretically able to bully the Thieves' Guild into submission. I still think it'd take time the Order doesn't really have right now, though.

[AstralFire]

Ring of sustenance technically takes care of a vampire's need for food, much like a mindflayer's need for brains. That said, the only games I've seen where this has ever come up and been allowed were games which had reasons to want to trivialize the condition. I don't think that Mr. Burlew does.

[Copperdragon]

Do you think that OOTS will kill him for being a vampire?

Are you serious? Roy allowed Belkar to travel with them and accepted his evil was used for a good cause here. Against him some standard-vampire is playing in a lower league...

[jogiff]

Even Durkon only opposed Malack because of his evil plans.

Not really. Malack didn't tell Durkon his plans until after the fight had already gone on for a few rounds. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html)

At first Durkon apparently opposed Malack for trying to kill Belkar and drinking the blood of innocents (including Belkar?) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html), but then Malack explained that he only drank the blood of the condemned. So then Durkon explained that he didn't want Belkar to be a vampire. Malack offered to leave the Order alone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html).

At this point Durkon started screaming about "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." He wouldn't compromise because, "yer a frinkin' vampire, Malack!"

Durkon isn't just dogmatic against the undead either. He's also got some unhealthy prejudices against trees. It's usually played for jokes (because it's harmless and silly), but it's essentially the same sort of prejudice that allowed Vaarsuvius to think it was OK to kill Tiamat knows how many Black Dragons

Just because Durkon is a protagonist who usually behaves morally doesn't mean that he is never the bad guy.

[Jay R]

That leaves what, the Dwarven high priest?

Wha else would ha' a vested interest in bringin' back a dwarven cleric o' Thor?

(Not to mention having a vested interest in Durkon no longer being posthumous, but they might not know that any more.)

[BaronOfHell]

Not really. Malack didn't tell Durkon his plans until after the fight had already gone on for a few rounds. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html)

At first Durkon apparently opposed Malack for trying to kill Belkar and drinking the blood of innocents (including Belkar?) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html), but then Malack explained that he only drank the blood of the condemned. So then Durkon explained that he didn't want Belkar to be a vampire. Malack offered to leave the Order alone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html).

At this point Durkon started screaming about "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." He wouldn't compromise because, "yer a frinkin' vampire, Malack!"

Durkon isn't just dogmatic against the undead either. He's also got some unhealthy prejudices against trees. It's usually played for jokes (because it's harmless and silly), but it's essentially the same sort of prejudice that allowed Vaarsuvius to think it was OK to kill Tiamat knows how many Black Dragons

Just because Durkon is a protagonist who usually behaves morally doesn't mean that he is never the bad guy.

Hooray for the index! http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14785214#post14785214

[Sir_Leorik]

[QUOTE=spambi;16453430]Do you think that OOTS will kill him for being a vampire? Don't they kind of have to at least try?[QUOTE]

Roy is on record as

a) wanting to Resurrect Durkon,

and b) feeling pragmatically about traveling with Vampire!Durkon until the order is able to do so.

:belkar: "What about Durkon!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html)

:roy: "That IS Durkon!"

:belkar: "No, it isn't!!"

:roy: "It's Durkon enough for our purposes."

The thing is, in order cast Resurrection on Durkon, he has to be dead, not Undead. That means someone, probably Roy, needs to hammer a stake through Durkon's heart. What if Durkon decides he likes being a vampire? Will Roy force the issue?

[Knight.Anon]

Durkon was a bit of a Van Helsing. Now he is what he hates most, and his god dumped him. He's too stoic to whine about it when so much is going down.

[Zmeoaice]

Hooray for the index! http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14785214#post14785214


It still means Durkon didn't oppose Malack for his Evil PlanTM. Malack attacking Belkar would be a reasonable since he's an enemy of the empire. Malack being content with the bloodshed the Empire is doing would be enough for me to not be friends with him. Durkon seemed to let that slide, although I'm not sure how much Elan filled him up on this.

I guess Durkon saw Malack and Belkar before the fight, to realize that Malack was going to kill "innocent" Belkar, instead of assuming that Belkar was being his trigger happy self and attacked Malack first.

Although if Durkon was completely free of prejudices, he wouldn't have said "yer a (frickin) vampire" like four times. Then again, what are we supposed to feel about negative energy fueled undead that need blood to survive.

[Clistenes]

The question is not "will they kill Durkon for being a vampire?", but "is that thing Durkon?", and "do they know if that thing is Durkon?".

If that thing is Durkon using a different kind of fuel (negative instead of positive energy) and he proves to be a good ally and friend and doesn't wish to become human a living dwarf again...then yes, they will keep him as he is

If Redcloak is right, and the undead are nothing but evil magic robots powered by negative energy, and they need to kill that thing wearing Durkon's skin to bring back real Durkon...then yes, they will kill him as soon as they are able...

You have to take into account that the OotS has a lot of experience with intelligent undead (mostly wights), and they know that even a good and corageous person can come back as an evil, remorseless monster who will change sides and eat alive his old friends.
I have no doubt that Haley and Belkar considered Tsukiko's wights new and different creatures that just happened to wear their Resistance's allies' skin and bones...will they see Durkula the same way?

And what does Durkula think of himself?
If he thinks that he is the old Durkon, would he wish to become a living dwarf again?
What would happen if he realizes that he isn't the same as old Durkon?

[Kish]

The question becomes clearer, I think, when recast as follows: Will the order allow an evil, unnatural entity that needs to drink the blood of the living to go free?
The only member of the Order who is a vegetarian is Vaarsuvius, who um yeah, so they all (voluntarily) consume the blood of the rather-recently-living (or, as an alternative, committed quasi-genocide). Roy didn't even come up with the "I'm the prison warden" excuse until a deva put him on the spot about keeping the evil entity known as Belkar around.

That leaves just "unnatural," which...in my opinion, is pretty much exactly where this thread started.

[BaronOfHell]

I believe an interesting perspective is to consider if Vamp. Durkon != Durkon (e.g. if real Durkon is currently in the afterlife), then is Vamp. Durkon just as much a victim as the real Durkon?

Vamp. Durkon may turn out to be a vile loathsome creature, but Vamp. Durkon never asked to be introduced to the world, and if he does not do something which forces the orders hand, won't there be a dilemma where they've to maybe take one life (a life that may not even have an afterlife), to grant another life its former body despite the former life maybe even being content with the afterlife?

I don't think the story will go down this road, personally, but I think it's interesting to consider if there exists certain criteria's that will make Vamp. Durkon an "innocent", and therefore create a dilemma regarding getting the old Durkon back.

Edit: I imagine to further the drama, one could imagine the real Durkon, in stead of being in the afterlife, is trapped within his body, but can only be victim to whatever atrocities the negative energy spirit possessing his body decides to do.

[MonochromeTiger]

Do you think that OOTS will kill him for being a vampire? Don't they kind of have to at least try?

Now that he's undead, he can fulfill the Oracle's prophecy that he will return to his homeland "posthumously".

I think I commented on my theory in the latest "new comic is up" thread, personally I think kraagor's gate is probably near or in dwarven lands, they'll go there, over the course of their stay durkon will likely A: be resurrected by the current high priest of thor or B: do something horrible to his family and religion.

[spambi]

Okay, I don't believe for an instant that Belkar and Vampire Durkon are even in the same threat category. Belkar is more of a puckish rogue, he just occasionally murders paladins and other jackasses. Vampire Durkon could rip a mile wide swath of destruction through a city. OOTS tolerating a vampire during a battle is different than tolerating him for the quest. In 931 when the reality of being a vampire affected Durkon, he got nasty pretty quickly.

So Thor probably isn't going to be granting Durkon a lot of spells in the near future, right? Won't Durkon have to find a Lawful Evil god to serve if he wants his full cleric powers back?

If he goes home as a high level cleric/vampire, there's going to be hell to pay.

[veti]

Let's take it as read that everyone in the Order would like to kill Durkula and resurrect Durkon, if that's an option at any point. But that requires a cleric of a level that they don't, currently, have access to - except, awkwardly enough, in Durkula himself - and they don't know where to find.

So right now, the choice isn't between "keeping Durkula vs raising Durkon", it's between "keeping Durkula vs staking him, then lugging his body around as so much literally-dead-weight until they find a suitably levelled cleric, which might well not even happen until after the end of the campaign".

That seems... kinda loaded. There are probably downsides to "keeping Durkula", but we haven't seen them yet, and they'd have to be pretty damn' serious to make it not worth keeping him for now.

[Baphomet]

Okay, I don't believe for an instant that Belkar and Vampire Durkon are even in the same threat category. Belkar is more of a puckish rogue, he just occasionally murders paladins and other jackasses. Vampire Durkon could rip a mile wide swath of destruction through a city. OOTS tolerating a vampire during a battle is different than tolerating him for the quest. In 931 when the reality of being a vampire affected Durkon, he got nasty pretty quickly.

So Thor probably isn't going to be granting Durkon a lot of spells in the near future, right? Won't Durkon have to find a Lawful Evil god to serve if he wants his full cleric powers back?

If he goes home as a high level cleric/vampire, there's going to be hell to pay.
Rich has made it clear that Durkon is an atheist cleric now. He receives his divine powers from negative energy and a concept, not from any god.

I'm also not sure where you're getting the idea that Belkar is a puckish rogue and not a real threat. He's a monster who kills innocents constantly, though admittedly was doing so much more frequently before joining the order. He may not be in the same league as Durkon in terms of raw power, but he's demonstrated both the will and the means to, for example, kill almost the entire thieves' guild, and those guys had class levels. Durkon may have the means, but he hasn't really demonstrated the will to harm people who haven't done him wrong personally. With the little information we have, absent the influence of the rest of the order, I would bet money that Belkar would be committing much more evil than Durkon would.

[Jay R]

Rich has made it clear that Durkon is an atheist cleric now. He receives his divine powers from negative energy and a concept, not from any god.

Let's be precise in our language. An atheist is somebody who does not believe in any god. Durkon is not that. He knows gods exist.

Your second sentence is the best way to express it.

[2.5 cats]

That said, I'd imagine they'll probably try and resurrect Durkon, rather than destroy "Durkula," if they can find a way to so.

One thing that occurs to me is that, while generally awesome, Durkula may be worse-than-useless vs. Team Evil. Being undead, he may be easily controllable (or at least rebukable) by Redcloak. Durkula still cares about the fate of the world...I wonder if his willingness to do what it takes to save the world includes laying down his (un)life to return to a form which will serve him better in the final confrontation.

[orrion]

Okay, I don't believe for an instant that Belkar and Vampire Durkon are even in the same threat category. Belkar is more of a puckish rogue, he just occasionally murders paladins and other jackasses. Vampire Durkon could rip a mile wide swath of destruction through a city. OOTS tolerating a vampire during a battle is different than tolerating him for the quest. In 931 when the reality of being a vampire affected Durkon, he got nasty pretty quickly.

You mean, he "got nasty" toward someone who had just casually tried to kill him off? I don't think you can classify that act as specific to someone who is a vampire.



So Thor probably isn't going to be granting Durkon a lot of spells in the near future, right? Won't Durkon have to find a Lawful Evil god to serve if he wants his full cleric powers back?


No, clerics don't need a god to get spells.

[Messenger]

Rich has made it clear that Durkon is an atheist cleric now. He receives his divine powers from negative energy and a concept, not from any god.
Let's be precise in our language. An atheist is somebody who does not believe in any god. Durkon is not that. He knows gods exist.

Your second sentence is the best way to express it.

May I suggest the term "Nay-Theist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NayTheist)"? While what he thinks of his former patron remains unrevealed, I'm guessing that may be his attitude to Thor now.

And on a similar note...


So Thor probably isn't going to be granting Durkon a lot of spells in the near future, right? Won't Durkon have to find a Lawful Evil god to serve if he wants his full cleric powers back?

No, clerics don't need a god to get spells.Durkon now just gets his at dusk. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0909.html)

Although, there's one member of the Northern Pantheon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) who could possibly become Durkula's new divine patron(ess) if he chooses. If she's as unpopular as it seems, Durkon may even be her first cleric.

Also, alignment isn't that specific. IIRC the rules correctly, a cleric can worship any deity as long they're only up to a 1 shift away on either alignment axis (please correct me if I'm wrong or elaborate if I'm missing any fine details).


If he goes home as a high level cleric/vampire, there's going to be hell to pay.Assuming he finds out why he was sent away. Putting that together with the hardships he endured, he's going to be pretty pissed. And High Priest Hurak being deceased won't keep that secret- IIRC, Hurak explained why he secretly banished Durkon to at least one other cleric (On The Origin of the PCs; although apparently his successor doesn't know about it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0375.html)).

Although, as a vampire, he could never find out and still bring down doom and destruction upon his homeland.

[factotum]

With the little information we have, absent the influence of the rest of the order, I would bet money that Belkar would be committing much more evil than Durkon would.

We don't have much evidence of how much evil Durkon would perpetuate against the innocent. We have plenty of evidence of Belkar doing so, not to mention that the Deva, when interviewing Roy, suggested that Belkar would be up to an Evil level of several kilonazis if it weren't for Roy's influence.

As things stand right now, the only evil Durkon has done since becoming a free-willed vampire is killing the helpless Zz'dtri, who was his enemy anyway. That might change when he gets back to Dwarven lands and maybe finds out why he was exiled in the first place--I imagine that would make him more than a little ticked off!

[theNater]

Bringing Durkon back to life is just a complicated way of annihilating the dwarf he is today! Save your diamond dust and stake him instead!
Malack makes a point that he's been a vampire for some 200 years. It is possible that Durkon and Durkula have not diverged to the same extent that Malack had from the ignorant barbarian shaman he once was.

He's also got some unhealthy prejudices against trees. It's usually played for jokes (because it's harmless and silly), but it's essentially the same sort of prejudice that allowed Vaarsuvius to think it was OK to kill Tiamat knows how many Black Dragons
When Durkon had a bandit clan at his disposal, he didn't send them out to destroy all the evil trees; he sent them out to hold the perimeter against the terrible tree invaders (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0170.html). There is no indication that he thinks it's okay to kill trees just because they are trees.

Okay, I don't believe for an instant that Belkar and Vampire Durkon are even in the same threat category. Belkar is more of a puckish rogue, he just occasionally murders paladins and other jackasses.
Solt Lorkyurg (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) was a paladin?!

[johnbragg]

Rich has made it clear that Durkon is an atheist cleric now. He receives his divine powers from negative energy and a concept, not from any god.

When and where? His current spells available (if any) come/came from Thor, he just still has them until they're cast or replaced.

I'm looking forward to the recruitment montage/series of strips where Hel, Loki, Nergal, and possibly others (IFCC? HAve to find a way around the noncompete clause) make their cases to recruit a free-agent high level vampire cleric.

[Cerlis]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html

Roy seems pretty intent on letting Belkar get what is coming to him. The question is not if the Order would do anything because Belkar already committed evil, they are to pragmatic for that. But If Xykon is defeated and it seems he's going to go murdering innocents then Belkar would be lucky if jailing him is ALL they would do.

The fact of the matter is "Would the Order of the Stick not try to bring back their friend and bastion of goodness that helps people wherever he goes....just because there is a walking corpse that Looks like him."

And no, that isnt simplifying it at all. I'm sure that if there is someway to bring back Durkon without killing his body they would do it (assuming Durkula doesnt seem intent on murdering people).

My guess, since I doubt that Durkon becomes a vampire only to be brought back as not one later is what is going to happen my guess is in the final climax after Xykon is defeated that Durkon is going to skitter away and go marry Hilga and form his own little Dwarf Hole sect. He'll be one of those Raistlin esc characters who is a previous ally of the Order and very powerful in his own right. Belkar and V wont see a difference between the two and Roy, Haley, and Elan dont think they can invade his sanctum and take him out and have to (against their better wishes) content themselves with Mourning their friend.

Who is dead.


Okay, I don't believe for an instant that Belkar and Vampire Durkon are even in the same threat category. Belkar is more of a puckish rogue, he just occasionally murders paladins and other jackasses.

And anyone he feels like, and Friends, Enemies, Elan, Civil Servants, and anyone who gets in the way. If anything a good portion of his humor comes from the Order not understanding the weird logic Belkar uses to justify his murderes. : "Wait, you dont want to kill him for insulting you?" "psh, like i care what he thinks." "Hinjo gets to unleash the fury!? I'm going to kill that bastard!"

[Angel Bob]

Belkar and V wont see a difference between the two... [Durkon and Vampire Durkon]

:smallconfused: Excuse me, but Belkar is possibly the Order member who most objects to Vampire Durkon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html). Roy, Haley, and Elan seem either nonchalant or even overjoyed. And in the latest comic, Vaarsuvius looks to have noticed some alarming changes in Durkon.

[Kish]

And in the latest comic, Vaarsuvius looks to have noticed some alarming changes in Durkon.
That's one interpretation of Vaarsuvius' expression, but I favor the interpretation that goes, "Vaarsuvius has noticed some alarming differences between having the ability to breathe and lacking the ability to breathe."

[Chronos]

If Durkon himself wants to be restored to life, it's not too difficult. He can (possibly with Vaarsuvius' help) scribe a scroll of Resurrection, and then any cleric (or anyone with the Use Magic Device skill, such as Haley or probably Elan) can use it on his remains after he's staked. But of course that depends on Durkon, and we don't yet know what he thinks on the subject.

[orrion]

When and where? His current spells available (if any) come/came from Thor, he just still has them until they're cast or replaced.

I'm looking forward to the recruitment montage/series of strips where Hel, Loki, Nergal, and possibly others (IFCC? HAve to find a way around the noncompete clause) make their cases to recruit a free-agent high level vampire cleric.

The Giant confirmed it in a forum post. Go find it in the Index thread.

The spells he has now did not come from Thor. He used Planar Ally to summon a devil. If he had still been Thor's cleric it would have been a deva.


And in the latest comic, Vaarsuvius looks to have noticed some alarming changes in Durkon.

Or Vaarsuvius is busy being thankful he's able to breathe agaein.

You've never watched a movie where someone has been choked for a while and then released? They don't immediately go back to a serene expression. They're busy gasping for air.

[Fish]

The only thing I assume it is possible to know a out Vampire Durkon is that he still has an instinct for self-preservation and doesn't want to be destroyed. We can see Durkula flip out and attack Laurin for withholding the staff.

Whether Durkon would make it easy for the Order to destroy him, we don't know. He certainly has the wisdom to convince the Order to leave him as-is.

For one thing, he might argue, when is the last time you saw a piece of wood lying around? Pretty scarce in the desert. Plus, Durkon could point out that he is immune to much of the dark magic favored by Xykon (eg, level draining). They even have Xykon's spell list, so Durkon could surely present a good case. I'm not saying Durkon would be right, only that he has enough evidence on his side to be persuasive.

[orrion]

The only thing I assume it is possible to know a out Vampire Durkon is that he still has an instinct for self-preservation and doesn't want to be destroyed. We can see Durkula flip out and attack Laurin for withholding the staff.

Well, sure. If the Order loses here it's unlikely he'll ever be resurrected.

[Jay R]

May I suggest the term "Nay-Theist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NayTheist)"? While what he thinks of his former patron remains unrevealed, I'm guessing that may be his attitude to Thor now.d.

You can suggest anything you like. I won't use a term based on "atheist" to describe somebody who is not an atheist.

Durkon knows gods exist. Therefore he is a theist. The term "nay-theist" is a badly formed neologism.

The biggest weakness of the tvtropes project is that it does not distinguish actual literary terms like Chekov's Gun and Deus Ex Machina from silly things people just made up to put on tvtropes, like "Nay-theist".

[Sir_Leorik]

You can suggest anything you like. I won't use a term based on "atheist" to describe somebody who is not an atheist.

Durkon knows gods exist. Therefore he is a theist. The term "nay-theist" is a badly formed neologism.

The biggest weakness of the tvtropes project is that it does not distinguish actual literary terms like Chekov's Gun and Deus Ex Machina from silly things people just made up to put on tvtropes, like "Nay-theist".

The term for a Cleric like Vampire!Durkon is "non-theistic Cleric". He does not worship a deity, but he has all the training of a Cleric, all the skills and ability channel negative energy of a Cleric, and can prepare spells as a Cleric. He gets two Domains, chosen from Chaos, Destruction, Evil or Trickery. These Domains replace the two he chose when he became a Cleric of Thor.

[halfeye]

If he goes home as a high level cleric/vampire, there's going to be hell to pay.
If Kraagor's gate is in Dwarven lands, there's hell to pay there already, Team Evil just teleported in, five minutes or less after Girard's gate exploded, which is very little to do with Durkon. If Kraagor's gate is not in Dwarven lands, then Durkon has no obvious reason to go there soon.

[AstralFire]

Correct Durkon term is that he is a non-theistic cleric, yes... but atheist cleric* in that sense would be correct terminology, as it has a different meaning in a context where gods are assumed to exist. Still, for clarity, easier to use non-theistic.

* As opposed to "cleric who is an atheist" which is outright incorrect.

[Rezby]

I would argue that in the world of D&D/OOTS, where gods are known to exist and are very present in that world, the word 'atheist' wouldn't mean not-believing in gods, but rather not-worshipping any, as compared to our world where the existence of god(s) is questionable and this atheism means non-belief in any.

As to the whole resurrection thing, is it possible for Durkon to make a scroll and then for, say, Roy, to take a level in cleric, and then do the staking and raising things?

[Baphomet]

Okay, well, I hope you will all forgive my semantic mistake. Although you all clearly knew what I meant, I agree that atheist was not the technically correct term.

[Sir_Leorik]

Correct Durkon term is that he is a non-theistic cleric, yes... but atheist cleric* in that sense would be correct terminology, as it has a different meaning in a context where gods are assumed to exist. Still, for clarity, easier to use non-theistic.

* As opposed to "cleric who is an atheist" which is outright incorrect.


I would argue that in the world of D&D/OOTS, where gods are known to exist and are very present in that world, the word 'atheist' wouldn't mean not-believing in gods, but rather not-worshipping any, as compared to our world where the existence of god(s) is questionable and this atheism means non-belief in any.

As to the whole resurrection thing, is it possible for Durkon to make a scroll and then for, say, Roy, to take a level in cleric, and then do the staking and raising things?

Clueless sods, haven't you lanned the Chant about the Athar? Who're the Athar? They're the Defiers, berk, cutters who deny that the "Powers", such as Torm, Boccob or Thor are gods. See the Athar acknowledge that Thor's real. Only a total Barmy would deny that. But they feel that Thor's nothing more than a really powerful basher, with a cool hammer. But they deny that he's deserving of worship. After all, isn't Thor little more than a bubber and a lout? Didn't he install that horrid phone-service to answer emergency prayers that resulted in a high incidence of colon tumors? And what's with the beef he has with trees? Does he also have a beef with Yggdrassil?

The Athar's old Factol, Terrance was once a high-up Cleric of the Goddess Mishakal, but one day he realized he no longer believed in her, and resigned from his temple. He made his way from Out-Of-Town to The Cage, where he joined the Athar. Turns out that Factol Terrance discovered some Dark that let him regain his Cleric abilities, and he became a Cleric of some "Great Unknown" cosmic force. Least till the Lady sent him to the Mazes during the Faction War. After the Lady ordered the Factions disbanded, the Athar scurried for the nearest Gates, heading to the Astral Plane or to the base of The Spire, both places where they'd be safe against Divine retaliation.

/Planescape Cant

So as you can see, there is a long and storied tradition of (A)D&D Clerics who do not worship a deity, and some who border on atheistic beliefs.

[Harbinger]

Okay, I don't believe for an instant that Belkar and Vampire Durkon are even in the same threat category. Belkar is more of a puckish rogue, he just occasionally murders paladins and other jackasses. Vampire Durkon could rip a mile wide swath of destruction through a city. OOTS tolerating a vampire during a battle is different than tolerating him for the quest. In 931 when the reality of being a vampire affected Durkon, he got nasty pretty quickly.

So Thor probably isn't going to be granting Durkon a lot of spells in the near future, right? Won't Durkon have to find a Lawful Evil god to serve if he wants his full cleric powers back?

If he goes home as a high level cleric/vampire, there's going to be hell to pay.

No they aren't in the same threat category.

Belkar's much more dangerous.

Sure, Durkon could blow up a city if he felt like it, but passivity is one of Durkon's most notable character traits. He almost never does anything on his own initiative, and undeath doesn't seem to have changed that. 931 showed only that he's willing to use his powers to save his own life.

Belkar, on the other hand, actively attacks and kills people without provocation, has killed dozens if not hundreds of innocents, and has the ability and motivation to kill dozens more. Before his character development, the only thing stopping him going on a rampage was Roy and the Mark of Justice. Even post chardev, he's still a ruthless killer. In fact, he's actually become more dangerous having made the jump from Stupid Evil to Chaotic Evil.

[veti]

/Planescape Cant.

Never played Planescape, but I understood that just fine. I did wonder why you seemed to be mixing 19th-century Cockney with 1990s Buffy - but hey, it made perfect sense, so why worry.

[konradknox]

I'm not sure what the whole "Vamp Durkon is scary and nasty and evil" hubbub is about. Laurin took his staff and made him burn, so he attacked back and drained some levels from her. How is that super nasty? Just because the fangs make his face look scary doesn't make him any extra awful in his action or somehow unjustified. In no way does he commit overkill. I mean, we're in battle, Roy is slashing people with a sword, Belkar stabbing, Haley shooting, V disintegrating people. It's only natural a vampire is gonna use his level drain. He was seconds away from destruction.

[MonochromeTiger]

I'm not sure what the whole "Vamp Durkon is scary and nasty and evil" hubbub is about. Laurin took his staff and made him burn, so he attacked back and drained some levels from her. How is that super nasty? Just because the fangs make his face look scary doesn't make him any extra awful in his action or somehow unjustified. In no way does he commit overkill. I mean, we're in battle, Roy is slashing people with a sword, Belkar stabbing, Haley shooting, V disintegrating people. It's only natural a vampire is gonna use his level drain. He was seconds away from destruction.

it's a mentality built into long term players of the game that screams at them "that guy who was your best friend? now completely evil and going to double cross you in 5 seconds, kill them first" whenever someone gets turned undead, even if they retain their self control. if they use any of their new abilities to their advantage it's instantly seen as proof that they've embraced being undead and will now turn on you. if they don't use any of their abilities it's seen as proof that they're trying to lull you into a false sense of security so they can then turn on you. either way people ignore any reason that undead may have to work with you or even the idea that they might not want to BE undead simply because it doesn't fit the portion of their brain that branded that person a traitor as soon as they failed their saves.

[Sir_Leorik]

Never played Planescape, but I understood that just fine. I did wonder why you seemed to be mixing 19th-century Cockney with 1990s Buffy - but hey, it made perfect sense, so why worry.

Planescape Cant borrows quite a few cockney terms, mixing them with terms original to the setting. If you run a Google search you can find a few glossaries for Planescape Cant.

[Clistenes]

Clueless sods, haven't you lanned the Chant about the Athar? Who're the Athar? They're the Defiers, berk, cutters who deny that the "Powers", such as Torm, Boccob or Thor are gods. See the Athar acknowledge that Thor's real. Only a total Barmy would deny that. But they feel that Thor's nothing more than a really powerful basher, with a cool hammer. But they deny that he's deserving of worship. After all, isn't Thor little more than a bubber and a lout? Didn't he install that horrid phone-service to answer emergency prayers that resulted in a high incidence of colon tumors? And what's with the beef he has with trees? Does he also have a beef with Yggdrassil?

The Athar's old Factol, Terrance was once a high-up Cleric of the Goddess Mishakal, but one day he realized he no longer believed in her, and resigned from his temple. He made his way from Out-Of-Town to The Cage, where he joined the Athar. Turns out that Factol Terrance discovered some Dark that let him regain his Cleric abilities, and he became a Cleric of some "Great Unknown" cosmic force. Least till the Lady sent him to the Mazes during the Faction War. After the Lady ordered the Factions disbanded, the Athar scurried for the nearest Gates, heading to the Astral Plane or to the base of The Spire, both places where they'd be safe against Divine retaliation.

/Planescape Cant

So as you can see, there is a long and storied tradition of (A)D&D Clerics who do not worship a deity, and some who border on atheistic beliefs.

Planescape Cant + Gizoogle:

Clueless sods, aint you lanned tha Chant bout tha Athar, biatch? Who're tha Athar, biatch? They're tha Defiers, berk, cuttas whoz ass deny dat tha "Powers", like ****in Torm, Boccob or Thor is gods. Right back up in yo mutha****in ass. See tha Athar acknowledge dat Thorz real. It aint nuthin but tha nick nack patty wack, I still gots tha bigger sack. Only a total Barmy would deny dis ****. But they feel dat Thorz not a god damn thang mo' than a straight-up bangin basher, wit a cold-ass lil def hammer n' ****. But they deny dat da ruffneck deservin of worshizzle fo' realz. After all, aint Thor lil mo' than a funky-ass bubber n' a lout, biatch? Didn't he install dat horrid phone-service ta answer emergency lyrics dat resulted up in a high incidence of colon tumors, biatch? And whatz wit tha beef dat schmoooove mutha****a has wit trees, biatch? Do he also gotz a funky-ass beef wit Yggdrassil?

Da Atharz oldschool Factol, Terrizzle was once a high-up Cleric of tha Goddess Mishakal yo, but one dizzle he realized he no longer believed up in her, n' resigned from his cold-ass temple yo. Dude made his way from Out-Of-Hood ta Da Cage, where he joined tha Athar. Shiiit, dis aint no joke. Turns up dat Factol Terrizzle discovered some Dark dat let his ass regain his Cleric abilities, n' his thugged-out lil' punk-ass became a Cleric of some "Great Unknown" cosmic force. Least till tha Lady busted his ass ta tha Mazes durin tha Faction War fo' realz. After tha Lady ordered tha Factions disbanded, tha Athar scurried fo' tha nearest Gates, headin ta tha Astral Plane or ta tha base of Da Spire, both places where they'd be safe against Divine retaliation.

[MonochromeTiger]

Planescape Cant + Gizoogle:

Clueless sods, aint you lanned tha Chant bout tha Athar, biatch? Who're tha Athar, biatch? They're tha Defiers, berk, cuttas whoz ass deny dat tha "Powers", like ****in Torm, Boccob or Thor is gods. Right back up in yo mutha****in ass. See tha Athar acknowledge dat Thorz real. It aint nuthin but tha nick nack patty wack, I still gots tha bigger sack. Only a total Barmy would deny dis ****. But they feel dat Thorz not a god damn thang mo' than a straight-up bangin basher, wit a cold-ass lil def hammer n' ****. But they deny dat da ruffneck deservin of worshizzle fo' realz. After all, aint Thor lil mo' than a funky-ass bubber n' a lout, biatch? Didn't he install dat horrid phone-service ta answer emergency lyrics dat resulted up in a high incidence of colon tumors, biatch? And whatz wit tha beef dat schmoooove mutha****a has wit trees, biatch? Do he also gotz a funky-ass beef wit Yggdrassil?

Da Atharz oldschool Factol, Terrizzle was once a high-up Cleric of tha Goddess Mishakal yo, but one dizzle he realized he no longer believed up in her, n' resigned from his cold-ass temple yo. Dude made his way from Out-Of-Hood ta Da Cage, where he joined tha Athar. Shiiit, dis aint no joke. Turns up dat Factol Terrizzle discovered some Dark dat let his ass regain his Cleric abilities, n' his thugged-out lil' punk-ass became a Cleric of some "Great Unknown" cosmic force. Least till tha Lady busted his ass ta tha Mazes durin tha Faction War fo' realz. After tha Lady ordered tha Factions disbanded, tha Athar scurried fo' tha nearest Gates, headin ta tha Astral Plane or ta tha base of Da Spire, both places where they'd be safe against Divine retaliation.

......were....were those supposed to be words?

[orrion]

it's a mentality built into long term players of the game that screams at them "that guy who was your best friend? now completely evil and going to double cross you in 5 seconds, kill them first" whenever someone gets turned undead, even if they retain their self control. if they use any of their new abilities to their advantage it's instantly seen as proof that they've embraced being undead and will now turn on you. if they don't use any of their abilities it's seen as proof that they're trying to lull you into a false sense of security so they can then turn on you. either way people ignore any reason that undead may have to work with you or even the idea that they might not want to BE undead simply because it doesn't fit the portion of their brain that branded that person a traitor as soon as they failed their saves.

Ok, sure. But you can't use this particular action to justify that mentality AT ALL because the action Durkon took here is the reaction you're going to see from 99% of people who were seconds away from death, get saved, and then get a shot at whoever tried to kill them.

[Jay R]

Okay, well, I hope you will all forgive my semantic mistake.

No problem.


Although you all clearly knew what I meant, I agree that atheist was not the technically correct term.

When we realize that the purpose of internet is to pool our knowledge and understanding, it all gets more comfortable. We know what you mean now, because we explored the possible misunderstanding and worked it out. No problem, and it all works.

[MonochromeTiger]

Ok, sure. But you can't use this particular action to justify that mentality AT ALL because the action Durkon took here is the reaction you're going to see from 99% of people who were seconds away from death, get saved, and then get a shot at whoever tried to kill them.

of course. I'm arguing that the idea of "well they should kill durkon he's clearly going to betray them" is premature. that staff (as far as we've heard) had the one stored use of protection from sunlight available to him, if he goes out in the sun HE WILL DIE. his options include: go out in the sun and die because he doesn't have the spell, stay perfectly still and be absolutely useless for the entirety of the fight, or take out the person who's a threat to him and his group while at the same time getting something that will keep him "alive".

self preservation is a powerful motivator, people need to stop thinking that being evil is the only reason someone would yell at and try to kill an enemy.

[luchifer]

I think that the order is disrespecting Durkon by letting Vampire Durkon join the party. Durkon, while alive, fought to the death a vampire, and now the order is destroying durkon beliefs by siding with a Vampire.

[MonochromeTiger]

I think that the order is disrespecting Durkon by letting Vampire Durkon join the party. Durkon, while alive, fought to the death a vampire, and now the order is destroying durkon beliefs by siding with a Vampire.

so...you think that they're letting durkon down...by accepting durkon into the party while planning to bring him fully back to life after they'd gone through the entire book saying "we need all the help we can get". yes clearly intentionally taking a risk with the mission the group has made their purpose for months is worth worrying about hurting the feelings of someone who, through their own words, wanted to help the group with that mission.

did you consider the reason he went against that vampire was the one he mentioned a few times about not wanting his team members to be harmed by it? because malack was making it very clear that he was only concerned with wanting durkon to get out of danger during that fight not with letting the rest of the OOTS go.

[luchifer]

so...you think that they're letting durkon down...by accepting durkon into the party while planning to bring him fully back to life after they'd gone through the entire book saying "we need all the help we can get". yes clearly intentionally taking a risk with the mission the group has made their purpose for months is worth worrying about hurting the feelings of someone who, through their own words, wanted to help the group with that mission.

did you consider the reason he went against that vampire was the one he mentioned a few times about not wanting his team members to be harmed by it? because malack was making it very clear that he was only concerned with wanting durkon to get out of danger during that fight not with letting the rest of the OOTS go.

I understand that, but Durkon was still going to fight Malack, because Malack was a fricking vampire, and he only fought alone because malack was going to dominate his team members into killing each other.

I know the order needs all the help they can, but is like killing Batman, and then resurrecting him as a Bat-GunShooter happy trigger.

Durkon needed all the help he could, but he still choose to act accordingly to his beliefs. And he almost won.

edit.. just to clarify... what would Durkon do if Roy was the vampire?

[Gift Jeraff]

Did anyone else read the title expecting OOTS-based stand-up?

"And what's the deal with airship food?.."

[MonochromeTiger]

I understand that, but Durkon was still going to fight Malack, because Malack was a fricking vampire, and he only fought alone because malack was going to dominate his team members into killing each other.

I know the order needs all the help they can, but is like killing Batman, and then resurrecting him as a Bat-GunShooter happy trigger.

Durkon needed all the help he could, but he still choose to act accordingly to his beliefs. And he almost won.

edit.. just to clarify... what would Durkon do if Roy was the vampire?

responding to your last part first, he'd use the diamond dust he had prepared to resurrect roy as soon as he could. which is what they as a group already discussed as the plan for durkon.

now on to the rest, malack was a vampire and yes that in combination with the fact that he was by then revealed to be evil and would have gone on to kill the rest of the group anyway was a reason for durkon to fight him...but to say that he would want to be killed instantly instead of at least be helpful until he can be raised off of that alone is close minded.

batman actually has been a trigger happy gun wielder a few times, they tend to retcon that out so that he returns to being a super detective that can be empathized with however...let's put this in a different context, what's more important, saving the entire world or avoiding momentary emotional distress?

durkon needed all the help he could get, yes, but you already addressed WHY he didn't go run for more help, he thought the rest of the group might be dominated into killing each other. that doesn't make his fighting alone a moral issue it makes it a "well I can fight alone or give him a bunch of minions as well as lose my team".

[luchifer]

I see your points, and yes, you are right, thanks for clarify things for me. Anyway, do you think that, same as Malack, Vampire Durkon wont want to go back to his old life? (if being asked)

[MonochromeTiger]

I see your points, and yes, you are right, thanks for clarify things for me. Anyway, do you think that, same as Malack, Vampire Durkon wont want to go back to his old life? (if being asked)

I personally think that depends entirely on the giant's interpretation of possible alignment changes, if durkon is mentally different now from when he was alive it could be either yes or no, if he's the same now I personally think he'd gladly come back but it could very well be a "I'm done with this, let me rest" situation. it really does come down to how the giant wants to play the change.

[orrion]

I see your points, and yes, you are right, thanks for clarify things for me. Anyway, do you think that, same as Malack, Vampire Durkon wont want to go back to his old life? (if being asked)

Maybe. Malack had a lot more time to distance himself from his old identity. Durkon's been a vampire for a few hours.

[theNater]

I'm not sure what the whole "Vamp Durkon is scary and nasty and evil" hubbub is about. Laurin took his staff and made him burn, so he attacked back and drained some levels from her. How is that super nasty? Just because the fangs make his face look scary doesn't make him any extra awful in his action or somehow unjustified. In no way does he commit overkill. I mean, we're in battle, Roy is slashing people with a sword, Belkar stabbing, Haley shooting, V disintegrating people. It's only natural a vampire is gonna use his level drain. He was seconds away from destruction.
He attacks her while bellowing with rage. Note that he's not just ending his sentence with an exclamation point, he's shouting it in all caps. This is the same emotional intensity as you broke my sword (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0114.html), who stole my kills (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0661.html), and Talky-Man broke Thog's tusk (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0795.html). He is fighting for his life, so ordinarily this wouldn't raise eyebrows; if it were Roy or Vaarsuvius in a similar situation, it wouldn't be surprising at all. But this is Durkon. Quiet, shy, patient, humble, long-suffering Durkon. I don't think he's ever let out an enraged bellow in his life.

[coineineagh]

I'm guessing that Durkon will want to stay undead. It should be a drive of any sentient being to want to continue to exist, and the alignment change is proof that a vampirized being is different than its living form. Especially an evil being would not want to end its existence even if it's the right thing to do.

Durkon will have to adjust for the lack of spontaneous casting, light sensitivity and other problems, but overall vampirism offers a lot of power and advantages too. He won't want to give up on that.

ANd I feel that it was a good point made already, that chaotic Thor never really suited Durkon. His fellow worshipers betrayed him with the exile, and evil Durkon will have little patience for the abuse that his high priest committed on a faithful servant. He may objectively find more 'stability' in his new existence, and it seems that the calamity the high priest sought to prevent, was in fact caused the moment he decided to cruelly exile Durkon.

[Dark_Nohn]

Depends entirely on whose (or what) blood he drinks, I'd say. If he can happily make do with animals, then what's the problem?

(Oh, and note that I don't think a D&D vampire actually *has* to drink blood in order to survive, although I may be misreading the SRD on that front).

Yes and no: It states that what they use to survive is feeding via either energy drain slam or the blood drain. It never says how much, or that they ever have to, but I can see something like V's insomnia episode happening to Durkon, except with hunger. The real trick is, he can just drink one of his companions, then use restoration, or maybe sustenance (a cleric spell) to create some Hemo-cola or the like.

[Tom Tearcamel]

I do remember The Giant saying that a Vampire Cleric, or any Cleric for that mater doesn't need a God to cast spells. He didn't say that Durkon wouldn't pray to one.

More than anything else, I want to see him pray to Hel and I want to see her and Thor's reaction to realizing she poached a high level DWARF cleric from him. :smallwink:

[luchifer]

Yes and no: It states that what they use to survive is feeding via either energy drain slam or the blood drain. It never says how much, or that they ever have to, but I can see something like V's insomnia episode happening to Durkon, except with hunger. The real trick is, he can just drink one of his companions, then use restoration, or maybe sustenance (a cleric spell) to create some Hemo-cola or the like.

I feel bad for suggesting this, but.. can he use the bag of tricks of Roy? (the rhino, the two rats, etc)

[MonochromeTiger]

I feel bad for suggesting this, but.. can he use the bag of tricks of Roy? (the rhino, the two rats, etc)

why would you feel bad for saying that? "they can just feed on an animal" is one of the most common tricks people use to make a vampiric character have a slightly less "evil" sounding way of staying alive (because staying alive is instantly evil if it requires harming someone else even slightly (because self defense doesn't exist in fantasy land)). I mean it may be mildly cliched by this point but it's also so heavily used that there's not much point ignoring its presence.

[luchifer]

I feel bad for the vermins

[Ramien]

why would you feel bad for saying that? "they can just feed on an animal" is one of the most common tricks people use to make a vampiric character have a slightly less "evil" sounding way of staying alive (because staying alive is instantly evil if it requires harming someone else even slightly (because self defense doesn't exist in fantasy land)). I mean it may be mildly cliched by this point but it's also so heavily used that there's not much point ignoring its presence.

The problem is that vampiric feeding doesn't count as self-defense, since the other person isn't trying to harm you, but you are choosing to injure them to support yourself. Feeding on (non-sentient) animals should be, in general, no more or less morally ambiguous than a normal being's feeding on their flesh.

[Rakoa]

The problem is that vampiric feeding doesn't count as self-defense, since the other person isn't trying to harm you, but you are choosing to injure them to support yourself. Feeding on (non-sentient) animals should be, in general, no more or less morally ambiguous than a normal being's feeding on their flesh.

Humans are okay with eating cows because cows are stupid. Of course, this is only relative to the humans own mental processes. Now, look at how every mental stat that the vampire possesses goes up. Relative to the vampire's mental processes, guess who the new cow is? It is all a matter of perspective.

[MonochromeTiger]

The problem is that vampiric feeding doesn't count as self-defense, since the other person isn't trying to harm you, but you are choosing to injure them to support yourself. Feeding on (non-sentient) animals should be, in general, no more or less morally ambiguous than a normal being's feeding on their flesh.

agreed, honestly if something tried to bite my cat I'd likely attempt to beat it senseless with as much enthusiasm as if it tried to bite a friend. now that that's out in the open however my attempt to make the person who brought up feeding from the bag of tricks feel less bad is out the window.

[Cerlis]

:smallconfused: Excuse me, but Belkar is possibly the Order member who most objects to Vampire Durkon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html). Roy, Haley, and Elan seem either nonchalant or even overjoyed. And in the latest comic, Vaarsuvius looks to have noticed some alarming changes in Durkon.

Well i think you are grossly misinterpreting their reaction. Belkar is a selfish sod and His recent character development has only (mostly) been in the realm of actually caring about someone other than himself (and it should still be pointed out that everyone he has been protected can be seen as belonging to Him). The only Altruistic thing he has ever done is rescue two strangers because he empathized with them (a big moment for him, which involved the horrible murder of about 20 other people). Point being most of his motivations are selfish. Protect HIS Gold Hoarder. Protect HIS healer, Protect HIS elf, protect HIS cat.
He OBJECTS to Durkon being on the team because a few minutes ago HIS healer was murdered in front of his eyes and then turned into a mindless monster that at his life-blood!
There IS a small possibility that his shared experience with Durkon might have melded with is new found empathy and MIGHT want Durkon back. But that is only if that new feeling somehow trumps about 20 years of life for a person who doesnt care about others and judges people positively in regards to how they help him or how Cool they can kill people. Most of this comic has had him Bonding with Villains more than anyone else.

And even if V is shocked at Durkon's reaction (as opposed to being able to get a decent amount of oxygen into her lungs for the first time in 12 or more seconds) that doesn't signify anything. IF anything V seems to be the most nonchalant about character changes and is actively working on beating down the part of his personality that doesnt care about other people. In other words I dont know about future V or now V but i know the V we've seen a lot would no more think less of Durkon for drinking Blood then he would of Durkon drinking Rotted Wheat.

Roy on the other hand took Durkon's death the hardest, raging so hard he was ready to kill Belkar in cold blood for it.
Haley is a good girl if extremely pragmatic. So long as it doesnt risk her friends she would be on board with bringing back Durkon (but isnt stupid enough to risk more lives in an uphill fight to bring back someone just because they miss him).
Elan is the most likely to try to come up with a plan to try to bring back Durkon without having to kill Durkula. I can easily imagine him keeping Durkula chained up in his own house so he doesnt go eat people but treated civilly and well or having a Hobby of researching a spell to bring Durkon back without having to kill Durkula in his spare time. A Grey haired Joyful if hopeless Elan happily researching spells in the basement after he puts the grandkids to bed, alongside his second daughter that luckily inherited Haley's wit.

Well, either way Belkar will be dead and V would do anything if Haley asked I think.


If Durkon himself wants to be restored to life, it's not too difficult. He can (possibly with Vaarsuvius' help) scribe a scroll of Resurrection, and then any cleric (or anyone with the Use Magic Device skill, such as Haley or probably Elan) can use it on his remains after he's staked. But of course that depends on Durkon, and we don't yet know what he thinks on the subject.

I'd point out that when Roy first questions him he doesnt say anything like "I'm still a good person in side and I'm helping because its the right thing to do and you all are my friends" . "World is still at stake isnt it?" "No more than Belkar".

He is an evil vampire protecting the planet he lives on.:smallannoyed: We think he might be lawful so he probably isnt going to backstab the Order but the future i foretold seems the most likely. He is an evil creature with instincts of self preservation. He is a living and thinking entity (all of which want to live). He probably knows they are going to want Durkon back and there is only one way to do that.

[MonochromeTiger]

Humans are okay with eating cows because cows are stupid. Of course, this is only relative to the humans own mental processes. Now, look at how every mental stat that the vampire possesses goes up. Relative to the vampire's mental processes, guess who the new cow is? It is all a matter of perspective.

perspective is so much better when it's being used by the people with the point weapons though....

[jidasfire]

You can suggest anything you like. I won't use a term based on "atheist" to describe somebody who is not an atheist.

Durkon knows gods exist. Therefore he is a theist. The term "nay-theist" is a badly formed neologism.

The biggest weakness of the tvtropes project is that it does not distinguish actual literary terms like Chekov's Gun and Deus Ex Machina from silly things people just made up to put on tvtropes, like "Nay-theist".

Hey now, don't...shoot the Messenger.

::ducks::

[Ramien]

Humans are okay with eating cows because cows are stupid. Of course, this is only relative to the humans own mental processes. Now, look at how every mental stat that the vampire possesses goes up. Relative to the vampire's mental processes, guess who the new cow is? It is all a matter of perspective.

Humans are okay with eating cows because cows aren't people - they're non-sentient beings. If just thinking someone was stupid was a good enough reason to eat them, cannibalism would be a lot more prevalent.

[Messenger]

Hey now, don't...shoot the Messenger.

::ducks::Ha! :smallbiggrin: Thanks, jidasfire! It's been awhile since I used that line myself.

Anyway, I certainly agree with the "Atheist cleric is nonsense" thing, mind you. And even the TV Tropes entry on Nay-Theist put out the real and more precise term (misotheist, misotheism).

---

I forgot to post:

Um, wouldn't Durkula turn to dusk if he were killed, thus making any Resurrection extremely difficult (if not impossible) on account of him automatically counting as disinitigrated upon true death? Of course, if so, how did Durkon expect to bring Malack back to (not un)life?

I mean, what particular version of vampire are we using here? :smallconfused:

[factotum]

of course. I'm arguing that the idea of "well they should kill durkon he's clearly going to betray them" is premature. that staff (as far as we've heard) had the one stored use of protection from sunlight available to him, if he goes out in the sun HE WILL DIE.

Clearly not, considering Durkon is seen casting Protection from Daylight from the staff on himself in #932. What on earth would make you think the staff would only have one charge of the spell in any case? In D&D, if a staff has more than one spell bound to it, you can generally cast any of those spells as many times as the staff has charges--there isn't a built-in rule saying "one copy of this spell, four of this other one, ten of that one" or whatever.

When the staff runs out of charges, if Durkon hasn't learned the Protection from Daylight spell by himself, he'll be in trouble. Not until then.

[MonochromeTiger]

Clearly not, considering Durkon is seen casting Protection from Daylight from the staff on himself in #932. What on earth would make you think the staff would only have one charge of the spell in any case? In D&D, if a staff has more than one spell bound to it, you can generally cast any of those spells as many times as the staff has charges--there isn't a built-in rule saying "one copy of this spell, four of this other one, ten of that one" or whatever.

When the staff runs out of charges, if Durkon hasn't learned the Protection from Daylight spell by himself, he'll be in trouble. Not until then.

two things: first being that when I typed that it was in the context of him not having the staff yet, meaning he WOULD die if he went out into the sun. second being that the number of charges wasn't discussed and for the sake of drama could be anywhere between 1 and infinite in this story, what we know is that the spell had to be recast each day and durkon does not know it so without the staff he'd have to stay inside or research like a madman to get the spell. so while the staff could have more charges the only ones we KNOW about are the two that were used when he first turned and in 932. but thank you for making me sound stupid by quoting the part of my post that was pointing out how badly he needed something in order to live without the context it was posted in.

[Souhiro]

Maybe someone could say that his rage "Gimme back me staff!" is a clue on his new evil ways.

But then... is Roy evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0114.gif)?


Also... Main part is that NOBODY ASKED Durkula, or (save for Belkar) Nobody said anything about if they liked Durkon over Durkula. Because they didn't have TIME to do so. They went from fighting a Silicium Elemental sent by a hateful goblin, to fighting an army, flee from the army in a badass allosaurus, fighting a high powered trio while they were burned out (Low HP, Low Spells, Stunned and such? They are as good as if they were from 5 to 10 levels lower!)

Maybe, while in the Mechanus, they can cool their ideas, and such. Get more character development and such.

It would be fun if the intro to the next book is written by Durkon, and in some point, it stops, is written in a diferent font, and narrated by Durkula.

[Jay R]

Back to the original question, which was "Do you think that OOTS will kill him for being a vampire?"

[Yes, it really was. Go back and look.]

No, I don't think that's why they will do it. I think they will (try to) kill him and resurrect him because they are trying to rescue him.

I am deliberately avoiding the question as to whether Durkon, at present, will consider that a rescue. We weren't asked what the vampire thinks. We were asked what we believe the Order will try to do.

[Sir_Leorik]

Planescape Cant + Gizoogle:

Clueless sods, aint you lanned tha Chant bout tha Athar, biatch? Who're tha Athar, biatch? They're tha Defiers, berk, cuttas whoz ass deny dat tha "Powers", like ****in Torm, Boccob or Thor is gods. Right back up in yo mutha****in ass. See tha Athar acknowledge dat Thorz real. It aint nuthin but tha nick nack patty wack, I still gots tha bigger sack. Only a total Barmy would deny dis ****. But they feel dat Thorz not a god damn thang mo' than a straight-up bangin basher, wit a cold-ass lil def hammer n' ****. But they deny dat da ruffneck deservin of worshizzle fo' realz. After all, aint Thor lil mo' than a funky-ass bubber n' a lout, biatch? Didn't he install dat horrid phone-service ta answer emergency lyrics dat resulted up in a high incidence of colon tumors, biatch? And whatz wit tha beef dat schmoooove mutha****a has wit trees, biatch? Do he also gotz a funky-ass beef wit Yggdrassil?

Da Atharz oldschool Factol, Terrizzle was once a high-up Cleric of tha Goddess Mishakal yo, but one dizzle he realized he no longer believed up in her, n' resigned from his cold-ass temple yo. Dude made his way from Out-Of-Hood ta Da Cage, where he joined tha Athar. Shiiit, dis aint no joke. Turns up dat Factol Terrizzle discovered some Dark dat let his ass regain his Cleric abilities, n' his thugged-out lil' punk-ass became a Cleric of some "Great Unknown" cosmic force. Least till tha Lady busted his ass ta tha Mazes durin tha Faction War fo' realz. After tha Lady ordered tha Factions disbanded, tha Athar scurried fo' tha nearest Gates, headin ta tha Astral Plane or ta tha base of Da Spire, both places where they'd be safe against Divine retaliation.

LOL! :smallbiggrin: I'm not sure why Factol Terrance's name got changed, but it's pretty funny. I especially liked this part:


Least till tha Lady busted his ass ta tha Mazes durin tha Faction War fo' realz. After tha Lady ordered tha Factions disbanded, tha Athar scurried fo' tha nearest Gates, headin ta tha Astral Plane or ta tha base of Da Spire, both places where they'd be safe against Divine retaliation.


Did anyone else read the title expecting OOTS-based stand-up?

"And what's the deal with airship food?.."

"And what's the deal with Durkon? Can he still drink beer or not? And if he can't is he gonna flip out when he learns he can't? Or will he pour blood into his beer? Will he go around with a flask and offer it to his potential victims? Wouldn't that be weird, to have a Dwarf Vampire Cleric offer you a few free drinks, before he helps himself to one? And what's the deal with his hammer? He left it behind in the pyramid. Seems a shame no one went back for it."

:smallbiggrin:


Back to the original question, which was "Do you think that OOTS will kill him for being a vampire?"

[Yes, it really was. Go back and look.]

No, I don't think that's why they will do it. I think they will (try to) kill him and resurrect him because they are trying to rescue him.

I am deliberately avoiding the question as to whether Durkon, at present, will consider that a rescue. We weren't asked what the vampire thinks. We were asked what we believe the Order will try to do.

They won't broach the issue until they have the means to Resurrect Durkon, which may not be till they're on the Northern Continent.

[JSSheridan]

Durkon is the only one who should who should have any say in his future. I'll be disappointed if the order tries to take it out of his hands.

The undead are people too. They stopped living, not caring.

[MonochromeTiger]

Durkon is the only one who should who should have any say in his future. I'll be disappointed if the order tries to take it out of his hands.

The undead are people too. They stopped living, not caring.

well....arguably non-sentient undead are instinct driven and too unaware of complex thought to "care" as we see it. I mean you generally don't get the same level of sympathy a vampire receives just from being dark and brooding in, say, a zombie who is forced by cruel chance and an illness beyond their control to seek the flesh of the living...at least not unless they speak and then we suddenly stop seeing them as uncaring unreasoning monsters and instead portray them as characters struggling against their basic nature (like so many badly written vampires and chaotic good drow (who logically should be evil since they're rebelling against their entire race and what that race perceives as good and normal) before them).

[rodneyAnonymous]

Um, wouldn't Durkula turn to dusk if he were killed, thus making any Resurrection extremely difficult (if not impossible) on account of him automatically counting as disinitigrated upon true death? Of course, if so, how did Durkon expect to bring Malack back to (not un)life

You can successfully cast resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm) on both disintegrated remains and vampire dust.

[MonochromeTiger]

You can successfully cast resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm) on both disintegrated remains and vampire dust.

which is why it's so devastating to spread those ashes over water or sand, it makes them nearly impossible to do anything with unless you're very fast and very lucky.

[spambi]

871 Durkon finds out Malek is a vampire. "an undead monster that drinks the blood of the innocent" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html)

872 Durkon refuses to accept Malek as a vampire, they start to fight. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html)

877 Durkon dies. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0877.html)

878 Malek raises Durkon as a vampire. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0878.html)

906 Malek dies. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0906.html)

907 Durkon regains free will and attacks Nale. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0907.html)

908 Durkon kills helpless Zz'drti, threatens to drink Nale's blood. It is not shown what Durkon does with Zz'drti's body. Durkon convinces Roy he's back.(?) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html)

909 Belkar attacks Durkon on sight. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0909.html)

910 Roy and Belkar disagree about whether to let Durkon live. Roy convinces Belkar that he's not any more evil than he is. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html)

931 Durkon yells and jumps on the psions back. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0931.html)

There hasn't been enough breathing room for anyone to really think about it yet, so I think the future is wide open. The story would allow for Durkon to be a monster or a party member at this point.

My personal opinion is that Durkon is going to drink human(oid) blood, and will have to be reckoned with sooner rather than later. Whether he can be killed? No, I would bet against it.

[Scow2]

I think that if the party tries to kill and resurrect Durkon, they get a "No Thanks" for an answer... Well... I guess it depends on how much trust Durkon has in the party: If they need to rez him because his presence is important in saving the world, he'd want to answer. But if they want to raise him so they could continue adventuring with him/want him back in the party/feel obligated to, his answer is

:durkon:"Sorry lads, I'm drinkin' wi' Thor."

[Emmit Svenson]

Folks, vampire Durkon is going to be around until he gets staked through the heart on a tree.

[Cerussite]

Maybe someone could say that his rage "Gimme back me staff!" is a clue on his new evil ways.

But then... is Roy evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0114.gif)?

It's not a clue that he's become evil: it's a clue he's a lot less gentle in his approach than before.

[Ionathus]

Folks, vampire Durkon is going to be around until he gets staked through the heart on a tree.

That would be THE most evil "I Told You So" based off a running joke in the history of history.

I love it.

[Rodin]

I imagine the conversation going something like this:

:roy: So...Durkon...do you want to be de-vamped?

:durkon: Aye lad, I would if I could.

:elan:: Ooh! Ooh! I have an idea! What if we kill Durkon?

:haley: Huh?

:belkar: I volunteer!

:haley: BELKAR!!

:belkar: What!? I'm just being a team player!

:elan: Then, we just take the diamond dust, have Durkon cast Resurrection and then nevermind, I get it.

:belkar: ...Do I still get to kill somebody?

[martianmister]

Do you think that OOTS will kill him for being a vampire? Don't they kind of have to at least try?

Not before they torture him for information about Ian's whereabouts. I hope.

[orrion]

Not before they torture him for information about Ian's whereabouts. I hope.

Wait, what? When did we learn that Durkon has any idea who or where Ian is?

[Vinyadan]

I think Durkon found it very important to be buried in his land, and that, once the world is saved, the Order should think about their old friend, either by resurrecting him or by burying him properly. Both require the destruction of the vampire.

[multilis]

Vamp Durkon will be like Vamp Malack, not wanting to become unvamped. But OoTS will want him unvamped.

So Vamp Durkon will have no choice but to change the plot so that OotS will want him to stay Vampire. Obvious inspirations are Buffy the Vampire slayer, Twilight and Blade.

So Durkon will rez Miko and together they can slay other vampires. With a little wish help from MITD they will make babies as well, twins. One twin will be called Blade, and the other Elade both are half vampires.

Unfortunately Elade will be bitten by a zombie-werewolf so he becomes an evil hybrid with stronger thirst and extra abilities and kills dwarf homeland and X and Redcloak and T and becomes the End Boss Villain.

This way Durkon gets to unlive happily ever after.

[factotum]

Wait, what? When did we learn that Durkon has any idea who or where Ian is?

Why was *that* the first thing that struck you as odd about a comment suggesting the generally-Good-shading-Neutral Order would torture someone for information? :smallconfused:

[Kish]

It's not like they haven't tortured anyone before. (Yukyuk.)

For information they have no reason to think the person has, on the other hand...

[Ninja_Grand]

Libris Mortis says that they need to drain energy and drink blood or they start to slow down I think. Though I think they can do just fine draining animals to survive.

Roy's bag of tricks anyone?

[sims796]

You know, at first, I thought everyone was being all melodramatic about indiscriminately killing vampires. I read and see people posting on how immoral it is to kill a vampire if they're gentle and whatnot, and that makes me shake my head. I mean, they're vampires! Bloodsucking monsters! They feed off of the living, turning them into undead spawn, fueled by dark magic! They aren't natural, now we gotta have some "vampire rights"? You people are clearly taking this a tad too far.

Then I remembered that it's all according to how the author portrays them in their own respective series. I remember Being Human, and how I root for the protagonist. I also remember how horrifying one potential enemy was who killed vampires indiscriminately, and how I was glad for him to get his comeuppance.

So yeah, I guess it really isn't so farfetched after all. Still, I hope that he isn't the same ol' Durkon just in a vampire skin. I want it to mean something. I want him to be actually evil, and need to be put down, and I'll be a tad disappointed if it turns out that this huge change nothing significant.

Granted, I unfortunately can't force the giant to write specifically what I want him too, so I guess I'll roll with the punches.

[orrion]

Why was *that* the first thing that struck you as odd about a comment suggesting the generally-Good-shading-Neutral Order would torture someone for information? :smallconfused:

I decided to question the thing that might actually have happened somewhere instead of address the thing that has no chance of happening.

[Trisk]

Durkon is a bad person now. He's evil, a vampire. He's inherently evil based on that a lone.

Belkar isn't. He's a halfling and the main difference is he CAN be good. Durkon can't.

Are they obligated to destroy him? Yeah, a little. There's nice ways around it, but likely they'll work with him to the end.

That said, this is the Giant's story, maybe he's something in mind for the whole vampire evil thing.

[Quartz]

I wonder if Hilgya is going to make a reappearance?

[theNater]

Still, I hope that he isn't the same ol' Durkon just in a vampire skin.
There have been a few events which strongly suggest that he's not exactly the same as he was. The full extent of any behavioral changes has yet to be revealed; unsurprising, given that only a matter of minutes have passed since he regained his free will.

Durkon is a bad person now. He's evil, a vampire. He's inherently evil based on that a lone.

Belkar isn't. He's a halfling and the main difference is he CAN be good. Durkon can't.
By D&D rules, vampires can change alignment. Durkon's death is no more necessary than Belkar's.

[Jay R]

Are they obligated to destroy him?

No, of course not. They have Redcloak, Xykon, and a northland full of trees that could do that for them.

[Lexible]

Durkon was a bit of a Van Helsing. Now he is what he hates most, and his god dumped him. He's too stoic to whine about it when so much is going down.

This. Even if they stake Durkula and resurrect Durkon, I am not sure that he will just become the same old Durkon. If resurrected, I could still imagine him permanently evil (I imagine being dumped by your god for something you had no choice in might make for a bit of a perspective shift), and, say in clerical service as the new High Priest of Hel, for example.

[Lexible]

By D&D rules, vampires can change alignment.
SRD 3.5:

"Vampire

[snip]

Alignment
Always evil (any). "

Not sure what you are referencing?

[warrl]

Okay, I don't believe for an instant that Belkar and Vampire Durkon are even in the same threat category. Belkar is more of a puckish rogue, he just occasionally murders paladins and other jackasses. Vampire Durkon could rip a mile wide swath of destruction through a city. OOTS tolerating a vampire during a battle is different than tolerating him for the quest. In 931 when the reality of being a vampire affected Durkon, he got nasty pretty quickly.

While Durkon is certainly capable of being far more destructive than Belkar is capable of, that has been the case all along.

Belkar, at least prior to his Shojo dream sequence, kills for lulz. Casually.

Vampire!Durkon has not been shown to kill casually.

[warrl]

The spells {Durkon} has now did not come from Thor. He used Planar Ally to summon a devil. If he had still been Thor's cleric it would have been a deva.

Actually, the last time Durkon got spells, he was still a Dwarven Cleric of Thor. So the spells he has cast *so far* while a Vampire, he got from or by way of Thor.

And he got the "Summon Planar Ally" spell, not the "Summon Deva" spell. What the ally is would depend on his status when he uses the spell.

(There is canonical support for there being creatures who, by virtue of their origin, are automatically Evil, will detect as Evil, and can use or be subject to powers as if Evil, but are also by their behavior attitudes and motivations Good, will detect Good, and can use or be subject to powers as if Good. Vampire!Durkon is by definition Evil, as all Vampires are, but he could also be good. There is no reason to doubt that he remains Lawful.)

But I think it's closer to the mechanics to think of the gods as a *channel* by which deity-based clerics tap the Divine Energy. There are other channels available, of all alignments, that don't involve deities.

(For some reason, Paladins before 4E can't access any but the strictest Lawful Good channels. But even they aren't bound to a specific deity.)

[warrl]

I'd point out that when Roy first questions him he doesnt say anything like "I'm still a good person in side and I'm helping because its the right thing to do and you all are my friends" . "World is still at stake isnt it?" "No more than Belkar".

He is an evil vampire protecting the planet he lives on.:smallannoyed: We think he might be lawful so he probably isnt going to backstab the Order but the future i foretold seems the most likely. He is an evil creature with instincts of self preservation. He is a living and thinking entity (all of which want to live). He probably knows they are going to want Durkon back and there is only one way to do that.

Without actively disagreeing with your conclusion (because there's no evidence that it's wrong), I'd like to point out that there's another equally valid interpretation Which is that Durkon wanted to give a *true* answer that would *quickly* satisfy Roy and get his attention back to the fight in progress. With Roy obviously heavily inclined to believe that Durkon is Evil strictly because he's now a Vampire.

And under that interpretation, his answers say absolutely nothing about his alignment.

[Kish]

Without actively disagreeing with your conclusion (because there's no evidence that it's wrong), I'd like to point out that there's another equally valid interpretation Which is that Durkon wanted to give a *true* answer that would *quickly* satisfy Roy and get his attention back to the fight in progress. With Roy obviously heavily inclined to believe that Durkon is Evil strictly because he's now a Vampire.

And under that interpretation, his answers say absolutely nothing about his alignment.
I am in general mystified that so many people seem to think, even after seeing Roy get reviewed by the deva and Miko maintain that she was an unfallen paladin up until she was talking to Soon in her last minute of life, that Durkon must know exactly what his alignment is at all times.

[johnbragg]

I am in general mystified that so many people seem to think, even after seeing Roy get reviewed by the deva and Miko maintain that she was an unfallen paladin up until she was talking to Soon in her last minute of life, that Durkon must know exactly what his alignment is at all times.

that just says that Durkon was giving a probability of his alignment. The probability of his new, vamped alignment being "more evil than Belkar" is extremely low.

I also want to raise the point that vampire Durkon may share a lot of living-Durkon's beliefs and hatreds. It's very possible that, with Xykon gone, Durkula's motivation to hang around the Prime Material Plane is also gone.

But my dollar is also on Durkula as Hel's High Priest, a vampire Undead Hunter. This means that his bones will never rest alongside his ancestors, but...

" I stay 'ere because it's me duty. And bein' a dwarf is about doin' yer duty, even if it makes ye miserable. ESPECIALLY if it makes ye miserable!" http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html

[theNater]

SRD 3.5:

"Vampire

[snip]

Alignment
Always evil (any). "

Not sure what you are referencing?
Check the glossary of the D&D 3.5 Monster Manual. It clearly indicates that creatures with "always" in their alignment line are capable of changing their alignment.

[theNater]

Without actively disagreeing with your conclusion (because there's no evidence that it's wrong), I'd like to point out that there's another equally valid interpretation Which is that Durkon wanted to give a *true* answer that would *quickly* satisfy Roy and get his attention back to the fight in progress. With Roy obviously heavily inclined to believe that Durkon is Evil strictly because he's now a Vampire.

And under that interpretation, his answers say absolutely nothing about his alignment.
Before becoming a vampire, Durkon was not good at that sort of weasel-wording. So even under that reading it has changed him, and one of the more likely ways for it to have changed him would be a change of alignment. Meaning that even the most favorable reading puts Durkon at probably evil.

[Kish]

Before becoming a vampire, Durkon was not good at that sort of weasel-wording. So even under that reading it has changed him, and one of the more likely ways for it to have changed him would be a change of alignment. Meaning that even the most favorable reading puts Durkon at probably evil.
No, the "most favorable reading" puts Durkon at meaning exactly what he said: That he doesn't know what his alignment is now but will wager it occupies the vast territory north of Belkar's somewhere. It's only "weasel-wording" if he knows exactly what his alignment is and, again, I do not understand why so many people seem to be taking for granted that he does.

[theNater]

No, the "most favorable reading" puts Durkon at meaning exactly what he said: That he doesn't know what his alignment is now but will wager it occupies the vast territory north of Belkar's somewhere. It's only "weasel-wording" if he knows exactly what his alignment is and, again, I do not understand why so many people seem to be taking for granted that he does.
My argument doesn't rely on Durkon knowing what his alignment is. It relies on Durkon smoothly providing the answer that gets exactly the result he wants. Compare a complete failure (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0599.html) and a stumbling success (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0264.html) from earlier in the comic. This is different, and the only thing that's happened recently that has a realistic chance of causing that difference is the application of the vampire template.

[Rodin]

I don't see how Durkon is being smooth about anything - he just gives terse responses that explain simply. He's helping Roy because the world is at stake, which makes his alignment irrelevant. Roy asks if he's evil, and the response is the same - there's already one Evil person on the team, so what if he is?

There's nothing evasive there. Durkon agrees to the possibility/probability that he's evil, but that doesn't change his loyalty to the order or the world at large.

[Lexible]

Check the glossary of the D&D 3.5 Monster Manual. It clearly indicates that creatures with "always" in their alignment line are capable of changing their alignment.

Ah I see: where such circumstances are either unique or extremely rare.

[orrion]

And he got the "Summon Planar Ally" spell, not the "Summon Deva" spell. What the ally is would depend on his status when he uses the spell.

Exactly, and he summoned a devil. Therefore, Lawful Evil.



(There is canonical support for there being creatures who, by virtue of their origin, are automatically Evil, will detect as Evil, and can use or be subject to powers as if Evil, but are also by their behavior attitudes and motivations Good, will detect Good, and can use or be subject to powers as if Good. Vampire!Durkon is by definition Evil, as all Vampires are, but he could also be good. There is no reason to doubt that he remains Lawful.)

No, he could not be Good right now. He could eventually overcome the vampire reprogramming and become Good, but as of this moment he is Evil. He summoned a devil and converted a spell to Inflict.


Without actively disagreeing with your conclusion (because there's no evidence that it's wrong), I'd like to point out that there's another equally valid interpretation Which is that Durkon wanted to give a *true* answer that would *quickly* satisfy Roy and get his attention back to the fight in progress. With Roy obviously heavily inclined to believe that Durkon is Evil strictly because he's now a Vampire.

And under that interpretation, his answers say absolutely nothing about his alignment.

Even if you disregard his answer, we've got him converting a spell into Inflict in that same comic. Only Neutral or Evil clerics can do that. Combining that with his answers and his summoning makes things rather clear cut.

I read his answer as "yes, but even so it can't be worse than Belkar, can it?"


Check the glossary of the D&D 3.5 Monster Manual. It clearly indicates that creatures with "always" in their alignment line are capable of changing their alignment.

That's all well and good, but there's evidence that alignment doesn't change instantaneously and, as Kish points out, no guarantee of pegging what characters are at any moment.

With Durkon, however, we have specific instances that point to a particular alignment. Even if you do a very open reading, you're still going to be restricted at pegging Durkon's alignment south of Good at the moment.

[warrl]

My argument doesn't rely on Durkon knowing what his alignment is. It relies on Durkon smoothly providing the answer that gets exactly the result he wants. Compare a complete failure (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0599.html) and a stumbling success (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0264.html) from earlier in the comic. This is different, and the only thing that's happened recently that has a realistic chance of causing that difference is the application of the vampire template.

Yes, the application of the vampire template, precisely.

And more specifically +2 Int, +2 Wis, +4 Cha. He's better at knowing what to say AND at saying it in such a way that the listener he's targeting will hear and accept it.

(Still, not saying Vampire!Durkon isn't evil. He hasn't been proven to be evil. But there's no proof to the contrary either.)

(Oh, and undead channel negative energy regardless of their alignment. Their spontaneous heals, if any, are inflicts, because they are undead. His Planar Ally being an evil being is a better argument, but there are loopholes.)

[Sunken Valley]

Did you guys notice that when Laurin dispelled his protection he said "the sun". Not "tha sun" like he has always said before. "The". And when he attacks Laurin afterwards, he said "MY STAFF!". Not "Me Staff!". "My".

Maybe Durkon has two personalities.

[orrion]

Did you guys notice that when Laurin dispelled his protection he said "the sun". Not "tha sun" like he has always said before. "The". And when he attacks Laurin afterwards, he said "MY STAFF!". Not "Me Staff!". "My".

Maybe Durkon has two personalities.

There was some analysis recently in one of the discussion threads that said Durkon's phrasing of "give me my staff" was a neutral statement as far as an accent is concerned. As I recall, someone even asked a person that has the same accent Durkon is supposed to, and he read the line as it is written.

Besides, "give me me staff" sounds weird.


Yes, the application of the vampire template, precisely.

And more specifically +2 Int, +2 Wis, +4 Cha. He's better at knowing what to say AND at saying it in such a way that the listener he's targeting will hear and accept it.

(Still, not saying Vampire!Durkon isn't evil. He hasn't been proven to be evil. But there's no proof to the contrary either.)

(Oh, and undead channel negative energy regardless of their alignment. Their spontaneous heals, if any, are inflicts, because they are undead. His Planar Ally being an evil being is a better argument, but there are loopholes.)

The Vampire template, the inflict, and the evil ally are enough for me. I'd need a cite of your "undead clerics always channel negative energy" to believe it, along with evidence that it specifically trumps the Cleric channeling. And even if you can provide that, the Giant may not be applying the rule that closely.

The template is actually the best argument because it says flat out that vampires are evil. It doesn't say they STAY evil, merely that they start evil.. and before you bring up rules on that one, this one seems to be a fairly well-known rule (not to mention fitting with general knowledge about vampires) whereas the other appears much more nuanced, and it's precisely the nuances that tend to get ignored.

I think it would significantly cut down the drama if Durkon were a Good vampire cleric instantaneously. That would imply that becoming a vampire was an inconvenience rather than an extremely significant event.

[Lexible]

A bunch of question's I would have for Durkon:

How does he feel about Malak (specifically his vampirism) now that Malak is no longer exercising control over Durkon's will?

How does he feel about Thor?

How does he feel about dwarves?

How does he feel about not being able to drink beer?

Does he plan to drink the blood of sentient beings from now on, or are cattle ok for that?

How does he feel about resurrection?

How does he feel about the undead in general?

How does he feel about vampires specifically?

[Jay R]

A bunch of question's I would have for Durkon:

How does he feel about Malak (specifically his vampirism) now that Malak is no longer exercising control over Durkon's will?

How does he feel about Thor?

How does he feel about dwarves?

How does he feel about not being able to drink beer?

Does he plan to drink the blood of sentient beings from now on, or are cattle ok for that?

How does he feel about resurrection?

How does he feel about the undead in general?

How does he feel about vampires specifically?

His mum taught him tha' he should take feelings like that, and bury them inna deep, dark part o' his soul and nev'r ev'r talk about 'em again. That's tha dwarven way (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html).

I don't care how he feels. What does he think?

[Lexible]

His mum taught him tha' he should take feelings like that, and bury them inna deep, dark part o' his soul and nev'r ev'r talk about 'em again. That's tha dwarven way (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html).

I don't care how he feels. What does he think?

Well, I care about what his values say about "what the heck is up with him." Also, you are misrepresenting the attribution to his mother, which was about love, rather than with feelings in general. Given that old Durkon expressed feelings quite explicitly about trees, the undead, the frustrations of being an adventuring cleric, human beer, his (presumed) burial in the dwarven homeland, etc., etc. A position that he buries all feelings is logically inadmissible.

[halfeye]

Besides, "give me me staff" sounds weird.
Around here, the dialect way of saying that would have been "Give I me staff". The Bristol dialect seems to have died out lately, probably between TV and pop music.

[Hecuba]

You can suggest anything you like. I won't use a term based on "atheist" to describe somebody who is not an atheist.

Durkon knows gods exist. Therefore he is a theist. The term "nay-theist" is a badly formed neologism.

The biggest weakness of the tvtropes project is that it does not distinguish actual literary terms like Chekov's Gun and Deus Ex Machina from silly things people just made up to put on tvtropes, like "Nay-theist".


If we must have a term, the closest relevant terms would seem to be Misotheism (for one who tries to punish a deity/deities by withholding worship) or Dystheism (for one who believes in the a deity/deities, but does not recognize them to be good or virtuous).


No, he could not be Good right now. He could eventually overcome the vampire reprogramming and become Good, but as of this moment he is Evil. He summoned a devil and converted a spell to Inflict.
By the letter of the rules, he would continue to channel negative energy even if his alignment changed. He would also remain limited to the 4 valid domains for Vampire clerics.

[Jay R]

Well, I care about what his values say about "what the heck is up with him."

His values are exactly what I'm concerned with, and what your questions ignored. I am trying to point out that his emotions aren't the issue; his thoughts are.

I repeat, I don't care how he feels; What does he think?

[theNater]

I don't see how Durkon is being smooth about anything - he just gives terse responses that explain simply. He's helping Roy because the world is at stake, which makes his alignment irrelevant. Roy asks if he's evil, and the response is the same - there's already one Evil person on the team, so what if he is?

There's nothing evasive there. Durkon agrees to the possibility/probability that he's evil, but that doesn't change his loyalty to the order or the world at large.
There is something evasive there-he's failed to actually answer the question. He's left it open enough that some posters are taking it as a tacit admission of evil, while others are taking it as a cover for a lack of knowledge.

Yes, the application of the vampire template, precisely.
Right. His behavior has been changed by the vampire template. One of the classic changes is becoming evil; however, it's not clear from the rules whether that change always happens. But barring evidence to the contrary, we can reasonably assume that it probably has in this case.

A bunch of question's I would have for Durkon...
There is a lot we'd all like to learn about Durkon's new outlook, and hopefully we'll learn some of it now that the Order's journey is taking them towards his homeland.

[Lexible]

His values are exactly what I'm concerned with, and what your questions ignored. I am trying to point out that his emotions aren't the issue; his thoughts are.

I repeat, I don't care how he feels; What does he think?

Logically incoherent to claim that feelings are not part of values.

Edit: (not that the thinks aren't part of values also).

[Lexible]

His behavior has been changed by the vampire template. One of the classic changes is becoming evil; however, it's not clear from the rules whether that change always happens.

I am sorry, what precisely is not clear from the rules:

"Vampire [snip]
Alignment
Always evil (any)."

The always signifies that vampires always start as evil, although in unique or extremely rare cases they may subsequently change alignments.

[theNater]

I am sorry, what precisely is not clear from the rules:

"Vampire [snip]
Alignment
Always evil (any)."

The always signifies that vampires always start as evil, although in unique or extremely rare cases they may subsequently change alignments.
The actual rules text is that creatures with the always descriptor on their alignment are born with that alignment. Vampire, however, is an acquired template, rather than an inherited template. So the rules state:

1. Vampires are born evil.

2. No creature is born a vampire.

The reasonable assumption is that the acquisition of the template acts as a "birth", and that the creature becomes evil when it becomes a vampire. But as far as I'm aware, the rules don't actually say that anywhere.

[orrion]

By the letter of the rules, he would continue to channel negative energy even if his alignment changed. He would also remain limited to the 4 valid domains for Vampire clerics.

Because undead channel negative energy or because he wouldn't get to change it again?

Still looking for at least a rule citation and, preferably, evidence that it overrides the cleric's choice for the first part.

Doesn't really matter anyway. Durkon hasn't taken enough actions to change his alignment since he was turned into a vampire even if he's made some off-screen decision to be Good in the middle of the Order's fight for their lives. We've got pretty strong implications that he's Evil now, and zilch that says he's Good except that people want him to still be Good.

[Jay R]

Logically incoherent to claim that feelings are not part of values.

Edit: (not that the thinks aren't part of values also).

I feel bored listening to a certain relative. But I think I should be polite, so I listen.

I feel anger at the person who cuts me off in traffic. But I think I should drive safely, so I don't try to retaliate.

There are six pieces and six people. I feel hungry enough to eat two pieces of pie. But I think I should be fair, so I only eat one.

Values aren't feelings.

Durkon has new feelings - a preference for bloodwart tea over beer, etc. His thoughts and values will determine what he does, sometimes despite his feelings. sometimes in agreement with them.

But I don't care what he wants to do; To understand his values, I care what he decides to do.

[orrion]

The actual rules text is that creatures with the always descriptor on their alignment are born with that alignment. Vampire, however, is an acquired template, rather than an inherited template. So the rules state:

1. Vampires are born evil.

2. No creature is born a vampire.

The reasonable assumption is that the acquisition of the template acts as a "birth", and that the creature becomes evil when it becomes a vampire. But as far as I'm aware, the rules don't actually say that anywhere.

If that weren't the case then there would be no need for the "always evil" part in the first place. I know DnD rules aren't always the most carefully written things, but come on.

Why the heck are you so eager to see Durkon's alignment unchanged, anyway?

[theNater]

If that weren't the case then there would be no need for the "always evil" part in the first place. I know DnD rules aren't always the most carefully written things, but come on.

Why the heck are you so eager to see Durkon's alignment unchanged, anyway?
So, a note:

...even the most favorable reading puts Durkon at probably evil.
I'm not eager to see Durkon's alignment unchanged, I'm eager to see precision in language and good arguments. There was a claim earlier that Durkon's alignment was irrevocably changed to evil when he became a vampire; the irrevocable part is clearly wrong. The changed to evil part is almost certainly right, but, due to imprecise language on the part of the Monster Manual, is not clear.

[orrion]

I'm not eager to see Durkon's alignment unchanged, I'm eager to see precision in language and good arguments. There was a claim earlier that Durkon's alignment was irrevocably changed to evil when he became a vampire; the irrevocable part is clearly wrong. The changed to evil part is almost certainly right, but, due to imprecise language on the part of the Monster Manual, is not clear.

No, it's clear, and the arguments have been made on the available. Either you believe them or you don't.

I think he's Evil because of that template application, the summoning, the relish in killing Z, and the Inflict spell. Also, it wouldn't be a very significant event if he just continued on as before (as a Good vampire). Not only would the alignment whiplash and adjustments for himself and the party get taken away from that, but I have serious doubts that a Good vampire Durkon wouldn't want to be resurrected as immediately as possible. He's basically anathema to his living self.

Now, the Giant could indeed want Durkon to go back to being living eventually (originally he talked about Durkon going vampire as a very temporary gag).. but what a disappointment if it happens with the Order dodging all the conflicts Durkon going vampire creates.

[Reddish Mage]

No, it's clear, and the arguments have been made on the available. Either you believe them or you don't.

I think he's Evil because of that template application, the summoning, the relish in killing Z, and the Inflict spell. Also, it wouldn't be a very significant event if he just continued on as before (as a Good vampire). Not only would the alignment whiplash and adjustments for himself and the party get taken away from that, but I have serious doubts that a Good vampire Durkon wouldn't want to be resurrected as immediately as possible. He's basically anathema to his living self.

Now, the Giant could indeed want Durkon to go back to being living eventually (originally he talked about Durkon going vampire as a very temporary gag).. but what a disappointment if it happens with the Order dodging all the conflicts Durkon going vampire creates.

Most of this I agree wholeheartedly but anathema to goodness? That's pretty strong. True old Durkon would regard being undead an anathema as Durkon became automatically and irreversibly hostile to Malack upon learning he was a vampire. However, this seemed prejudicial rather than a straight application of being good. Becoming a vampire can result in a change of perspective about being undead in general. The rest of the order has adjusted, quickly I might add.

[theNater]

I think he's Evil...
And you are almost certainly right. Why are you arguing with me? We agree on this.

[halfeye]

I think he's Evil because of that template application,
I've been trying to understand this as a non D&D player, and as I understand it I have been told that Evil the template is not identical to evil, the moral stance. As such, Durkon can be Evil but still good in the moral sense of the non-D&D word. Which is silly, but what you get if you define a real world word to mean something different in a game.

[orrion]

I've been trying to understand this as a non D&D player, and as I understand it I have been told that Evil the template is not identical to evil, the moral stance. As such, Durkon can be Evil but still good in the moral sense of the non-D&D word. Which is silly, but what you get if you define a real world word to mean something different in a game.

He didn't get the Evil template applies, he got the Vampire template applied. That comes with an Evil alignment.

It would be a severe let down if Durkon begins acting morally good right now. At the very least I think he would have to go introspective and decide consciously to work toward changing his alignment back.

[theNater]

I've been trying to understand this as a non D&D player, and as I understand it I have been told that Evil the template is not identical to evil, the moral stance. As such, Durkon can be Evil but still good in the moral sense of the non-D&D word. Which is silly, but what you get if you define a real world word to mean something different in a game.
One of the things that makes this all the trickier is that there is a poorly-defined relationship between evil and negative energy. A place or object with a lot of negative energy will read as evil, even if there's no malevolent being present. Evil clerics give off stronger evil readings than other, equally evil people, due to the negative energy they channel. And so on. An argument could be made that becoming an intelligent undead doesn't change one's moral stance, but instead imbues one's body with negative energy, making it detectable by Detect Evil spells.

I don't think that's actually what happens, but again, the rules aren't very clear on it.

[Lexible]

I feel bored listening to a certain relative. But I think I should be polite, so I listen.

I feel anger at the person who cuts me off in traffic. But I think I should drive safely, so I don't try to retaliate.

There are six pieces and six people. I feel hungry enough to eat two pieces of pie. But I think I should be fair, so I only eat one.

Values aren't feelings.

Durkon has new feelings - a preference for bloodwart tea over beer, etc. His thoughts and values will determine what he does, sometimes despite his feelings. sometimes in agreement with them.

But I don't care what he wants to do; To understand his values, I care what he decides to do.

You have feelings about: (1) politeness, (2) safety, (3) fairness. Neurologically, it is not possible to separate feelings from other cognitive processes, so, sorry, I disgree, and still feel it is illogical to separate feelings from values.


Edit: I guess my interest in his feelings is that I am wondering what is motivating those decisions.

[Lexible]

I've been trying to understand this as a non D&D player, and as I understand it I have been told that Evil the template is not identical to evil, the moral stance. As such, Durkon can be Evil but still good in the moral sense of the non-D&D word. Which is silly, but what you get if you define a real world word to mean something different in a game.

And in a nutshell, you have identified the absurdity of the whole alignment system within the game (and, incidentally, among those who describe themselves in terms of D&D alignments). I think Rich is acutely aware of this absurdity, as Cecilia's closing arguments suggest, and as the whole irony in the matter of Durkon who hates the evil of the undead becoming undead whilst still having, to paraphrase Roy, enough of living Durkon's identity for some purposes.

[Sir_Leorik]

The undead are people too. They stopped living, not caring.

That sounds scarily like something Tsukiko would say. Most Undead in D&D worlds do not choose to become Undead. They are victims of spellcasters (like Tsukiko, Xykon, Redcloak or Jirix), Undead with the Create Spawn ability, like Malack (a Vampire) or Tsukiko's Wights, traumatic events (Ghosts or Revenants) or curses that transformed them into unique Undead (Lord Soth, Count Strahd von Zarovich, some of the other Undead Darklords of Ravenloft). There are two main types of Undead that choose to become Undead (some of the time in the first case, almost 90% in the second): Mummies and Liches. While some Mummies are created by spellcasters against their will (like Malack did to the Draketooth clan), and others through curses, (like the Darklord Pharaoh Ankhtepot), a number of Mummies chose to guard a sacred area, usually a tomb or temple, by being ritually killed, their bodies preserved and then priests cast Create Greater Undead. The only Liches who generally don't choose to become Liches are Dracoliches; the Cult of the Dragon (from "Forgotten Realms) hunt down living Dragons, slay them and transform them into Dragons. All other Liches choose the path of Undeath.

There are some D&D characters, like Lyssa von Zarovich (Strahd's great-niece three times removed), Leo Dilisnya, and the Darklord Baron Urik Von Kharkov, who sought to become Vampires on their own initiative, but other than Baron von Kharkov it rarely ends well for them. More commonly you have someone like Durkon who did not want to become a Vampire, and who died fighting a futile battle. Not only did Malack ignore Durkon's wishes and transform Durkon into his Thrall, he sped up the process with a spell from his staff. Durkon did not consent to being murdered and Sired by Malack.

Should the OotS need Durkon's consent before killing him? I think it depends on how Durkon is behaving. If he's endangering lives then I think Roy, Elan and Haley have a responsibility to slay Durkon. But if Durkon continues to be a productive, if Lawful Evil, member of the group, it does raise ethical issues that I look forward to reading Roy struggle with. In book six. When they've left Tarquin and Laurin miles behind.


You know, at first, I thought everyone was being all melodramatic about indiscriminately killing vampires. I read and see people posting on how immoral it is to kill a vampire if they're gentle and whatnot, and that makes me shake my head. I mean, they're vampires! Bloodsucking monsters! They feed off of the living, turning them into undead spawn, fueled by dark magic! They aren't natural, now we gotta have some "vampire rights"? You people are clearly taking this a tad too far.

Then I remembered that it's all according to how the author portrays them in their own respective series. I remember Being Human, and how I root for the protagonist. I also remember how horrifying one potential enemy was who killed vampires indiscriminately, and how I was glad for him to get his comeuppance.

So yeah, I guess it really isn't so farfetched after all. Still, I hope that he isn't the same ol' Durkon just in a vampire skin. I want it to mean something. I want him to be actually evil, and need to be put down, and I'll be a tad disappointed if it turns out that this huge change nothing significant.

Granted, I unfortunately can't force the giant to write specifically what I want him too, so I guess I'll roll with the punches.

Malack was a Faux Affably Evil villain, who hid his "condition" from Durkon and V. His plan to transform the Western Continent into a factory farm for Vampires was utterly malevolent. He Sired Durkon against the Dwarf's will. He made Durkon and V wait until after the ceremony to eat the cake. His destruction at the hands of a pair of scoundrels like Nale and Z was richly earned.

Durkon has only been a free-willed Vampire for at most a dozen minutes or so. I think we need to judge what Durkon does in Book six before passing judgment. Likewise, whatever Durkon did while under Malack's control should get a pass.


I am in general mystified that so many people seem to think, even after seeing Roy get reviewed by the deva and Miko maintain that she was an unfallen paladin up until she was talking to Soon in her last minute of life, that Durkon must know exactly what his alignment is at all times.

The Deva was trying to determine if Roy properly roleplayed his Alignment or not. Likewise, just because the Twelve Gods stripped Miko of her Paladin powers, and despite her narrow reading of the Lawful Good Alignment, her Alignment was always Lawful Good. Just because she was a jerk who did not get enough "Treasure Type O" doesn't mean she was not Lawful Good. That's what was listed on her character sheet, and she obeyed the letter of being Lawful Good. Roy tryed to live up to the spirit of being Lawful Good, even though he stumbled. That's the lesson of the scene with the Deva: Players, just because roleplaying a Lawful Good PC is hard, why not try harder instead of picking an "easier" Alignment?


No, the "most favorable reading" puts Durkon at meaning exactly what he said: That he doesn't know what his alignment is now but will wager it occupies the vast territory north of Belkar's somewhere. It's only "weasel-wording" if he knows exactly what his alignment is and, again, I do not understand why so many people seem to be taking for granted that he does.

That's not how I read it. He's reminding Roy that they have been adventuring with Belkar since they left town in OtOoPCs, and so far Vampire!Durkon hasn't done anything remotely as Evil as Belkar, at least not of his own will. Furthermore, the world really is in danger and Vampire!Durkon wants to help save it.

Finally, if there's one thing we've learned from Malack and Tarquin, there's no reason a Vampire has to forsake friendship. Roy was the first Human friend Durkon ever made. Just because Durkon is now a Lawful Evil Vampire fueled by Negative Energy, he hasn't forgotten that, nor has he forgotten his friendships with Haley, Elan or V. Belkar should probably keep one eye open when he rests; Vampire!Durkon has a taste for Halfling blood now. :smallamused:

EDIT:

I've been trying to understand this as a non D&D player, and as I understand it I have been told that Evil the template is not identical to evil, the moral stance. As such, Durkon can be Evil but still good in the moral sense of the non-D&D word. Which is silly, but what you get if you define a real world word to mean something different in a game.

The Vampire Template is usually used in the D&D 3.5 game to create villains for the PCs to fight, either Evil masterminds like Count Strahd von Zarovich (voted the most infamous villain in the history of D&D in a "Dragon Magazine" reader poll in 2004) or minor antagonists (like Vampire Spawn serving a Cleric of Vecna). They aren't meant to be Player Characters. The problem when they do become PCs (besides the +8 Level Adjustment they get hit with) is that Vampires are supposedly compelled to feed on blood and life energy (aka Negative Levels). There are different systems used to symbolize this (the "official one" is in the splatbook Libris Mortis), but the bottom line is that an adventuring Vampire has a lot of hindrances.

In terms of the Alignment shift, in an earlier edition of D&D (AD&D Second Edition) this was a gradual process, as a Vampire lost touch with his Humanity, Dwarvishness, Elvishness, Halfling Gumption, or whatever Gnomes call it. (Probably some three hundred syllable long tounge twister back in 2E. :smalltongue:) This was spelled out in a splatbook called Van Richten's Guide to Vampires, the first book in the "Van Richten's Guide" series for the "Ravenloft" setting. "Ravenloft" was a Gothic Horror campaign for 2E, and the Vampires there, even the Evil ones like Count Strahd, were more fleshed out, given motives besides "drinking blood" and "being Evil for Evil's sake". Two canonical non-Evil Vampires, the Elf Vampire, Jander Sunstar and the Human Vampire, Dante Lysin, appeared in Ravenloft products. (Both were Chaotic Neutral.) Jander, like most Ravenloft Vampires, could not get sustenance from non-sapient animals. He had to feed on Humans, as much as he preferred not to. For reasons that were not explained canonically, Dante could drink the blood of non-sapient animals, subsisting on sheep and cow's blood, while protecting the community of Moondale.

In any event, we don't have a clear enough picture of Vampire!Durkon's personality yet. Like the old Durkon, he tends to hang in the background, unless someone provokes his wrath.

[Jay R]

You have feelings about: (1) politeness, (2) safety, (3) fairness.

Of course I do. I just gave three instances in which my feelings about them were opposed to my thoughts and values about them, and therefore I do not follow my feelings.


Neurologically, it is not possible to separate feelings from other cognitive processes,..

Nor is it possible to separate thoughts from cognitive processes. Nor can you separate neurons from them.

But I'm not interested in his neurons, or his feelings. I'm interested in his thoughts.


.... so, sorry, I disgree, and still feel it is illogical to separate feelings from values./QUOTE]

This is a perfect example. If you "feel" that it is illogical, then you are not in fact applying logic. Logic is intellectual, not emotional. You can certainly process logical thought about emotions (see my three examples above, in which I concluded that my feelings would lead me in the wrong direction), but logic is a process of process statements via logical processes like syllogisms, to provide intellectually rigorous conclusions.

[QUOTE=Lexible;16536793]Edit: I guess my interest in his feelings is that I am wondering what is motivating those decisions.

For one thing, he will feel hunger for the blood of living beings. But his intellect will tell him not to attack his allies. In that sense, you are correct that he cannot separate feelings from other cognitive processes. But his feelings alone will not master his cognitive processes.

Similarly, in many other ways, I suspect that his feelings will not be what motivates his decisions; they will be the temptations that his intellect will convince him to fight against.

[factotum]

True old Durkon would regard being undead an anathema as Durkon became automatically and irreversibly hostile to Malack upon learning he was a vampire. However, this seemed prejudicial rather than a straight application of being good.

Just to correct you there, the Giant has gone on record as saying that Durkon's antipathy towards Malack was *not* just because he was a vampire--it's because he was feeding on Belkar, who, for all Malack knew, was a total innocent. So, from that point of view it probably *was* Durkon's Good alignment that made him go hostile, because it was predicated on making sure no-one who actually *was* innocent would get the same treatment as Belkar.

[Reddish Mage]

Just to correct you there, the Giant has gone on record as saying that Durkon's antipathy towards Malack was *not* just because he was a vampire--it's because he was feeding on Belkar, who, for all Malack knew, was a total innocent. So, from that point of view it probably *was* Durkon's Good alignment that made him go hostile, because it was predicated on making sure no-one who actually *was* innocent would get the same treatment as Belkar.

I stand corrected.

[Lexible]

Of course I do. I just gave three instances in which my feelings about them were opposed to my thoughts and values about them, and therefore I do not follow my feelings.

Not at all: your feeling of a need for safety (i.e. your valuing of safety, in part due to what it means for your to feel safe) conflicts with your need to express anger; your feelings of un/fairness (i.e. your valuing of fairness) are opposed to your feelings of hunger; your feelings about social unpleasantness or awkwardness inform your values about rudeness/politeness. Your examples are precisely illustrations of the intersection of feelings and values.


This is a perfect example. If you "feel" that it is illogical, then you are not in fact applying logic. Logic is intellectual, not emotional. You can certainly process logical thought about emotions (see my three examples above, in which I concluded that my feelings would lead me in the wrong direction), but logic is a process of process statements via logical processes like syllogisms, to provide intellectually rigorous conclusions.

Humans are incapable of having emotion-free thoughts, including when they are applying logic. Nietzsche, for example, writes about the comfort derived from applying logic. But, back to the actual topic: values are constructed from lines of reasoning, and also from feelings. You are certainly welcome to ignore them, but that does not mean that they are not always present, or that they do not inform things like motivations for subsequent action.

[Kish]

I've been trying to understand this as a non D&D player, and as I understand it I have been told that Evil the template is not identical to evil, the moral stance.

There's no such thing as "Evil the template."

What you've been told, is that "Always Evil" the racial or template-based alignment entry, is not the same as "Always" the English word.

Evil the alignment and Evil the English word mean the same thing. Always the game term and Always the English word don't mean the same thing. An individual character who is Chaotic Evil--let's call him Xykon--or who is Lawful Evil--let's call him Tarkie--is evil in every sense. A member of an Always Lawful Evil race who happens to be personally True Neutral--let's call him Enor--is not a contradiction, nor a character who is evil in any meaningful sense. A member of an Always Lawful Good race who is personally Neutral Evil is not a contradiction and is evil in every sense.

[Rodin]

There's no such thing as "Evil the template."

What you've been told, is that "Always Evil" the racial or template-based alignment entry, is not the same as "Always" the English word, "Evil."

Evil the alignment and Evil the English word mean the same thing. Always the game term and Always the English word don't mean the same thing. An individual character who is Chaotic Evil--let's call him Xykon--or who is Lawful Evil--let's call him Tarkie--is evil in every sense. A member of an Always Lawful Evil race who happens to be personally True Neutral--let's call him Enor--is not a contradiction, nor a character who is evil in any meaningful sense.

What I always find difficult as a non-D&D player is whether Evil alignment takes into account degrees of Evil. A character gets turned Evil by becoming a Vampire - okay, I can be down with that.

But does that mean he'll stab random passersby for kicks, like Belkar? Or will he be a milder sort of evil, the type that has no problems mugging someone but wouldn't want to burn down an orphanage?

In other words, is a person who commits a steady string of low-grade Evil (bullying kids, kicking puppies) with no Good acts to drive them back towards Neutral filed under the same category as Xykon, who feeds babies to monsters? And if so, when converted forcably to Evil, which of the two options do you change to?

[Muenster Man]

Shifting gears a bit from the the whole alignment discussion, I've been wondering about Durkon's future development. Wouldn't this be a really good time to create a lot of uneasy tension with Durkon if members of the Mechane suddenly went missing?

While he certainly seems to be loyal to the Order, I doubt that loyalty extends to people most of the Order hardly knows. There's only so much evidence of his current disposition, but he doesn't seem willing to stick his neck out for others and he has acted mostly out of self-preservation. And this could be a long trip to Kraagor's Gate, he could get hungry. Of course, if people went missing, Durkon may have nothing to do with it.

[Sir_Leorik]

What I always find difficult as a non-D&D player is whether Evil alignment takes into account degrees of Evil. A character gets turned Evil by becoming a Vampire - okay, I can be down with that.

But does that mean he'll stab random passersby for kicks, like Belkar? Or will he be a milder sort of evil, the type that has no problems mugging someone but wouldn't want to burn down an orphanage?

In other words, is a person who commits a steady string of low-grade Evil (bullying kids, kicking puppies) with no Good acts to drive them back towards Neutral filed under the same category as Xykon, who feeds babies to monsters? And if so, when converted forcably to Evil, which of the two options do you change to?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: It's complicated.

[Reddish Mage]

What I always find difficult as a non-D&D player is whether Evil alignment takes into account degrees of Evil. A character gets turned Evil by becoming a Vampire - okay, I can be down with that.

But does that mean he'll stab random passersby for kicks, like Belkar? Or will he be a milder sort of evil, the type that has no problems mugging someone but wouldn't want to burn down an orphanage?

In other words, is a person who commits a steady string of low-grade Evil (bullying kids, kicking puppies) with no Good acts to drive them back towards Neutral filed under the same category as Xykon, who feeds babies to monsters? And if so, when converted forcably to Evil, which of the two options do you change to?

I'm not sure I agree with Sir Leorik as far as the bully (if I recall from our other threads there is a dearth of officially evil low-grade bullies who are confirm-ably not willing to torch the orphanage). Even if there was such low-grade bullies, I would expect the sort of evil a PC could get forcibly turned into is of the genuinely evil variety. Then again, I've been arguing for pages that evil in OOTS and D&D is of the colliqually evil sort, we wouldn't use the words seriously in real life to refer to an individual unless that individual was truly nasty.

After many pages and threads of arguing I'm prepared to admit you can have some sorts of evil characters that can get along with the PCs…sometimes, but I think the exceptions are rare and generally involve trickery, stealth, or extenuating circumstances (shared goals and being the lesser evil).

So yes, I would say Durkula will be willing to do some truly nasty things given adequate opportunity. This will cause tension down the road. This doesn't mean the order can't end up with a Belkar like situation, or that Durkula isn't much more restrained, but there will be drama.

[Scow2]

Of course I do. I just gave three instances in which my feelings about them were opposed to my thoughts and values about them, and therefore I do not follow my feelings.



Nor is it possible to separate thoughts from cognitive processes. Nor can you separate neurons from them.

But I'm not interested in his neurons, or his feelings. I'm interested in his thoughts.


.... so, sorry, I disgree, and still feel it is illogical to separate feelings from values.

This is a perfect example. If you "feel" that it is illogical, then you are not in fact applying logic. Logic is intellectual, not emotional. You can certainly process logical thought about emotions (see my three examples above, in which I concluded that my feelings would lead me in the wrong direction), but logic is a process of process statements via logical processes like syllogisms, to provide intellectually rigorous conclusions.



For one thing, he will feel hunger for the blood of living beings. But his intellect will tell him not to attack his allies. In that sense, you are correct that he cannot separate feelings from other cognitive processes. But his feelings alone will not master his cognitive processes.

Similarly, in many other ways, I suspect that his feelings will not be what motivates his decisions; they will be the temptations that his intellect will convince him to fight against.If you think thoughts and feelings can be separated, you're sorely mistaken. A person without emotion isn't coldly logical - he's incapable of prioritizing or making judgement calls at all (As demonstrated by scientific studies of people who've had the sections of their brains responsible for emotional reaction damaged/removed).

Thoughts ARE feelings.

You're not rude because you feel (Not think) it's better to be polite.
You don't give into Road Rage because you feel(Not think) your safety is more important.
You don't eat both pieces of pie because you feel(Not think) that everyone deserves a slice. (Empathy)

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm not sure I agree with Sir Leorik as far as the bully (if I recall from our other threads there is a dearth of officially evil low-grade bullies who are confirm-ably not willing to torch the orphanage). Even if there was such low-grade bullies, I would expect the sort of evil a PC could get forcibly turned into is of the genuinely evil variety. Then again, I've been arguing for pages that evil in OOTS and D&D is of the colliqually evil sort, we wouldn't use the words seriously in real life to refer to an individual unless that individual was truly nasty.

After many pages and threads of arguing I'm prepared to admit you can have some sorts of evil characters that can get along with the PCs…sometimes, but I think the exceptions are rare and generally involve trickery, stealth, or extenuating circumstances (shared goals and being the lesser evil).

So yes, I would say Durkula will be willing to do some truly nasty things given adequate opportunity. This will cause tension down the road. This doesn't mean the order can't end up with a Belkar like situation, or that Durkula isn't much more restrained, but there will be drama.

I think that the difference between Vampire!Durkon and Belkar is that their Ethical Alignments are polar opposites, as are their personalities. Durkon is now Lawful Evil, while Belkar has been Chaotic Evil since strip #1 (and in the prequels). Belkar takes any opportunity to inflict pain (although he's become a bit more selective since his dream sequence with "Lord Shojo"), while Vampire!Durkon has been quiet, non-assertive and still, except when he's in combat. On the other hand, Durkon is now much more likely to coup de grace an opponent (as Z found out) and he will not hesitate to lash out when threatened. Durkon used to be the most passive member of the group, but he could be just as talkative as the others. Vampire!Durkon is so passive he may as well be a piece of the party's equipment. That of course could be a parody of the silent and brooding Vampire cliche, or it could mean something else.

In general Lawful Evil characters in D&D have better impulse control than Chaotic Evil characters. Chaotic Evil characters can make intricate plans (e.g. Gra'azt, Orcus, Count Strahd, Malken, Cyric on his more lucid days) but they might indulge in some minor acts of evil when they have an opportunity. Whether they can fight these impulses depends a great deal on their Intelligence and Wisdom. Gra'azt keeps harems and torture chambers, but he won't indulge himself if he has work to do. Count Strahd needs to drink blood nightly, but if he has pressing business he'll drink from some poor wretch in Castle Ravenloft's dungeons, rather than grab the Burgomaster's beautiful daughter. By contrast, Cyric is insane, and he gives into whims frequently, while Malken labors under Sir Tristen's curse, and as much as Malken would like to focus on his organized crime racket, if he sees a young woman he will be compelled by Sir Tristen's curse to strangle her.

On the other hand, Lawful Evil characters of low Intelligence aren't going to be making brilliant plans. They tend to be rigid, inflexible, and corrupt. They demand bribes in order to overlook crimes, or they impose harsh punishments for minor offenses. When a situation arises that requires improvisation they lack the imagination to do something creative. Take Qarr for example; his modus operendi prior to coming to work for the IFCC was to serve middling evil doers like Daimyo Kubota, hoping to get them to sign away their souls and improve his prestige at the "home office". But when things go south (north?) Qarr bolts, because he is a coward and he lacks the imagination to solve problems. He acts in a rote manner, never changing his schtick. That worked for a minor villain like Kubota, but he's playing in the Major Leagues now, and he needs to up his game, or he'll be benched (hopefully permanently). :smallannoyed: (In case you can't tell, Qarr annoys me in a way that no other villain in this comic does. For all her stupidity, Crystal was loyal to Bozzok and the Thieve's Guild in a way Qarr has never been to anyone.)

[Sir_Leorik]

As an aside to the non-D&D players, several of my posts refer to several classic villains or heroes from D&D products. Has this been confusing for anyone? Would you prefer generic examples, or does showing how past writers of D&D products have portrayed villains help describe D&D Alignments?

[Liliet]

Most of this I agree wholeheartedly but anathema to goodness? That's pretty strong. True old Durkon would regard being undead an anathema as Durkon became automatically and irreversibly hostile to Malack upon learning he was a vampire. However, this seemed prejudicial rather than a straight application of being good. Becoming a vampire can result in a change of perspective about being undead in general. The rest of the order has adjusted, quickly I might add.
Had Durkon become automatically and irreversibly hostile to Malack the moment he learned he was a vampire, he would have attacked, not started talking. He did become hostile and angry more because of Malack feeding on his teemmate and associating with the LG.

And it was Malack who attacked, Durkon merely proclaimed that they would have to fight in the future. In my book it doesn't translate to "let's start killing each other right now".



I've been trying to understand this as a non D&D player, and as I understand it I have been told that Evil the template is not identical to evil, the moral stance. As such, Durkon can be Evil but still good in the moral sense of the non-D&D word. Which is silly, but what you get if you define a real world word to mean something different in a game.
Your mistakes in terminology have already been corrected, but yeah, from non-DnD point of view this is pretty stupid.:smallsigh:

I can get that in most cases becoming a vampire leads to the slow and steady attitude shift from "humans are my peers" to "humans are my prey", and that only an exceptional person (1 in 100? what's the percentage of Always Evil?) can resist it and keep their old alignment.:smallfrown:

I can get that some people would give up on their morals instantly after becoming a vampire and treat being a hunter among the sentient prey as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.:smallfurious:

I don't buy that someone as strongly moral as Durkon would instanty succumb to corruption and change their values in a manner rules imply. I can understand if for all magical effects Durkon is now treated as Evil, but I don't buy him instantly revising his worldview. "Several hours after turning" counts as instantly.:smallyuk:

[Reddish Mage]

Vampire!Durkon is so passive he may as well be a piece of the party's equipment. That of course could be a parody of the silent and brooding Vampire cliche, or it could mean something else.

Durkula hasn't been a free-willed vampire out of combat for long enough to make a judgment. Durkon's old voices as straight man, the naive person, comically dwarven…none of those make any sense now. I'm not sure what sort of voice Durkon will have in the future.

[orrion]

I think that the difference between Vampire!Durkon and Belkar is that their Ethical Alignments are polar opposites, as are their personalities. Durkon is now Lawful Evil, while Belkar has been Chaotic Evil since strip #1 (and in the prequels). Belkar takes any opportunity to inflict pain (although he's become a bit more selective since his dream sequence with "Lord Shojo"), while Vampire!Durkon has been quiet, non-assertive and still, except when he's in combat. On the other hand, Durkon is now much more likely to coup de grace an opponent (as Z found out) and he will not hesitate to lash out when threatened. Durkon used to be the most passive member of the group, but he could be just as talkative as the others. Vampire!Durkon is so passive he may as well be a piece of the party's equipment. That of course could be a parody of the silent and brooding Vampire cliche, or it could mean something else.

Yeah, it means that there isn't much room right now to clutter things up with Durkon's conflicts and he's out of spells while wielding a staff that is his only means of surviving in the sun and has been facing two casters with dispel abilities. Oh, and he has no coffin to retreat to. I'd probably be playing it absurdly safe and not drawing attention to myself too.

[Dalek Kommander]

Malack was a Faux Affably Evil villain, who hid his "condition" from Durkon and V. His plan to transform the Western Continent into a factory farm for Vampires was utterly malevolent. He Sired Durkon against the Dwarf's will. He made Durkon and V wait until after the ceremony to eat the cake. His destruction at the hands of a pair of scoundrels like Nale and Z was richly earned.

Malack was just Affably Evil, like the mayor of Sunnydale. It isn't about being LESS than horrifyingly evil, it's about being sincerely nice about it.

When Malack tried to reason with Durkon, he was SINCERELY trying to avoid conflict with someone he was rather fond of. When he said "I do not care to linger where tragedy visited a friend", he was sincere about that too. None of this sincerity excuses the fact that he turned his lawful good friend into an undead abomination that feeds on the blood of the living, but when distinguishing the diffference between Affably Evil and Faux Affably Evil, it's the thought that counts.

[Finwe]

There's really two ways one could handle the 'always evil' alignment of vampires:

- the magic that reanimates the body also fundamentally alters the mind, resulting in a being that resembles the deceased in personality, but who may have a fundamentally different worldview.

- As Liliet mentioned, it could be that the mind is left relatively unchanged, but the traumatic experience of dying and being reanimated as an undead and the reality of having to prey on other sentient beings for sustenance causes most beings to gradually shift towards evil.

Personally I think that the second option results in much more interesting opportunities for character development, and fits better with the comic's theme of 'monster's motivations are more than just their alignment in the monster manual'.

[Sir_Leorik]

There's really two ways one could handle the 'always evil' alignment of vampires:

- the magic that reanimates the body also fundamentally alters the mind, resulting in a being that resembles the deceased in personality, but who may have a fundamentally different worldview.

- As Liliet mentioned, it could be that the mind is left relatively unchanged, but the traumatic experience of dying and being reanimated as an undead and the reality of having to prey on other sentient beings for sustenance causes most beings to gradually shift towards evil.

Personally I think that the second option results in much more interesting opportunities for character development, and fits better with the comic's theme of 'monster's motivations are more than just their alignment in the monster manual'.

In the 2E product Van Richten's Guide to Vampires, the section on the psychology of Vampires tended to hew closer to the second option. After noting that Vampire Thralls are under the complete control of their Sire, who may command them to perform Evil acts against their will on a nightly basis, Van Richten commented on how the need to feed on sapient beings (at least in "Ravenloft") and the passing of time, where friends and loved ones grow old and die, while the Vampire remains unchanging, slowly erodes the morality of even Free-Willed Vampires. Even if a Vampire is set free by her Sire, and pledges not to feed only on those who consent, she's still feeding on Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, etc., and over time her non-Elven friends will grow old and die. For each decade of Unlife it would become harder to maintain even a Neutral Alignment, let alone a Good one. Furthermore in older Editions of D&D, as a Vampire ages it's connection to the Negative Energy Plane grows stronger, and it becomes more tainted by the Evil of Negative Energy. It becomes harder and harder for a Vampire who is several centuries old to avoid becoming Evil.

[Reddish Mage]

There's really two ways one could handle the 'always evil' alignment of vampires:

- the magic that reanimates the body also fundamentally alters the mind, resulting in a being that resembles the deceased in personality, but who may have a fundamentally different worldview.

- As Liliet mentioned, it could be that the mind is left relatively unchanged, but the traumatic experience of dying and being reanimated as an undead and the reality of having to prey on other sentient beings for sustenance causes most beings to gradually shift towards evil.

Personally I think that the second option results in much more interesting opportunities for character development, and fits better with the comic's theme of 'monster's motivations are more than just their alignment in the monster manual'.

Becoming a vampire can shift alignment while leaving many other aspects of the personality. It could, alternatively, also eliminate or replace much of the personality (but it doesn't in OOTS). Now the other "option" of a gradual shift isn't an option either. Durkon's already evil.

Forget the (requires Encyclopedic knowledge to confirm) fact that most (not all) iterations of vampires in D&D suggest or explicitly use instant alignment changing (as does most other forms of becoming intelligent undead). Durkon has shown us an alignment change from his spell-casting, and confirmed it to Roy.

[Finwe]

Becoming a vampire can shift alignment while leaving many other aspects of the personality. It could, alternatively, also eliminate or replace much of the personality (but it doesn't in OOTS). Now the other "option" of a gradual shift isn't an option either. Durkon's already evil.

Forget the (requires Encyclopedic knowledge to confirm) fact that most (not all) iterations of vampires in D&D suggest or explicitly use instant alignment changing (as does most other forms of becoming intelligent undead). Durkon has shown us an alignment change from his spell-casting, and confirmed it to Roy.

Or, he channels negative energy because he is now a being of negative energy, so channeling positive energy is impossible (this may not be RAW, but it certainly makes sense to me). I don't think we can count on minor points of the RAW overriding story decisions. It may even be that Durkon's character sheet now reads "Lawful Evil". Even then we can not conclude that Durkon is evil in the moral sense.

[Sir_Leorik]

Becoming a vampire can shift alignment while leaving many other aspects of the personality. It could, alternatively, also eliminate or replace much of the personality (but it doesn't in OOTS). Now the other "option" of a gradual shift isn't an option either. Durkon's already evil.

Forget the (requires Encyclopedic knowledge to confirm) fact that most (not all) iterations of vampires in D&D suggest or explicitly use instant alignment changing (as does most other forms of becoming intelligent undead). Durkon has shown us an alignment change from his spell-casting, and confirmed it to Roy.

Some D&D Vampires were Evil before they became Vampires, others slowly became Evil, and still others struggled to avoid becoming Evil (not always successfully).

Count Strahd was Evil beforehand; he trafficked in necromancy and daemon summoning, and ritually murdered his brother Sergei with an Evil magical weapon. That's what turned Strahd into a Vampire in the first place.

Erasmus van Richten and Merrillee were children when they were Sired; Erasmus struggled to resist Baron Metus' control, but he ultimately begged his father, Dr. van Richten, to slay him, because Erasmus could feel his humanity slipping away. Merrillee slowly became a monster, preying on adults by pretending to be a lost child, and hanging out with Mordenheim's Monster, Adam.

Jander Sunstar and Dante Lysin both struggled to remain Chaotic Neutral. I'm not aware of a single example of a Good Aligned Vampire in D&D history.

Most of the other famous D&D Vampires, such as Kas the Bloody-Handed, Manshoon and Castamir were all probably Evil before becoming Vampires, but I'm not 100% certain.

Regarding Durkon's shift to channeling Negative Energy, that is based on the description in the 3.5 Monster Manual/SRD. While he was a Thrall to Malack, it made perfect sense for Durkon to channel Negative Energy, and it may not be possible for Durkon to regain the ability to channel Positive Energy again unless he's slain and then Resurrected.

[Lexible]

It may even be that Durkon's character sheet now reads "Lawful Evil". Even then we can not conclude that Durkon is evil in the moral sense.

I think you misunderstand what alignments are: an idea that morality is an objective phenomenon: lawful evil is lawful yet evil by definition, not by behavior, and not according to some people but not other people. It's an inherently absurd concept precisely because individual and collective judgement are irrelevant to it.

[Liliet]

As an aside to the non-D&D players, several of my posts refer to several classic villains or heroes from D&D products. Has this been confusing for anyone? Would you prefer generic examples, or does showing how past writers of D&D products have portrayed villains help describe D&D Alignments?
Non-DnD examples start, when sorted by popularity, with Edward Cullen.

If you try to include non-DnD examples, you'll have to acknowledge the tendency to make protagonist vampires non-Evil.



There's really two ways one could handle the 'always evil' alignment of vampires:

- the magic that reanimates the body also fundamentally alters the mind, resulting in a being that resembles the deceased in personality, but who may have a fundamentally different worldview.

- As Liliet mentioned, it could be that the mind is left relatively unchanged, but the traumatic experience of dying and being reanimated as an undead and the reality of having to prey on other sentient beings for sustenance causes most beings to gradually shift towards evil.

Personally I think that the second option results in much more interesting opportunities for character development, and fits better with the comic's theme of 'monster's motivations are more than just their alignment in the monster manual'.
The first option conflicts with "character development" since erasing a character and creating another one just can't count as that. Also, it's extremely uncomfortable regarding concepts such as free will.



In the 2E product Van Richten's Guide to Vampires, the section on the psychology of Vampires tended to hew closer to the second option. After noting that Vampire Thralls are under the complete control of their Sire, who may command them to perform Evil acts against their will on a nightly basis, Van Richten commented on how the need to feed on sapient beings (at least in "Ravenloft") and the passing of time, where friends and loved ones grow old and die, while the Vampire remains unchanging, slowly erodes the morality of even Free-Willed Vampires. Even if a Vampire is set free by her Sire, and pledges not to feed only on those who consent, she's still feeding on Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, etc., and over time her non-Elven friends will grow old and die. For each decade of Unlife it would become harder to maintain even a Neutral Alignment, let alone a Good one. Furthermore in older Editions of D&D, as a Vampire ages it's connection to the Negative Energy Plane grows stronger, and it becomes more tainted by the Evil of Negative Energy. It becomes harder and harder for a Vampire who is several centuries old to avoid becoming Evil.
So by that Guide, Durkon shouldn't really be Evil now.



Becoming a vampire can shift alignment while leaving many other aspects of the personality. It could, alternatively, also eliminate or replace much of the personality (but it doesn't in OOTS). Now the other "option" of a gradual shift isn't an option either. Durkon's already evil.

Forget the (requires Encyclopedic knowledge to confirm) fact that most (not all) iterations of vampires in D&D suggest or explicitly use instant alignment changing (as does most other forms of becoming intelligent undead). Durkon has shown us an alignment change from his spell-casting, and confirmed it to Roy.
Durkon is Evil from magical point of view, which canonically may differ from his personal point of view. See succubus paladin.

Also, I don't understand how you can just "shift" alignment like that while leaving overall personality unchanging. Well, for some people it's possible, but Durkon is defined by his adherence to the Law of Good.



I think you misunderstand what alignments are: an idea that morality is an objective phenomenon: lawful evil is lawful yet evil by definition, not by behavior, and not according to some people but not other people. It's an inherently absurd concept precisely because individual and collective judgement are irrelevant to it.
If some concept seems inherently absurd to you, maybe you shouldn't pass judgement on others "misunderstanding" it.

[Sir_Leorik]

I think you misunderstand what alignments are: an idea that morality is an objective phenomenon: lawful evil is lawful yet evil by definition, not by behavior, and not according to some people but not other people. It's an inherently absurd concept precisely because individual and collective judgement are irrelevant to it.

Alignment in D&D is based on a literary concept from Moorcock's "Elric" cycle, among others, of a Cosmic Struggle(tm) between Law and Chaos for complete domination of the Universe. In AD&D characters were actually picking sides in a nine way struggle over whose morality is correct. In the 2E "Planescape" campaign, set in the Outer Planes, Alignment was serious business, because if you could change the dominant Alignment in a region it would slip away to another Plane. Nevertheless, "Planescape" also subverted the idea that Alignments are absolute, by adding a ton of subtlety in the form of the Factions and Sects, competing over philosophy, not Alignment.

Individual judgment is very important when it comes to Alignment. Not in terms of determining what is Good and what is Evil, what is Lawful and what is Chaotic, but in determining whether to stick with one's chosen Alignment. Alignments have mechanical consequences in D&D. Evil Clerics can't channel positive energy at will. Unholy Blight doesn't affect Evil characters. Paladins can use Detect Evil as a Spell-Like Ability. However the choice of what decisions to make is still up to individuals. Sir Francois might know that everyone in a tavern is Evil, but he still wants to make Gather Information checks to find out who's guilty of what, maybe find out if there is a major plot that needs to be stopped immediately. A Good Aligned character might be tempted to take shortcuts. An Evil character can be redeemed. A Neutral character might decide that the balance has been upset, and take sides to set right what has gone wrong.

[Sir_Leorik]

Non-DnD examples start, when sorted by popularity, with Edward Cullen.

I was referring to non-D&D players not familiar with the Alignment system, but you raise a good point. :smallwink:

D&D Vampires are mostly based on the Universal Pictures and Hammer Studios versions of Dracula, as opposed to the version from Bram Stoker's novel. (Although some concepts from the novel are present.) There are variant Vampires in the "Ravenloft" campaign setting and in Libris Mortis, but there are no sparkling Vampires in D&D. The Negative Energy Plane despises things that sparkle. :smalltongue:


So by [Van Richten's] Guide, Durkon shouldn't really be Evil now.

I wish it were that cut and dried. Van Richten is very clear that his Guide is based on his decades of observing and hunting Vampires, but that a Vampire Hunter should never assume that all Vampires are identical. It is possible that Durkon is Lawful Neutral (but struggling with Evil impulses) but that the Negative Energy powering his new form require him to Channel Negative Energy. But it is also possible that his Alignment has been wrenched to Lawful Evil against his will, due to the way Malack Sired him (skipping the 1d3 days in a grave), or due to the rapid transition from newly Sired Thrall to free-willed Vampire in a few hours.

I think we'll have to wait until the story focuses on Durkon again, which may not be until Book Six. The story definitely won't focus on Durkon while Tarquin is still hogging the spotlight. :smallannoyed:


Durkon is Evil from magical point of view, which canonically may differ from his personal point of view. See succubus paladin.

Also, I don't understand how you can just "shift" alignment like that while leaving overall personality unchanging. Well, for some people it's possible, but Durkon is defined by his adherence to the Law of Good.

Didn't the Succubus in question have her Alignment shifted magically first? She also retained her Evil descriptor in her stat-block and continued to detect as Evil.

[Lexible]

If some concept seems inherently absurd to you, maybe you shouldn't pass judgement on others "misunderstanding" it.

Who the hell are you to tell me what to judge or not to judge?

[sengmeng]

I think with Roy's pragmatism, they will keep Durkon around, unmolested, as a vampire as long as they need to, with a very generous interpretation of 'need,' probably "until Xykon is defeated or dealt with." And then Roy will tell Durkon that it's time for him to be resurrected or just laid to rest in Dwarfland, and if Durkon doesn't agree, he will order the rest of the Order of the Sitck to "take him down. Hard."

Durkon would probably just hightail it out of there, though, if he's developed enough of a new identity to have different goals than he did as a living dwarf. He doesn't seem like the vengeful type, even as a vampire, and the rest of the Order probably can off him in a straight up fight, even if he's forewarned. I'm assuming Kraagor's gate is in the dwarven homeland in this speculation, and that "Death and Destruction" refers to his new domains. Whatever, he may go on a slight rampage before Roy sees the necessity of destroying him, or Xykon may destroy Dwarfland in their confrontation, in a way that he wouldn't have without Durkon being there. What I do NOT see happening is Durkon just staying on with the OotS as the "token vampire" member after the immediate Xykon crisis is over.

[halfeye]

Who the hell are you to tell me what to judge or not to judge?
Vice Versa also applies.

Which suggests to me that there may not be an objective morality in real life. Obviously YMMV.


She also retained her Evil descriptor in her stat-block and continued to detect as Evil.
That's the story that has me thinking that D&D "Evil" is not the same as real life moral "evil".

It seems to me that this is something that is still being debated within D&D, and as such we're not going to get an absolutely cast iron certain conclusion until a relevant comic page is published, because among other things, the OotS is only loosely based on D&D, and if D&D itself is vague on something, then the OotS is even freer than usual to play fast and loose with it.

[Lexible]

Vice Versa also applies.

Which suggests to me that there may not be an objective morality in real life. Obviously YMMV.

Oh: I am not suggesting that anyone's judgements (including mine) are not open to criticism, I am challenging Liliet's notion that my judgement is not appropriate to express here.

We are all casting judgement. Don't suggest that we should not.

[Finwe]

I think you misunderstand what alignments are: an idea that morality is an objective phenomenon: lawful evil is lawful yet evil by definition, not by behavior, and not according to some people but not other people. It's an inherently absurd concept precisely because individual and collective judgement are irrelevant to it.

Lawful Evil is a label. How and when the label is applied is determined by the standards of the setting in which it is being used. One of those standards may well be "all vampires count as Evil". "Good" and "Evil" are objective phenomena in a D&D universe, but that does not mean we throw out real world morality when judging a character. It means there are two judgments to be made: whether a character is Evil (i.e. occupies the deep end of the alignment pool), and whether a character is evil (i.e. morally repugnant by our own standards).

Durkula may be Evil (with a capital 'E') because the laws of his universe say that any beings animated by negative energy are Evil. We can not conclude that he is evil in the real world sense until we've seen more of his thoughts and actions.

[halfeye]

Durkula may be Evil (with a capital 'E') because the laws of his universe say that any beings animated by negative energy are Evil. We can not conclude that he is evil in the real world sense until we've seen more of his thoughts and actions.
That idea itself seems to be in debate in this thread. I think I agree with you, but I'm pretty sure there are people in this thread who believe what you say is wrong or mistaken. I don't think there is any objective standard that can resolve who is correct about this, only that not everyone agrees, and thus everyone can't be right in everyone's eyes.

[Sir_Leorik]

That's the story [the Succubus who became a Paladin, but still radiates as Evil] that has me thinking that D&D "Evil" is not the same as real life moral "evil".

Alignment descriptors in an Outsider's statblock, such as [Chaos and Evil] for a Succubus such as Sabine, indicate that the Outsider is a physical embodiment of the concept that Alignment represents. The Succubus Paladin, even though she has rejected everything the Abyss stands for, is still a Demon, still has the [Chaos, Evil] descriptor, despite being Lawful Good, and will still detect as Evil to anyone casting Detect Evil. She is simultaneously a literal embodiment of Chaotic Evil illicit relations, and a Lawful Good champion of virtue. D&D can be wierd sometimes. Just look at the Flumphs: a Lawful Good monster with tentacles, eyestalks, and teeth jutting from the underside of their carapace, who can levitate and manuever by inhaling air and farting it out. (That's also their main special attack: spraying attackers with noxious gases. Then they run away.)


It seems to me that this is something that is still being debated within D&D, and as such we're not going to get an absolutely cast iron certain conclusion until a relevant comic page is published, because among other things, the OotS is only loosely based on D&D, and if D&D itself is vague on something, then the OotS is even freer than usual to play fast and loose with it.

D&D 3.X isn't really vague about this; 90-98% of Vampires in 3.5 are Evil. The question of how soon they become Evil after being Sired is not dealt with in the Monster Manual, and barely mentioned in Libris Mortis. You have to go back to a product originally published in 1991 to get definitive answers (of course that gives DMs and players a variety of ways to handle the matter).


That idea itself seems to be in debate in this thread. I think I agree with you, but I'm pretty sure there are people in this thread who believe what you say is wrong or mistaken. I don't think there is any objective standard that can resolve who is correct about this, only that not everyone agrees, and thus everyone can't be right in everyone's eyes.

I think there are two debates going on simultaneously in this thread. The first one is whether Durkon's Alignment has changed or not. The second debate seems to be over the meaning of D&D's Alignment system itself. I'm up for a scholarly discussion of the former in this thread, not so much the latter.

[johnbragg]

If alignment is a measurement of Positive and Negative Energy (and Lawful and Chaotic energies, you'd have to think), then Durkon is Evil, as an high-level undead creature powered by Negative Energy. An Evil-o-scope detecting negative energy would pick up Durkon from miles away.

If alignment describes a person's concept of morality and ethics, and the sum total of their moral choices, then we don't know Durkon the vampire's alignment. Durkon's statement "No more than Belkar" is an indication that Durkon may not know his alignment for certain right now.

[Kish]

That's the story that has me thinking that D&D "Evil" is not the same as real life moral "evil".
"In her stat block" is misleading.

Her alignment is Lawful Good. No ambiguity there. The fact that the Detect Evil spell pings on her means that "a character of evil alignment is one of several things this spell will detect," not that she is in some way still evil-aligned.

What a Detect Evil spell would report if cast on Durkon now is not the point. The point is, is his alignment Lawful Good...or is it Lawful Evil? If it's the latter, then presumably there is more to his changed viewpoint than willingness to kill unconscious enemies. And in all probability, in light of the prophecy regarding Durkon, that more will have a high cost in dwarven lives.

[Scow2]

What a Detect Evil spell would report if cast on Durkon now is not the point. The point is, is his alignment Lawful Good...or is it Lawful Evil? If it's the latter, then presumably there is more to his changed viewpoint than willingness to kill unconscious enemies. And in all probability, in light of the prophecy regarding Durkon, that more will have a high cost in dwarven lives.
The prophesy uses the passive voice and says Durkon will bring death and destruction to the dwarven lands. It doesn't say or even imply he'll be directly responsible for the death and destruction.

[orrion]

The prophesy uses the passive voice and says Durkon will bring death and destruction to the dwarven lands. It doesn't say or even imply he'll be directly responsible for the death and destruction.

Of course it implies that. That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that line. Not necessarily true, but entirely possible.

I would wager that is entirely the reason it was phrased as it was. Prophecies aren't interesting if they don't have multiple and/or vague interpretations.

[brionl]

I have a feeling that an Epic Lich/Sorcerer and a high-level goblin Cleric with the Destruction domain are going to fulfill the "Death and Destruction" prophecy.

[halfeye]

I have a feeling that an Epic Lich/Sorcerer and a high-level goblin Cleric with the Destruction domain are going to fulfill the "Death and Destruction" prophecy.
No, because they're already on their way, and should have arrived by now. So they won't be being brought by Durkon on his return, they are arriving completely independently of Durkon.

Unless Kraagor's gate isn't in the Dwarven lands, in which case they won't be going there, but in that case neither will the OotS and thus Durkon, until after that Gate is dealt with. So that would be at least a book away in that scenario.

[orrion]

No, because they're already on their way, and should have arrived by now. So they won't be being brought by Durkon on his return, they are arriving completely independently of Durkon.

Unless Kraagor's gate isn't in the Dwarven lands, in which case they won't be going there, but in that case neither will the OotS and thus Durkon, until after that Gate is dealt with. So that would be at least a book away in that scenario.

By thwarting Xykon at 3 other gates, Durkon has helped ensure that Xykon and Redcloak have to go for this one. If the gate is actually in Dwarven lands and they do some shenanigans there then that arguably fulfills the prophecy. Too many unknowns at the moment to say for sure, though.

[halfeye]

By thwarting Xykon at 3 other gates, Durkon has helped ensure that Xykon and Redcloak have to go for this one. If the gate is actually in Dwarven lands and they do some shenanigans there then that arguably fulfills the prophecy. Too many unknowns at the moment to say for sure, though.
The actual quote goes "he will bring death and destruction for us all". To me, "bring" means carry or lead, it isn't compatible with "send" (there was an old song with the line "Bring your love to me, don't send it").

It wasn't Durkon's personal deeds that destroyed the other gates, he was in the party (who weren't even there for the first one), the Gates were destroyed by Red Cloak, Elan, Miko and Roy.

[brionl]

Just because Durkon isn't hand-carrying Xykon and Redcloak in his luggage doesn't mean he's not involved in bringing them to the Dwarven Lands.

That's a pretty common question for visitors; "What brings you to our fair dwarven delve?" Unless they are being wiseasses, they aren't going to say "A teleport spell."

[Komatik]

Or, he channels negative energy because he is now a being of negative energy, so channeling positive energy is impossible (this may not be RAW, but it certainly makes sense to me). I don't think we can count on minor points of the RAW overriding story decisions. It may even be that Durkon's character sheet now reads "Lawful Evil". Even then we can not conclude that Durkon is evil in the moral sense.

See the link in my signature, point 7.


The first option conflicts with "character development" since erasing a character and creating another one just can't count as that. Also, it's extremely uncomfortable regarding concepts such as free will.

Durkon is Evil from magical point of view, which canonically may differ from his personal point of view. See succubus paladin.

Also, I don't understand how you can just "shift" alignment like that while leaving overall personality unchanging. Well, for some people it's possible, but Durkon is defined by his adherence to the Law of Good.

First, character development is easily possible even if Durkon was merely evilized. Also, that doesn't say that much about free will - it means you can brainwash people with enough magic, something with a lot of precedents in D&D. Being vampirized seems to just be an overwhelming magical effect that alters a person's worldview.
Nothing says they're not still free-willed and just as capable of changing their perspective as anyone else. Granted, undeath itself may pose some issues with that, because Good rests a lot on empathy and undeath can leave one... empathically challenged.

Second, that "technically speaking Evil" is depicted by the [Evil] subtype. It's typically used in conjunction with creatures that are literally made of physical Evil, just as water elementals are made of water. Vampires are not made of Evil. They're body+soul combos like living creatures, they just run with a different brand of fuel, and that fuel isn't pure Evil. It's a neutral, cosmic energy that happens to be unhealthy for living things. Like acid, for example.

Third, it is conceiveable to do such a shift. You don't have to alter everything about a person to change their alignment. Durkon's Lawful nature is still there, much of his small mannerisms that make him Durkon and not LG Dwarf Cleric #462745 are still probably there. His allegiances and motivations on things will likely stay, for the most part.

Becoming evil doesn't turn you into a cackling maniac, necessarily - it just makes you more ruthless and less likely to care about people who aren't your good friends. It's a big change, but much less thorough than you might imagine.

[Komatik]

If alignment is a measurement of Positive and Negative Energy (and Lawful and Chaotic energies, you'd have to think), then Durkon is Evil, as an high-level undead creature powered by Negative Energy. An Evil-o-scope detecting negative energy would pick up Durkon from miles away.

If alignment describes a person's concept of morality and ethics, and the sum total of their moral choices, then we don't know Durkon the vampire's alignment. Durkon's statement "No more than Belkar" is an indication that Durkon may not know his alignment for certain right now.

See my signature, please. The link, specifically.

[factotum]

That's a pretty common question for visitors; "What brings you to our fair dwarven delve?" Unless they are being wiseasses, they aren't going to say "A teleport spell."

But they're not going to say "the taxi driver who drove us to the airport before we caught the flight over here" either, and that's about as close a link as Durkon has to Xykon arriving in his homeland.

[warrl]

The prophesy uses the passive voice and says Durkon will bring death and destruction to the dwarven lands. It doesn't say or even imply he'll be directly responsible for the death and destruction.

It does imply, but not definitively.

Here's another possibility, approximately equally well supported: Durkon will still be a Vampire, with Death and Destruction as his domains, when they arrive in the dwarven lands. However he will not actually cause, or participate in causing, any death or destruction before being "killed" and raised as a normal dwarf with his old pre-Vampire domains.

[Sir_Leorik]

It does imply, but not definitively.

Here's another possibility, approximately equally well supported: Durkon will still be a Vampire, with Death and Destruction as his domains, when they arrive in the dwarven lands. However he will not actually cause, or participate in causing, any death or destruction before being "killed" and raised as a normal dwarf with his old pre-Vampire domains.

Non-Theistic Vampire Clerics (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) don't get access to the Death domain; they get access to Chaos, Destruction, Evil and Trickery.