Why is Belkar so mad at Durkula?

[nogall]

The title says it all. Ok, he almost killed him, but this hatred still seems a bit exagerated to. I think the giant is clearly wanting to set something up for later with this, but I can't tell what.

Maybe Durkula will be responsible for Belkar's death? Or is it a way to show that Belkar cares more about life and all? Is it because he is no longer the sole evil member of the party and he's jealous someone is stealling his thunder?

[Shale]

He knows the difference between a free-willed person and a sentient undead. As far as he's concerned, Durkon the vampire only looks the same as Durkon the dwarf, and can't be trusted any more than some random Lestat wannabe picked up off the street.

[Silferdrake]

Well, Durkon was the one who saved Beklar's life back when Malack was about to turn him into a vampire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html), this seemed to mean a lot to Belkar and Durkon ended up paying the price for it. It actually seems like the vile little halfling feels some amount of guilt about the entire thing, as seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0880.html) and here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html). My guess is that Belkar feels as if it should have been him that died there instead, and seeing Durkon's vampire form is a constant reminder of that.

Now, that may be attributing Belkar with more humanity than he deserves, but that is at least my take on it.

Also, Belkar is the only one who has seen Durkula in his less than nice mood, of course that was back when he was a thrall, but still. The others seem to view him as "the same old Durkon" so far.

[Trillium]

I believe, in the end, he started to care about his friends. And seeing Durkon turned into something living Durkon abhorred stirs something in him. What is more, such feelings are completely new, alien and unwanted by him. All that in concert makes him quite angry, I would think.

[Torrasque]

Because Belkar is the only one who sees clearly, instead of being in denial about the death of Durkon and just wishing everything would be back to normal.
He isn't even really mad at undead Durkon, so much as he asks when they corpsify him so they can get the real Durkon back. In this strip he is more mad with the fact that he is once again being forced to be the voice of reason, and with being forced to acknowledge his own growing affection for his teammates.

[Mastikator]

Because Durkula isn't Durkon and Belkar is the only one heartless enough to acknowledge it.
The fact that the rest are ok with Durkula despite the fact that they know Durkon would never be ok with it is a bit worrying. Roy and Haley should know better.
I'm assuming V isn't judging because he's done worse, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't wary.

[oppyu]

As other's have said, survivor's guilt probably plays a large part. Durkon went out of his way to save Belkar's life, utterly confusing the horrid little man with no concept of Good. Then Durkon was violently murdered because of it, and now dark magical energy is compelling Durkon's corpse to walk and talk in a twisted mockery of the valiant dwarf who sacrificed everything for him.

Plus, Roy and co. seriously have their heads in the sand about the bearded bloodsucker right now, treating the whole thing like their old friend just got a new set of dietary restrictions and they can solve the issue with Restoration spells and a short-term feeding plan.

[Keltest]

Well, im sure the whole "draining him to within an inch of his life" thing wasn't helping.

[Kish]

Unlike apparently the vast majority of posters in this thread, I am highly skeptical that this is meant to be indicative of moral awareness on Belkar's part.

[Wereboar_It]

Have you never wondered why a beautiful woman gets mad in the presence of another beautiful woman?


Belkie has always been the master of the Deep End Alignment Pool. Now he has another top-class swimmer in it, and with bigger boobs, too :P

[nogall]

Unlike apparently the vast majority of posters in this thread, I am highly skeptical that this is meant to be indicative of moral awareness on Belkar's part.

would you care to elaborate a little bit more, Kish? what do you see then?

[Ionbound]

Unlike apparently the vast majority of posters in this thread, I am highly skeptical that this is meant to be indicative of moral awareness on Belkar's part.

I don't think Belkar realizes this is indicative of moral growth, but the Belkar we saw Pre-Hippy vision quest, the one that was basically at war with V would probably not have cared as much. Would he still have cared? Yes. Durkula nearly killed him. But he wouldn't have cared that Durkon was now a vampire, and indeed it would probably be hilarious to him.

[Ghost Nappa]

Have you never wondered why a beautiful woman gets mad in the presence of another beautiful woman?


Belkie has always been the master of the Deep End Alignment Pool. Now he has another top-class swimmer in it, and with bigger boobs, too :P

I thought the joke was "Roy has boobies."

[Kish]

would you care to elaborate a little bit more, Kish? what do you see then?
I don't know. I wish I did, but all I can say is that I'm withholding judgment, and most definitely letting the "This is Belkar being morally right and everyone else in the Order being deluded" train leave the station without me.

[oppyu]

Unlike apparently the vast majority of posters in this thread, I am highly skeptical that this is meant to be indicative of moral awareness on Belkar's part.

Moral awareness? I wouldn't go that far. But he has demonstrated a limited capacity to care about a small number of other living beings recently. It seems like he's added Durkon to the list of living beings he cares about, along with Mr. Scruffy and Bloodfeast the Extreme-inator.

[Tiiba]

He knows the difference between a free-willed person and a sentient undead.

Actually, I've been meaning to say: I don't. Durkula has Durkon's body, soul, goals, and most of his morality. This is no more of a change than if he got an illness that makes his skin gray. The difference is so faint that they keep forgetting the right terms to use, as Roy did here in 939.

What IS the difference between life and undeath?

[Kish]

Actually, I've been meaning to say: I don't. Durkula has Durkon's body, soul, goals, and most of his morality. This is no more of a change than if he got an illness that makes his skin gray.

What IS the difference between life and undeath?
Willingness to kill an unconscious Zz'dtri and closeness to the fulfillment of an ominous prophecy.

Belkar, of course, has absolutely no knowledge of either of those, making his current position, far from showing moral growth, pretty much the same as when, way back in the Dungeon of Dorukan, he said, "I figured we'd slaughter some sentient creatures because they have green skin and fangs and we don't, and take their stuff. What?"

Moral awareness? I wouldn't go that far. But he has demonstrated a limited capacity to care about a small number of other living beings recently. It seems like he's added Durkon to the list of living beings he cares about, along with Mr. Scruffy and Bloodfeast the Extreme-inator.
So it is your position that an "Always Evil" creature should be automatically killed, now, oppyu?

[Tiiba]

Willingness to kill an unconscious Zz'dtri

And that proves that he isn't alive? Dead dwarves do not kill drow.

[Kish]

I'm sorry, I thought you were asking about moral differences.

Physically, the differences are: No heartbeat, no pulse, no need to breathe, no need and uncertain ability to eat normal food, needs to drink blood every night, regenerates constantly, doesn't age, will burn up in sunlight without a protective spell, and automatically channels negative energy rather than positive. No Constitution score, plusses to most other ability scores. Massive level adjustment that makes it unlikely Durkon will be gaining any levels before he's resurrected. Can turn into an undead bat or undead wolf; can Dominate as a standard action; can summon animal minions; can bestow two negative levels with a slam or other touch. Type changes to undead. Racial alignment changes from Often Lawful Good to Always Evil.

[Byzantine2]

And that proves that he isn't alive? Dead dwarves do not kill drow.

I disagree with him, but I believe his point was living Durkon would never have killed Z while he was unconscious and no longer a threat.

[Kish]

I disagree with him, but I believe his point was living Durkon would never have killed Z while he was unconscious and no longer a threat.
You think Living Durkon would have? I don't know how you'd support that, based on Durkon's behavior from the start of the comic. Or is, "I disagree with him" a standin for, "I am a card-carrying member of the Vampires Must Be Destroyed club and believe Belkar is wise to say so"?

[Michaeler]

Durkula has Durkon's body, soul, goals, and most of his morality.

Has it been confirmed that Durkon's soul is still there?

[Kish]

Has it been confirmed that Durkon's soul is still there?
What is a soul, in this question?

Nothing has been confirmed, but I feel pretty confident putting "Durkon is off in the afterlife while Vampire Durkon rejoins the Order" in the "Yeah, no" barrel, m'self.

[Keltest]

Has it been confirmed that Durkon's soul is still there?

Souls and undead are complicated things in D&D. How undead (besides wraiths and other spirits, obviously) are portrayed and handled as far as souls go can vary wildly by DM/Author. Personally I think that he is capable of recognizing that he should still be on his best behavior, but his motivations for doing so may or may not have changed.

[Torrasque]

I don't know. I wish I did, but all I can say is that I'm withholding judgment, and most definitely letting the "This is Belkar being morally right and everyone else in the Order being deluded" train leave the station without me.

I'll admit that is perhaps taking it a bit further than was the point, but Belkar is the only one voicing some very good points about undead Durkon, that the rest of the party completely ignores. They all seem perfectly content to let it run around as a mockery of everything Durkon stood against, just because it can act like him right now.
How much of it is part of Belkars growing affection for other people than himself, and how much is just Belkar wanting to stake someone in the beard is of course up for interpretation. I choose to believe it is more of the former, keeping in line with his recent development.

[Keltest]

I'll admit that is perhaps taking it a bit further than was the point, but Belkar is the only one voicing some very good points about undead Durkon, that the rest of the party completely ignores. They all seem perfectly content to let it run around as a mockery of everything Durkon stood against, just because it can act like him right now.
How much of it is part of Belkars growing affection for other people than himself, and how much is just Belkar wanting to stake someone in the beard is of course up for interpretation. I choose to believe it is more of the former, keeping in line with his recent development.

Well, as Roy pointed out, what else are they going to do with him? Whether or not hes an evil perversion of his best friend, hes hauling the body around and healing them. Roy at least has also expressed an intent to get Durkon resurrected as soon as they find a cleric to do so.

[Kish]

I'll admit that is perhaps taking it a bit further than was the point, but Belkar is the only one voicing some very good points about undead Durkon, that the rest of the party completely ignores.

Such as?

If all you've got is, "Durkon hated the undead," then you have nothing, in my view. Rich was pretty clear both that Durkon did not attack Malack for his vampirism and that it would have reflected badly on Durkon if he had. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14785214#post14785214) That leaves you with...He's making a mockery of mockery, and letting him feed on the rest of the Order turns Belkar into a hipster. Real good points there!

[Lvl45DM!]

Belkar is trying really hard to look like he's a good person and Durkon being a vampire but accepted is confusing the hell outta him. Add on survivors guilt from getting closer to being Good, a constant reminder of that walking around and the fact that Durkon nearly killed him (and is thus untrustworthy) it makes perfect sense to me.

[Loreweaver15]

Belkar is so mad about Durkula because Belkar's character growth is really hitting its stride.

There is nothing more infectious, more virulently corrupting, than Good, even the small sorts of "kindness" and "consideration" that somebody pretending to have empathy would demonstrate. The point-slash-result of Belkar's faked character development was that he began to experience real character development--he learned how to value other living beings for more than their entertainment value. He genuinely cares about Mr. Scruffy. He went out of his way to help two people who dicked him over and massively inconvenienced them, because he felt sorry for them. He's even said--straight-out--that he Gets It (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0869.html). Belkar has, against his will, learned to care, and whether Durkon was on his short list of 'other beings I genuinely value' before saving Belkar's life, he sure as hell was near the top of it afterwards, and it shocked Belkar, not just that it had happened, but that it happened to protect him.

He doesn't really think he was worth the sacrifice (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html).

And now, on top of all this introspection and brand-new self-doubt, on top of this person who saved his life walking around as a very dangerous puppeteered mockery of everything that person held dear (whether we believe it or not doesn't change that Belkar believes it), the other people who have more reason than anyone else in the world to respect Durkon are refusing to.

Belkar has a history of becoming violently murderous when anybody he values as an individual (himself, for most of the comic's run, and then later Mr. Scruffy) is even slightly threatened or even just disrespected. Now that Durkon has made that list, I'm not at all surprised that Belkar is so proactively advocating staking Durkula now rather than later.

None of this precludes Belkar from remaining Chaotic Evil, incidentally--it just means that he's learned how to have friends.

[Torrasque]

Such as?

If all you've got is, "Durkon hated the undead," then you have nothing, in my view. Rich was pretty clear both that Durkon did not attack Malack for his vampirism and that it would have reflected badly on Durkon if he had. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14785214#post14785214) That leaves you with...He's making a mockery of mockery, and letting him feed on the rest of the Order turns Belkar into a hipster. Real good points there!

But Durkon did hate the undead, and it definitely is a mockery of everything he held dear, to return him as an undead. That is quite the valid point, even if we say Belkar is just yellling random stuff to get attention.
I'm not sure what racism and killing Malack has to do with it.

[Dante2001]

Durkon never killed anyone while dwarf. 2nd strip as a vampire he is killing someone who is incapacitated.
Durkon changed..

[The Glyphstone]

It's the proto-brain at work. Belkar's Durkon setting was flipped to 'Lust' by Durkon sacrificing himself for Belkar, but the vampiric transformation afterwards registers to the proto-brain as a separate creature. Since 'Durkula' is responsible for 'Durkon' not being around, the switch inverts again and he's left with 'Hate'.

[oppyu]

So it is your position that an "Always Evil" creature should be automatically killed, now, oppyu?

Nope, at this point I believe I'm irrationally prejudiced against Durkula in particular because this particular sentient creature who does not deserve to be exterminated for his alignment IS NOT DURKON, AND WILL NEVER BE DURKON NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIES! BRING BACK DURKON!

*clears throat*

[Kish]

But Durkon did hate the undead, and it definitely is a mockery of everything he held dear, to return him as an undead. That is quite the valid point, even if we say Belkar is just yellling random stuff to get attention.
I'm not sure what racism and killing Malack has to do with it.
Either, "Vampires should all be destroyed" and its attendant, "We should immediately attack this vampire who has acted as a member of our party ever since being freed from an enemy's magical control, saving all of our lives in the process" is a valid moral position or it is not.

Do you think Rich's view on that position is,
a) It is valid and correct.
b) It is invalid and incorrect.
c) Impossible to tell.
?

If your answer is other than b), I'd suggest you reread the link I posted until it becomes b).

[Keltest]

But Durkon did hate the undead, and it definitely is a mockery of everything he held dear, to return him as an undead. That is quite the valid point, even if we say Belkar is just yellling random stuff to get attention.
I'm not sure what racism and killing Malack has to do with it.

I have never read Durkon as taking himself seriously enough to consider this some ungodly agony or anything. If he has enough of his soul to control himself, its inconvenient but he can "live" with it. If he doesn't, I doubt he would care all that much unless his friends did it to him deliberately.

[Torrasque]

Either, "Vampires should all be destroyed" and its attendant, "We should immediately attack this vampire who has acted as a member of our party ever since being freed from an enemy's magical control, saving all of our lives in the process" is a valid moral position or it is not.

Do you think Rich's view on that position is,
a) It is valid and correct.
b) It is invalid and incorrect.
c) Impossible to tell.
?

If your answer is other than b), I'd suggest you reread the link I posted until it becomes b).

Where on earth in any of my posts do you see me advocating killing all vampires?
Whether or not I find it morally reprehensible, or if Rich does, to kill a vampire has nothing to do with what i have been talking about so far.
I know it's a popular forum sport to turn every thread into a "morality of familicide" discussion, but jeez.

[Kish]

Where on earth in any of my posts do you see me advocating killing all vampires?
Whether or not I find it morally reprehensible, or if Rich does, to kill a vampire has nothing to do with what i have been talking about so far.
"Because Belkar is the only one who sees clearly,"...
"Belkar is the only one voicing some very good points about undead Durkon, that the rest of the party completely ignores. They all seem perfectly content to let it(sic) run around as a mockery of everything Durkon stood against, just because it(sic) can act like him right now. "
Now you're claiming that nowhere in those statements is a contradiction to the idea that what Belkar is saying is morally reprehensible? Jeez, own what you endorsed, will you?

[Werbaer]

Durkon never killed anyone while dwarf.
"Huzzah! I got 'im!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html)

[Shale]

I think we're going to see very soon that this isn't Durkon, not because his alignment changed but because he is literally animated by pure evil. Bones and flesh glued together by dark magic in the shape of their friend. Belkar's advantage, for once, is his cavalier attitude toward death - he doesn't seem to mourn like a person with feelings, so there's no impetus to deny what happened and insist that it's actually Durkon there. Plus he has no compunction about stabbing something that looks, acts and talks like his friend, because, well, he's a horrid little sociopath who has no compunction about stabbing his friends.

[hamishspence]

D&D vampire portrayal varies considerably- but some (notably, Jander Sunstar) do retain a great deal of conscience for a while.

[Kish]

I think it is extremely likely that Durkon being a vampire will explore the question of whether what Redcloak said about the undead was right, or just as deluded, in the opposite way, as Tsukiko's view on the undead.

I also think if it does, it will certainly come down on the side of Option B. (And, I will add, I think Rich stating that yes, hating vampires for being vampires is racism but Durkon didn't do that rather than no, vampires actually aren't people so you can't be racist against them, see should really be the last word on the subject already.)

[Torrasque]

"Because Belkar is the only one who sees clearly,"...
"Belkar is the only one voicing some very good points about undead Durkon, that the rest of the party completely ignores. They all seem perfectly content to let it(sic) run around as a mockery of everything Durkon stood against, just because it(sic) can act like him right now. "
Now you're claiming that nowhere in those statements is a contradiction to the idea that what Belkar is saying is morally reprehensible? Jeez, own what you endorsed, will you?

I merely said that Belkar was the only one thinking clearly, meaning that he is the only one willing to talk about the fact that Durkon is suddenly undead, and might not be just their old friend with new dietary needs. Of course Belkars solution to the problem (as with any other problem) is to stab it till it stops moving, that does not mean that is also my solution to all problems, nor should it necessarily be the Orders solution to any problems..
It does seem like you are projecting some of the opinions in other posts in this thread onto me.

[Keltest]

I merely said that Belkar was the only one thinking clearly, meaning that he is the only one willing to talk about the fact that Durkon is suddenly undead, and might not be just their old friend with new dietary needs. Of course Belkars solution to the problem (as with any other problem) is to stab it till it stops moving, that does not mean that is also my solution to all problems, nor should it necessarily be the Orders solution to any problems..
It does seem like you are projecting some of the opinions in other posts in this thread onto me.

Why would they need to talk about it? By all appearances hes on the level (yeah yeah, he could be lying or acting, but so far theres no evidence of that), and there is a very obvious intent to get him properly alive again once they hit civilization. Other than that, by all appearances he IS just Durkon with new dietary problems, which the other members of the Order are willing to help him with.

[SavageWombat]

Because Belkar is still not on the same page with Roy (and Rich) about alignment judgments. He thought he understood - that it was OK to kill people if they're "evil". Since, like many forumites, he's assuming that becoming a vampire = evil alignment, he doesn't understand what looks to him like a weird double standard. And he's always thought that weird rules about who he's allowed to kill were incomprehensible and frustrating.

The rest of the thread's points are also true.

[Kish]

I merely said that Belkar was the only one thinking clearly, meaning that he is the only one willing to talk about the fact that Durkon is suddenly undead, and might not be just their old friend with new dietary needs. Of course Belkars solution to the problem (as with any other problem) is to stab it till it stops moving, that does not mean that is also my solution to all problems, nor should it necessarily be the Orders solution to any problems..
It does seem like you are projecting some of the opinions in other posts in this thread onto me.
Oh? Who called Durkon it? Who continues to maintain that "kill Durkon immediately, and why are we even acting like there's something to discuss?" shows a level of nuance that "treat Durkon as the ally he's behaving like while planning to resurrect him as soon as we can" does not? The only one who's actively acting like there's ambiguity here is Roy and maybe Durkon himself; Elan and Haley are (thus far) treating Durkon the same as always, and Belkar is pushing for the Order to respond as they would have if Malack had somehow gotten on board. Solid red is not more or less of a single color than solid blue and it would behoove you to state what very good (plural) points Belkar made about undead Durkon if you wish to maintain that he made them. As things he actually said, not as things you project on him (meaning, you could claim "He's a mockery of all we hold dear" though I wouldn't recommend claiming that to be a very good point, but not "Durkon hated the undead," which isn't actually something Belkar mentioned).

[Shale]

If this were just a random vampiric individual the Order happened to encounter, the calculus would be different. But if this isn't Durkon, then Durkon is dead and the only way to bring him back is to destroy the vampire. Is that sufficient cause to destroy him, even absent aggression against the party? Even Roy is paying lip service to the idea that it is.

[CletusMusashi]

One thing Belkar is going to be angry about for a very long time is that they've just fought off an army and, thanks to to Durkula, Belkar didn't get to stab one person.

[Kish]

If this were just a random vampiric individual the Order happened to encounter, the calculus would be different. But if this isn't Durkon, then Durkon is dead and the only way to bring him back is to destroy the vampire. Is that sufficient cause to destroy him, even absent aggression against the party? Even Roy is paying lip service to the idea that it is.
This seems to hinge on the assumption that Roy is buying into the (frankly silly, in my opinion) idea that this isn't Durkon, that Durkon is in the afterlife and Eugene's blood oath has been unfulfillable since the sorcerer Xykon died and was replaced by a kind of dark magic that makes his bones move. Roy is expressing a desire to have Durkon's vampiric condition cured, by a process that involves him temporarily ceasing to have movement and cognitive functions (and Roy is explicitly not willing for that temporarily to be any longer than absolutely necessary). That's not the same as expressing willingness to destroy Entity A to get back Entity B.

[Rodin]

One thing Belkar is going to be angry about for a very long time is that they've just fought off an army and, thanks to to Durkula, Belkar didn't get to stab one person.

I think the T-Rex rampage might have made up for that, though.

My take on this is that Belkar and Durkon have always disliked each other. Durkon being a vampire is a perfect excuse for Belkar to get some catharsis stabbing him repeatedly while not getting shunned by the rest of the team...if he can only get them on board with the idea.

[pacovf]

If this were just a random vampiric individual the Order happened to encounter, the calculus would be different. But if this isn't Durkon, then Durkon is dead and the only way to bring him back is to destroy the vampire. Is that sufficient cause to destroy him, even absent aggression against the party? Even Roy is paying lip service to the idea that it is.

I think this is a perfectly accurate description of the situation.

The way I see it, there are two different possibilities, and different ways to react to each one:

-Durkula is the same person as Durkon, only experiencing massive physiological changes that cause him to act differently. Then killing Durkula to resurrect him later is not wrong per se, although killing him a long time before the resurrection is probably kinda dickish. But then, should the physiological changes be undone? We could take a parallelism with real life: sometime is involved in an accident, suffers massive brain injuries, but survives with a significantly altered personality. If the possibility to "repair" the damage is open to him/her, should s/he accept it? What should influence the decision.

-Durkula is a different person than Durkon, but shares his body and memories. [Follows in next post]

[Torrasque]

Oh? Who called Durkon it? Who continues to maintain that "kill Durkon immediately, and why are we even acting like there's something to discuss?" shows a level of nuance that "treat Durkon as the ally he's behaving like while planning to resurrect him as soon as we can" does not? The only one who's actively acting like there's ambiguity here is Roy and maybe Durkon himself; Elan and Haley are (thus far) treating Durkon the same as always, and Belkar is pushing for the Order to respond as they would have if Malack had somehow gotten on board. Solid red is not more or less of a single color than solid blue and it would behoove you to state what very good (plural) points Belkar made about undead Durkon if you wish to maintain that he made them. As things he actually said, not as things you project on him (meaning, you could claim "He's a mockery of all we hold dear" though I wouldn't recommend claiming that to be a very good point, but not "Durkon hated the undead," which isn't actually something Belkar mentioned).

I do not see where all this hostility comes from?
I was trying to elaborate on my intent with my statements, as Belkar being the only one willing to address the issue of undead Durkon as a potential problem, or at least something to be concerned about. Roy flat out refuses to talk about either his possible ressurection or the mockery he has become (Even retorting with what is basically a "your mom is a mockery of all we hold dear" kind of response). Belkar of course is not able to articulate his thoughts and feelings on this precisely, which is why i am guessing on the hidden meanings of what he is doing.
If you do not feel this is valid points then you are free to do so.
I on the other hand is very much free to maintain my speculations about what Belkar means. This is a speculatory thread about the actions of one character. Besides what is actually and directly being said, we can only speculate about what underlying motivations makes them act as they do, and what they might be saying without saying it directly. If we are only allowed to cite meaning and motivations of the characters in the strip based on direct quotes, there would really be no meaning of having a thread discussing it.

[Kish]

I do not see where all this hostility comes from?
I was trying to elaborate on my intent with my statements, as Belkar being the only one willing to address the issue of undead Durkon as a potential problem, or at least something to be concerned about. Roy flat out refuses to talk about either his possible ressurection or the mockery he has become (Even retorting with what is basically a "your mom is a mockery of all we hold dear" kind of response). Belkar of course is not able to articulate his thoughts and feelings on this precisely, which is why i am guessing on the hidden meanings of what he is doing.
If you do not feel this is valid points then you are free to do so.
I on the other hand is very much free to maintain my speculations about what Belkar means. This is a speculatory thread about the actions of one character. Besides what is actually and directly being said, we can only speculate about what underlying motivations makes them act as they do, and what they might be saying without saying it directly. If we are only allowed to cite meaning and motivations of the characters in the strip based on direct quotes, there would really be no meaning of having a thread discussing it.
Statements like "Belkar is making very good points" are not equivalent to statements like, "What I imagine Belkar to mean includes very good points, and what I imagine Roy to be saying in response has none."

Certainly, it is not against the forum rules to post the latter, but if you post the former, you should not be surprised if someone expects you to then explain what good points Belkar made.

[Torrasque]

which is why i elaborated it? :smallconfused:

[Kish]

which is why i elaborated it? :smallconfused:
By "elaborated," you mean "dropped and replaced with the second statement"?

'Cause you sure didn't list any good points Belkar made. You imagined...something I find rather incomprehensible, in which it is not a good point that Belkar is being hypocritical and it reflects badly on Roy that Roy doesn't respond to an immediate question about the battle plan as though Belkar had said, "Don't we need to discuss the moral implications of the change in our friend Durkon?" Okay. That is definitely not getting me on the "Belkar is showing wisdom none of the rest of the Order are" train, which brings us right back to the first reply you made directly to me.

[pacovf]

-If Durkon's soul is in the Afterlife, i.e., Durkon has suffered an untimely death, then Roy can (should? that point is fuzzy in OOTSverse) try to resurrect him. Only he cannot while Durkula, a being created by killing Durkon, is alive. Is that reason enough to kill Durkula? I think this is a trickier question than it looks like, because Durkula didn't choose to come into Unlife, it was Malack that made the decision. It's not Durkula's fault that Durkon is dead, otherwise this question would be easily answered. So in a situation where only one of two people can live, do you get to make a decision about who is the fortunate one? I could go on and make the obvious analogy with the abortion debate, but I think no one wants that

Also I do not think it is as clear cut as Kish thinks whether or not Durkon and Durkula are the same person, we're talking about maaaagiiiiic afterall.

[Tiiba]

Because Belkar is still not on the same page with Roy (and Rich) about alignment judgments. He thought he understood - that it was OK to kill people if they're "evil". Since, like many forumites, he's assuming that becoming a vampire = evil alignment, he doesn't understand what looks to him like a weird double standard. And he's always thought that weird rules about who he's allowed to kill were incomprehensible and frustrating.

The rest of the thread's points are also true.

I think that's a great way to interpret what's going on in Belkar's head. He can understand good people, but not intuitively, because their minds are like complicated alien machines for him.

[Kish]

I agree with SavageWombat, too.

As I said, this is a continuation of, "We'll kill sentient creatures because they have green skin and fangs and we don't...What?" not a sudden display of new wisdom.


Also I do not think it is as clear cut as Kish thinks whether or not Durkon and Durkula are the same person, we're talking about maaaagiiiiic afterall.
Eugene swore he or his heirs would take vengeance on the sorcerer Xykon. Subsequently, Xykon died and came back as a lich.

Would you sign your name to, "Anything Roy does against the lich Xykon will be meaningless to the Blood Oath, which requires Roy to travel to the Abyss and take vengeance on a long-dead sorcerer there"?

[Torrasque]

By "elaborated," you mean "dropped and replaced with the second statement"?

'Cause you sure didn't list any good points Belkar made.

Since you will not accept that Belkar can mean anything else than the literal words he says, then there really is no point to continue. I had hoped the point of our discussion would be to find some sort of common ground or mutual understanding, but that seems not to be the point. I will take my leave.

[Keltest]

Since you will not accept that Belkar can mean anything else than the literal words he says, then there really is no point to continue. I had hoped the point of our discussion would be to find some sort of common ground or mutual understanding, but that seems not to be the point. I will take my leave.

Given that historically Belkar has always meant things literally and never held anything back, that is not an unsafe idea.

[pacovf]

Eugene swore he or his heirs would take vengeance on the sorcerer Xykon. Subsequently, Xykon died and came back as a lich.

Would you sign your name to, "Anything Roy does against the lich Xykon will be meaningless to the Blood Oath, which requires Roy to travel to the Abyss and take vengeance on a long-dead sorcerer there"?

That would be hilarious. But still, we are talking about different undead-ifying processes, on different kind of people, and only one of them being undertaken willingly for that matter.

I promise I am not trying to be facetious (I would be if I argued that fighting Xykon's lich still constitutes vengeance on the sorcerer Xykon, even if his soul doesn't inhabit that body, which I could), I do believe it's not as clear-cut. Remember the comment Malack made when Durkon offered to resurrect him? Sure, different circumstances, but that's exactly my point, afterall.

Also, we know that people can refuse to be resurrected (Girard's kin). Why wouldn't that be expandable to say that Durkon's soul could have refused to inhabit his vamp-body?

[Shale]

Xykon explicitly, clearly, inescapably still has his soul. Lesser undead like wights just as clearly do not. At the very least I'd say that Durkon has been fundamentally altered - for starters, nobody's asking whether he wants to be destroyed and raised. If he does object, do you think they should listen?

[Kish]

Lesser undead like wights just as clearly do not.
The comic has never depicted a free-willed wight, and under-the-control-of-their-creator-or-Redcloak wights have acted pretty much exactly like Durkon the Thrall. So...no. Undead who are under direct control, all undead who are under direct control, act like puppets. It's a safe bet that that would include an 11-hit-die lich who was controlled by a level 22 negative-energy-channeler cleric. The wights unlived and diedied without ever getting a chance to show the 11 Intelligence and 13 Wisdom they had by default.

If he does object, do you think they should listen?
More information required before I could answer that. Practically speaking, I'm pretty sure it won't come up, that either Durkon will gladly cooperate with his resurrection or he will show himself as an enemy before the question can be raised (no pun intended).

That would be hilarious. But still, we are talking about different undead-ifying processes, on different kind of people, and only one of them being undertaken willingly for that matter.

I promise I am not trying to be facetious (I would be if I argued that fighting Xykon's lich still constitutes vengeance on the sorcerer Xykon, even if his soul doesn't inhabit that body, which I could), I do believe it's not as clear-cut. Remember the comment Malack made when Durkon offered to resurrect him?

I also remember a number of debates about it. Overall, though, as some people have pointed out in arguments over whether Durkon is still Durkon, there's no character development if there's no character.

Also, you're proposing that Durkon has been replaced by Something Else that...hates the Linear Guild and wants to help the Order? Again, Durkon saved the Order from being wiped out immediately after regaining (or gaining, in the this-is-a-new-entity paradigm) his free will. Nale clearly believed that Durkon was gone and a malevolent force that had no reason to care about Durkon's loyalties (except perhaps to push against them) was there. That belief cost him everything.

[Torrasque]

By "elaborated," you mean "dropped and replaced with the second statement"?

'Cause you sure didn't list any good points Belkar made. You imagined...something I find rather incomprehensible, in which it is not a good point that Belkar is being hypocritical and it reflects badly on Roy that Roy doesn't respond to an immediate question about the battle plan as though Belkar had said, "Don't we need to discuss the moral implications of the change in our friend Durkon?" Okay. That is definitely not getting me on the "Belkar is showing wisdom none of the rest of the Order are" train, which brings us right back to the first reply you made directly to me.

Aha! an edit with something other than hostility and putting words in my mouth. This we can use.
I did not mean in any way that this reflected badly on Roy. I simply interpret the scene as Roy wanting his friend back so much, that he is not willing to talk about the possibility of it not being the Durkon he knew. This is not a character flaw in Roy. Likewise i interpret Belkars wish to stab the undead and "mockery of all we hold dear" statement as him trying to alert the others to that possibility. This change in the old sociopath is fueled by his newfound caring for Mr. Scruffy and the jarring experience for him it was when Durkon sacrificed himself for him.
As i said in my first post to you, the reasons why they act like they do, is all up for interpretation, and i chose to go the optimistic way concerning Belkar, and the pessmistic way concerning Durkon!
I completely agree that this is not a solid proof or the only possible interpretation, but as we have no way yet of knowing much about either Belkars newfound conscience or what Durkon as a vampire will be like, all we can do is speculate and interpret the story so far as we see it.

So we are not really that far from each other after all! you have just interpreted the scene optimistically about Durkon, and pessimistically about Belkar, and i did it the other way around!

[Keltest]

Aha! an edit with something other than hostility and putting words in my mouth. This we can use.
I did not mean in any way that this reflected badly on Roy. I simply interpret the scene as Roy wanting his friend back so much, that he is not willing to talk about the possibility of it not being the Durkon he knew. This is not a character flaw in Roy. Likewise i interpret Belkars wish to stab the undead and "mockery of all we hold dear" statement as him trying to alert the others to that possibility. This change in the old sociopath is fueled by his newfound caring for Mr. Scruffy and the jarring experience for him it was when Durkon sacrificed himself for him.
As i said in my first post to you, the reasons why they act like they do, is all up for interpretation, and i chose to go the optimistic way concerning Belkar, and the pessmistic way concerning Durkon!
I completely agree that this is not a solid proof or the only possible interpretation, but as we have no way yet of knowing much about either Belkars newfound conscience or what Durkon as a vampire will be like, all we can do is speculate and interpret the story so far as we see it.

So we are not really that far from each other after all! you have just interpreted the scene optimistically about Durkon, and pessimistically about Belkar, and i did it the other way around!

Given the circumstances, "accepting any help we can get" is a perfectly legitimate reason not to ponder the moral implications of accepting someone who may or may not be evil but has otherwise expressed the same goals into the party. Since then, Durkon has never been intentionally malevolent to the party in any way.

[wolfdreams01]

Belkar likes Durkon and considers him a friend. Maybe he didn't before, but after his life was saved, he boarded the Durkon appreciation train.

This thing in front of him? That's either not Durkon, or it's Durkon whose alignment has changed. In other words, it's like he's being mind-controlled - maybe not by Malack, but by evil itself.

Belkar is quite an intelligent little sociopath, but he's not what you might call a DEEP thinker (his Wisdom score is compared to that of a lemming, though he may have improved it slightly since then, due to both levelling and character growth). Either Durkula is not Durkon, or Durkula is the mind-controlled version of Durkon. And either one of these situations can be fixed with some stabbing and a Resurrection spell, so why wait? Belkar is GOOD at stabbing, and surely Haley can cast Resurrection from a scroll with her Use Magic Device skill.

In other words, we have one of the few problems that Belkar knows how to solve - stabbing is his SPECIALTY, in fact - and yet Roy won't let him, because of his inexplicable emotional attachment to this... thing... that took Durkon's place.

None of this indicates that Belkar's interpretation is ACCURATE; I simply think that this is how he perceives it.

[Forikroder]

lol people think Durkula isnt Durkon, that went RIGHT out the window when he said "right as Thor's rain"

for the first time in Belkars life, someone died to save him and seeing Durkula keeps reminding Belkar that Durkon is dead and he doesnt feel like the scales will be balanced until he brings Durkon back to life

[Keltest]

lol people think Durkula isnt Durkon, that went RIGHT out the window when he said "right as Thor's rain"

The fact that he still swears by the northern gods doesn't necessarily mean that hes perfectly normal, although it is a good indication that its still (at least mostly) him, rather than like a demon possessing him or something.

[pacovf]

I also remember a number of debates about it. Overall, though, as some people have pointed out in arguments over whether Durkon is still Durkon, there's no character development if there's no character.

Also, you're proposing that Durkon has been replaced by Something Else that...hates the Linear Guild and wants to help the Order? Again, Durkon saved the Order from being wiped out immediately after regaining (or gaining, in the this-is-a-new-entity paradigm) his free will. Nale clearly believed that Durkon was gone and a malevolent force that had no reason to care about Durkon's loyalties (except perhaps to push against them) was there. That belief cost him everything.

Hum, I am not sure if your first argument is as strong as you think... Durkula is a character, whether or not he is Durkon or not, and an interesting one for that matter. And I do not see why Durkon HAS to have character development, he could have died before getting the chance.

About the second thing, how would you expect a being that shares Durkon's memories and knows that the fate of the World is at stake to act? Allying with the demonstrably incompetent secondary villain? Let the only people that have shown some proficiency (and willingless) in the whole "stopping the undead sorceror" business be killed? There were other ways to act, but this one makes perfect sense. Memories are a big part of who we are, afterall (also explains the whole swearing by the northern gods).

I do not know if Durkon = Durkula or not, because IMHO we haven't seen enough of Durkula yet to know. My point is that both could still be possible, and in both cases whether or not Durkon should be resurrected is a complicated question (that Roy is not adressing, BTW; he has only argued that killing Durkula right now is not the best thing to do).

[Forikroder]

The fact that he still swears by the northern gods doesn't necessarily mean that hes perfectly normal, although it is a good indication that its still (at least mostly) him, rather than like a demon possessing him or something.

hes still Durkon hes just a more ruthless durkon

[Kish]

Hum, I am not sure if your first argument is as strong as you think... Durkula is a character, whether or not he is Durkon or not, and an interesting one for that matter.

So...you're arguing that maybe Durkon is dead and gone and has been replaced by an interesting, multidimensional vampire who is going to have character development, not be a pure adversary to the party once it becomes clear he's not Durkon? I believe that's one I haven't seen before. ("Durkon is gone" has to date always gone along with, "So Roy should yell 'VAMPIRE!' and draw his greatsword, and if he doesn't understand this he needs to spring for one of Professor Redcloak's lectures on the nature of undeath," in my observation.)

[King of Nowhere]

belkar clearly assumes the worst: that durkula is now devoted only to destruction of every living being.
As readers, we have no way for now of ascertaining if he's right or not.

Furthermore, killing durkon to resurrect him is not a good idea imo. the world is in danger, and durkon just got a massive power boost. giving it up and draining him of a level just before fighting xykon don't seem a great idea. Also, they have no guarantee to find a cleric high enough level to bring durkon back.

[Porthos]

Personally, I think it isn't much more than the fact that getting drained by Durkon was freakin' traumatic.

And the Belkster doesn't deal with trauma very well. Well, trauma visited upon him, at least. :smallamused:

Maybe the other points raised in this thread are playing a partial role. Belkar is becoming slightly more complex. Slightly. :smalltongue:

But in the end, I think it's the blood draining and the sense of helplessness that followed in a series of major battles that has Belkar's goat. Well that and the fact that Belkar has always been a Cut to the Chase kinda guy. With him doing the cutting, preferably. :smalltongue:

[pacovf]

So...you're arguing that maybe Durkon is dead and gone and has been replaced by an interesting, multidimensional vampire who is going to have character development, not be a pure adversary to the party once it becomes clear he's not Durkon? I believe that's one I haven't seen before. ("Durkon is gone" has to date always gone along with, "So Roy should yell 'VAMPIRE!' and draw his greatsword, and if he doesn't understand this he needs to spring for one of Professor Redcloak's lectures on the nature of undeath," in my observation.)

Sure, that's definitely a possibility. Although in that interpretation, things would probably go south when Roy kindly asks Durkula to stake himself so that they may resurrect Durkon. Doesn't mean that Durkula would then proceed to attack the group, but he would definitely leave them.

It's a difficult situation. Roy ("the least I can do for a friend in need"), Haley and Elan all seem to believe that Durkon = Durkula, Belkar believes the opposite. We don't know what Durkula thinks, though.

And in any interpretation of what Durkula is, Roy yelling "VAMPIRE" and slashing doesn't seem like the way to go, since even if Durkula is not Durkon, that doesn't mean that Durkula should be killed so that Durkon may be resurrected... which Roy is kinda assuming anyway, so there's that I guess.

[The Pilgrim]

My bet is:

:belkar: "So, I'm evil and everybody depises me, Roy treats me as an untrustworthy party memeber and won't get off my back. But Durkon can be a freakin' evil vampire and everyone is OK with it."

Basically, the existence of Durkula reminds Belkar every minute that his problem is not just that he is evil. His problem is, simply, that he doesn't fits.

No wonder Belkar is angry.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Because Belkar is the only one who understands that Durkula isn't Durkon.

At best, being a vampire is no different than if someone had held Durkon down and cast Dominate Person on him and then made him do a bunch of stuff that Durkon would never have done of his own free will.

At worst, Durkon's soul is held prisoner inside a corpse while some evil entity runs amok with his body.

[Keltest]

Because Belkar is the only one who understands that Durkula isn't Durkon.

At best, being a vampire is no different than if someone had held Durkon down and cast Dominate Person on him and then made him do a bunch of stuff that Durkon would never have done of his own free will.

At worst, Durkon's soul is held prisoner inside a corpse while some evil entity runs amok with his body.

That's just it, we don't actually know that. We haven't seen enough of Durkula to know if hes even real (as in not just Durkon in black armor).

[SavageWombat]

I agree with SavageWombat, too.


Yay! I'm a consensus builder!

My first instinct is that yes, this is Durkon, an altered Durkon. However, I think having someone like Roy's Archon run into Durkon's soul in the afterlife would be an interesting twist.

I honestly expect that in some future strip, Rich will find a reason to clarify Durkon's status (personality-wise) as a plot point. Maybe just a "boy, it's harder to control vampiric urges than the Monster Manual suggests, isn't it?"

[Deathmachine]

Because Belkar is the only one who understands that Durkula isn't Durkon.

At best, being a vampire is no different than if someone had held Durkon down and cast Dominate Person on him and then made him do a bunch of stuff that Durkon would never have done of his own free will.

At worst, Durkon's soul is held prisoner inside a corpse while some evil entity runs amok with his body.

He has the same memories as Durkon
He talks like Durkon
He acts like Durkon when it comes to his friends
He has the same loyalities as Durkon

How can you seriously say that he isn't Durkon, but some random evil entity?

[busterswd]

Personally, I think it isn't much more than the fact that getting drained by Durkon was freakin' traumatic.

And the Belkster doesn't deal with trauma very well. Well, trauma visited upon him, at least. :smallamused:

Maybe the other points raised in this thread are playing a partial role. Belkar is becoming slightly more complex. Slightly. :smalltongue:

But in the end, I think it's the blood draining and the sense of helplessness that followed in a series of major battles that has Belkar's goat. Well that and the fact that Belkar has always been a Cut to the Chase kinda guy. With him doing the cutting, preferably. :smalltongue:

I think there's way more truth to this than people are paying attention to. If you cut your finger off with a particular kitchen knife, you're going to have some very uncomfortable memories associated with that knife. Now, imagine your roommates insist on preparing all sorts of dishes with said knife right in front of you while talking about how much they enjoy that knife.

Yeah, I'd probably get freaked out by Durkula too if I were Belkar.

[JSSheridan]

Maybe vampires smell funky.

[Clistenes]

Actually, I've been meaning to say: I don't. Durkula has Durkon's body, soul, goals, and most of his morality. This is no more of a change than if he got an illness that makes his skin gray. The difference is so faint that they keep forgetting the right terms to use, as Roy did here in 939.

What IS the difference between life and undeath?

It depends if you consider an undead the same creature as the living being it used to be, or merely an evil force animating its corpse.

The rulebooks tend to contradict each other: 1.-The soul of the deceased person is in the afterlife; 2.-the soul is trapped into the undead body and used as a source of knowledge and magical fuel, but it has no control over said body, that is controlled by an evil intelligence; 3.-the undead is the same as the living being before, but it has suffered a magical change of alignment, like a character who dons a Helm of Opposite Alignment.

To makes things worse, The Giant don't always follow those theories/rules, and the characters themselves seem to know very little about sentient undead. The only information we really have is:

-Redcloak, one of the people who knows more about undead in the world, if not the most, consider them not real people with real feelings, but evil flesh robots fueled by negative energy.
-Malack considered himself different from the living being he used to be.
-Malack apparently would reset to the being he was just before dying if resurrected, losing memories and levels gained while being a vampire.
-Malack tried to avoid killing Durkon and felt sad when forced to do so. He apparently considered it a murder, not a change in Type/Alignment/Race, so he probably saw Durkon and Durkula as two similar creatures, not the same one.
-Durkon acknowledges that he's evil, and has no problem with being an undead, which points to great changes in his personality.

I think that Belkar, who heard Malack's and Durkon's exchange, and saw both Durkon's tragic death and Durkula at his worst and most vampiric self, sees Durkula as a new, different creature, a creature that has to be killed to bring back one of his few friends. Also, even if Belkar is slowly changing alignment, he's still a murdering little psycho, and violence and murder come easy as solutions to his problems.

The others are Good, and don't want to even consider the fact that they may have to kill this friendly, nice new Durkon to bring back the old Durkon. If they consider both to be the same, they can avoid that moral dilemma. If they consider them to be two different creatures, they have to chose to either murder an ally on cold blood or to let the sould of Durkon trapped within the carcass of one of the abominations he loathes.
They wish Durkon and Durkula to be the same to avoid that.

As for V, his old self would probably kill Durkula without a doubt and then resurrect Durkon, but the new V will probably hesitate.

[Koo Rehtorb]

He talks like Durkon
He acts like Durkon when it comes to his friends
He has the same loyalities as Durkon

How can you seriously say that he isn't Durkon, but some random evil entity?

1) Because it's reasonably consistent vampire lore among multiple different settings. They'll usually get the memories and even some of the personality, but they're different beings. Or warped versions, at the very least.

2) Because it would be a pretty terrible storytelling device if this plot ended up being. "Okay Durkon has +8 ECL now. Business as usual." This is going to play a huge part of the story arc for the next book, but there's no need to complicate the end of this book with it.

3) Because Durkula has already done things that Durkon wouldn't be cool with. Not to mention the fact that he drops the Durkon accent in moments of stress.

4) Because it is perfectly reasonable for him to maintain the same alliances anyway, at least for the moment. In a choice between being in a party with friends, in a party with notable backstabbing loser Nale, or being stranded alone in the middle of a desert, playing nice is smart.

[Komatik]

I think this is a perfectly accurate description of the situation.

The way I see it, there are two different possibilities, and different ways to react to each one:

-Durkula is the same person as Durkon, only experiencing massive physiological changes that cause him to act differently. Then killing Durkula to resurrect him later is not wrong per se, although killing him a long time before the resurrection is probably kinda dickish. But then, should the physiological changes be undone? We could take a parallelism with real life: sometime is involved in an accident, suffers massive brain injuries, but survives with a significantly altered personality. If the possibility to "repair" the damage is open to him/her, should s/he accept it? What should influence the decision.

-Durkula is a different person than Durkon, but shares his body and memories. [Follows in next post]

He was also Helm of Opposite Aligment'd to Lawful Evil by the vampirization process. This is why he felt like killing Z. Do note that Durkon's general outlook has changed, if subtly, and likely would stay how it is if he was resurrected. Just as if he adopted a different philosophy on life, which in many ways can leave one a completely different person.



I think we're going to see very soon that this isn't Durkon, not because his alignment changed but because he is literally animated by pure evil. Bones and flesh glued together by dark magic in the shape of their friend. Belkar's advantage, for once, is his cavalier attitude toward death - he doesn't seem to mourn like a person with feelings, so there's no impetus to deny what happened and insist that it's actually Durkon there. Plus he has no compunction about stabbing something that looks, acts and talks like his friend, because, well, he's a horrid little sociopath who has no compunction about stabbing his friends.

He's animated by negative energy, which is not pure evil, just a different form of cosmic juice that living creatures run on. It's not healthy to living beings, but it's more in the vein of a pool of acid than a murdered on a spree.


hes still Durkon hes just a more ruthless durkon

This. Evil doesn't mean omnicidal lunatic, it can just mean selfish and not prone to caring about strangers. Now, it CAN mean sociopathy or willigness to do horrible things for a quite good cause, but even if the alignments are boxes, those boxes are really goddamn huge.


I think there's way more truth to this than people are paying attention to. If you cut your finger off with a particular kitchen knife, you're going to have some very uncomfortable memories associated with that knife. Now, imagine your roommates insist on preparing all sorts of dishes with said knife right in front of you while talking about how much they enjoy that knife.

Yeah, I'd probably get freaked out by Durkula too if I were Belkar.

Spot on, spot on, spot on.

[Deathmachine]

1) Because it's reasonably consistent vampire lore among multiple different settings. They'll usually get the memories and even some of the personality, but they're different beings. Or warped versions, at the very least.

2) Because it would be a pretty terrible storytelling device if this plot ended up being. "Okay Durkon has +8 ECL now. Business as usual." This is going to play a huge part of the story arc for the next book, but there's no need to complicate the end of this book with it.

3) Because Durkula has already done things that Durkon wouldn't be cool with. Not to mention the fact that he drops the Durkon accent in moments of stress.

4) Because it is perfectly reasonable for him to maintain the same alliances anyway, at least for the moment. In a choice between being in a party with friends, in a party with notable backstabbing loser Nale, or being stranded alone in the middle of a desert, playing nice is smart.

All that you describe is that he CHANGED when turned into a vampire. I completely agree with that.
My problem is with people saying "That's not Durkon, his soul has gone, it's something completely different than Durkon, but just like him."

I would object to 4) though - he is (or should be) still lawful, and I can't see how he could lie all the time.

Yes, of course he has changed - he's far more ruthless to his enemies, has some more powers and weaknesses and looks funny, just to name some of the changes.
But he is still Durkon and not "Durkons body moved by some negative energy".
That's what I'm getting at.


Oh, and not to derail this thread completely my guess why Belkar is so freaked out:

A) The kitchen knife analogy, couldn't say it any better
B) His character development - he actually started to care for other living beings, especially after
C) "old" Durkon saved his life and got "straight up murdered for it". "Old" Belker would probably not care, but the new and improved one has learned quite a bit about friendship and loyality.

[oppyu]

lol people think Durkula isnt Durkon, that went RIGHT out the window when he said "right as Thor's rain"

for the first time in Belkars life, someone died to save him and seeing Durkula keeps reminding Belkar that Durkon is dead and he doesnt feel like the scales will be balanced until he brings Durkon back to life
Just because a magical parasite hijacked Durkon's corpse and stole that expression from Durkon's brain, it does not make the magical parasite Durkon. It can walk, talk, and act like it has a soul, but it's still a construct born of evil magic masquerading as the dwarf we knew and loved.

[Kish]

Just because a magical parasite hijacked Durkon's corpse and stole that expression from Durkon's brain, it does not make the magical parasite Durkon. It can walk, talk, and act like it has a soul, but it's still a construct born of evil magic masquerading as the dwarf we knew and loved.
A construct born of evil magic who views the Order as allies and the Linear Guild as enemies?

[Loreweaver15]

Personally, I think it isn't much more than the fact that getting drained by Durkon was freakin' traumatic.

And the Belkster doesn't deal with trauma very well. Well, trauma visited upon him, at least. :smallamused:

Maybe the other points raised in this thread are playing a partial role. Belkar is becoming slightly more complex. Slightly. :smalltongue:

But in the end, I think it's the blood draining and the sense of helplessness that followed in a series of major battles that has Belkar's goat. Well that and the fact that Belkar has always been a Cut to the Chase kinda guy. With him doing the cutting, preferably. :smalltongue:


It depends if you consider an undead the same creature as the living being it used to be, or merely an evil force animating its corpse.

The rulebooks tend to contradict each other: 1.-The soul of the deceased person is in the afterlife; 2.-the soul is trapped into the undead body and used as a source of knowledge and magical fuel, but it has no control over said body, that is controlled by an evil intelligence; 3.-the undead is the same as the living being before, but it has suffered a magical change of alignment, like a character who dons a Helm of Opposite Alignment.

To makes things worse, The Giant don't always follow those theories/rules, and the characters themselves seem to know very little about sentient undead. The only information we really have is:

-Redcloak, one of the people who knows more about undead in the world, if not the most, consider them not real people with real feelings, but evil flesh robots fueled by negative energy.
-Malack considered himself different from the living being he used to be.
-Malack apparently would reset to the being he was just before dying if resurrected, losing memories and levels gained while being a vampire.
-Malack tried to avoid killing Durkon and felt sad when forced to do so. He apparently considered it a murder, not a change in Type/Alignment/Race, so he probably saw Durkon and Durkula as two similar creatures, not the same one.
-Durkon acknowledges that he's evil, and has no problem with being an undead, which points to great changes in his personality.

I think that Belkar, who heard Malack's and Durkon's exchange, and saw both Durkon's tragic death and Durkula at his worst and most vampiric self, sees Durkula as a new, different creature, a creature that has to be killed to bring back one of his few friends. Also, even if Belkar is slowly changing alignment, he's still a murdering little psycho, and violence and murder come easy as solutions to his problems.

The others are Good, and don't want to even consider the fact that they may have to kill this friendly, nice new Durkon to bring back the old Durkon. If they consider both to be the same, they can avoid that moral dilemma. If they consider them to be two different creatures, they have to chose to either murder an ally on cold blood or to let the sould of Durkon trapped within the carcass of one of the abominations he loathes.
They wish Durkon and Durkula to be the same to avoid that.

As for V, his old self would probably kill Durkula without a doubt and then resurrect Durkon, but the new V will probably hesitate.

To those wondering why people are so quick to assume that it's not Durkon: Malack said a few things about vampirism that set off people's Buffyverse detectors, and in that canon it's a demon with your memories using your body to wander around and murder things. The pretense that they were you, just evil, is exactly that--a pretense.

Also, I'd like to bring this back, because everybody's having unconfirmable discussions about Durkula, when the really interesting part of all this is Belkar:


Belkar is so mad about Durkula because Belkar's character growth is really hitting its stride.

There is nothing more infectious, more virulently corrupting, than Good, even the small sorts of "kindness" and "consideration" that somebody pretending to have empathy would demonstrate. The point-slash-result of Belkar's faked character development was that he began to experience real character development--he learned how to value other living beings for more than their entertainment value. He genuinely cares about Mr. Scruffy. He went out of his way to help two people who dicked him over and massively inconvenienced them, because he felt sorry for them. He's even said--straight-out--that he Gets It (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0869.html). Belkar has, against his will, learned to care, and whether Durkon was on his short list of 'other beings I genuinely value' before saving Belkar's life, he sure as hell was near the top of it afterwards, and it shocked Belkar, not just that it had happened, but that it happened to protect him.

He doesn't really think he was worth the sacrifice (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html).

And now, on top of all this introspection and brand-new self-doubt, on top of this person who saved his life walking around as a very dangerous puppeteered mockery of everything that person held dear (whether we believe it or not doesn't change that Belkar believes it), the other people who have more reason than anyone else in the world to respect Durkon are refusing to.

Belkar has a history of becoming violently murderous when anybody he values as an individual (himself, for most of the comic's run, and then later Mr. Scruffy) is even slightly threatened or even just disrespected. Now that Durkon has made that list, I'm not at all surprised that Belkar is so proactively advocating staking Durkula now rather than later.

None of this precludes Belkar from remaining Chaotic Evil, incidentally--it just means that he's learned how to have friends.

EDIT:

A construct born of evil magic who views the Order as allies and the Linear Guild as enemies?

If you liked continuing to exist, you would, too.

[Koo Rehtorb]

All that you describe is that he CHANGED when turned into a vampire. I completely agree with that.
My problem is with people saying "That's not Durkon, his soul has gone, it's something completely different than Durkon, but just like him."

Well, like I said, I described a range of options. "It's Durkon, only under the influence of a magical compulsion to do evil." is pretty much as unacceptable as him not actually being Durkon at all.

If your party member gets forced to put a helm of Opposite Alignment on it's not disrespectful to them to find a way to reverse it, even against their new alignment's current wishes.


I would object to 4) though - he is (or should be) still lawful, and I can't see how he could lie all the time.

Tarquin lies all the time. He just lies through omission or implication instead of flat out saying untrue things.

But sure I grant it's easily possible that Durkula is perfectly fine with working with the Order to stop the end of the world, or might even be fond of them. But I fully expect, in the long run, that he's going to be incompatible with them in his present state, whether or not he currently realizes it.


"Durkons body moved by some negative energy".
That's what I'm getting at.

Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't really matter. To Belkar he's not the same being, and that's sufficient motivation for him. And frankly, it should be sufficient motivation for any of his friends to make killing Durkula and getting Durkon back a large priority.

[oppyu]

A construct born of evil magic who views the Order as allies and the Linear Guild as enemies?
It still has Durkon's memories after all. It's still a sentient construct like Xykon and Malack.

[Scow2]

Durkon never killed anyone while dwarf. 2nd strip as a vampire he is killing someone who is incapacitated.
Durkon changed..Durkon has killed plenty of others before.

So far, he still seems to be Durkon, now that he's freed from Malack - Accent's back, mannerisms are back, he's had a perspective change... but he still venerates Thor (Though he doesn't get his spells from Thor anymore), and still, well, is Durkon.

No, Durkon may not have wanted to come back as a vampire - but then again, since when the hell has Durkon ever cared about what Durkon wanted?
:durkon: I stay here because it's my duty, and bein' a Dwarf is all about doin' yer duty, even if it makes ye miserable... ESPECIALLY if it makes ye miserable

Right now, Durkon's duty is to save the world from the Snarl and stop Xykon. He would have been happy dying fullfilling that duty - but if it makes him miserable by being forced to be a vampire for the remainder of the trip, so be it.

If Durkon were 'faking' being Durkon around the party, he'd have still been talking like Malack's Thrall when defeating Nale and Zz'dtri.

There's no sign of a greater change in identity than anyone else who's had an unwanted Alignment change, aside from a few new extra 'special needs' as an Undead.

[Deathmachine]

"It's Durkon, only under the influence of a magical compulsion to do evil." is pretty much as unacceptable as him not actually being Durkon at all.

So far, we only have seen him to be more ruthless to his enemies and frankly, I fail to see why that is "unacceptable" - you can do that pretty easy if you put people under special drugs or hell, if they are under heavy stress or adrenaline.



It still has Durkon's memories after all. It's still a sentient construct like Xykon and Malack.

Why do people think that?
The only thing that I can think of is Redcloads rant about undead and frankly, I still think that he said all that because a) he wanted to torment Tsukiko and b) he lies to himself because that way he thinks he is still in control.

[Loreweaver15]

"Durkon is on magical evil heroin" seems like it's still an unacceptable state of affairs, to me.

[Onyavar]

Maybe vampires smell funky.

Okay, I'm swordsage'd, but the theory above isn't very elaborate yet.

So I'm adding to the "Belkar dislikes vampire smell" theory:
- Belkar has a very fine nose. He smelled the Draketooth mummies, he smelled Nale disguised as Elan.
- He has strong instincts and relies on them. Again, I'm pointing at Nales disguise in the 0380ies. Belkar completely relied on his keen nose and didn't hesitate to attack Nale. I'm sure this is a "keen halfling sense" moment again.

The way Roy, Elan and Haley are now caring for Durkon makes me queasy myself. Durkon has a better Charisma modifier now and I suspect that he knowingly hides his dramatic changes, playing the LG vampire. He mentioned Thor, for example, but until seen in comic otherwise, I don't think Thor is his deity anymore.
I'm not saying that Durkon will turn traitor or team with Team Evil once they meet. I think Durkon honestly believes in saving the world and still values his friendship with Roy and the others. At the same time, I can't help but feel he isn't honest about things either. His entire being feels forced.

Roy is overly pragmatic here, he based his rebuttal of Belkar on his old friendship with Durkon. His decision will come back to bite him (literally) later, once he finds out that Durkon has ulterior motives. The order has always used Belkar, controlling him with mixed success. With Durkon, I don't see that. Durkon will let them "control" him, but controlling them back as well.

In short, I'm pretty sure that Belkar is right here - morally, but also in a long term practical sense. As of this comic, Roy could prevent the Doom of the Dwarven lands, and probably other atrocities of the future as well.
Of course, Belkar's Belkar. This is the old story of the halfling who cried wolf to often; Roy didn't even believe the original news about Durkons turning undead. The party will ignore him until it's too late. It sucks to be a known psychopath, doesn't it?

[Deathmachine]

"Durkon is on magical evil heroin" seems like it's still an unacceptable state of affairs, to me.

While I accept your opinion (it's yours, after all) I still don't get the reasoning behind it.
"Redcloak said it once" and "thats how Buffy does it" seems a bit of a stretch to me...

[Loreweaver15]

While I accept your opinion (it's yours, after all) I still don't get the reasoning behind it.
"Redcloak said it once" and "thats how Buffy does it" seems a bit of a stretch to me...

I wasn't quoting Redcloak.


you can do that pretty easy if you put people under special drugs or hell, if they are under heavy stress or adrenaline.


I was quoting you.

[SiuiS]

Durkon never killed anyone while dwarf. 2nd strip as a vampire he is killing someone who is incapacitated.
Durkon changed..

Well yeah. He /is/ evil, after all. Evil Durkon.

[Deathmachine]

I wasn't quoting Redcloak.


I was quoting you.


Sorry if that came out wrong - I meant not only your thoughts about this matter, but also those of the other people sticking to that theory.

[Komatik]

Okay, I'm swordsage'd, but the theory above isn't very elaborate yet.

So I'm adding to the "Belkar dislikes vampire smell" theory:
- Belkar has a very fine nose. He smelled the Draketooth mummies, he smelled Nale disguised as Elan.
- He has strong instincts and relies on them. Again, I'm pointing at Nales disguise in the 0380ies. Belkar completely relied on his keen nose and didn't hesitate to attack Nale. I'm sure this is a "keen halfling sense" moment again.

The way Roy, Elan and Haley are now caring for Durkon makes me queasy myself. Durkon has a better Charisma modifier now and I suspect that he knowingly hides his dramatic changes, playing the LG vampire. He mentioned Thor, for example, but until seen in comic otherwise, I don't think Thor is his deity anymore.
I'm not saying that Durkon will turn traitor or team with Team Evil once they meet. I think Durkon honestly believes in saving the world and still values his friendship with Roy and the others. At the same time, I can't help but feel he isn't honest about things either. His entire being feels forced.

Roy is overly pragmatic here, he based his rebuttal of Belkar on his old friendship with Durkon. His decision will come back to bite him (literally) later, once he finds out that Durkon has ulterior motives. The order has always used Belkar, controlling him with mixed success. With Durkon, I don't see that. Durkon will let them "control" him, but controlling them back as well.

In short, I'm pretty sure that Belkar is right here - morally, but also in a long term practical sense. As of this comic, Roy could prevent the Doom of the Dwarven lands, and probably other atrocities of the future as well.
Of course, Belkar's Belkar. This is the old story of the halfling who cried wolf to often; Roy didn't even believe the original news about Durkons turning undead. The party will ignore him until it's too late. It sucks to be a known psychopath, doesn't it?

Durkon isn't playing the LG vampire. He's being himself. Say I become acquainted and adopt a new philosophy and outlook on life. That doesn't change everything about me. It's a thoroughly different outlook than I have now, yes. But I'm still the same person, and how I act especially with regard to topics where this new outlook isn't relevant, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Durkon is Evil now, certainly. But omnicidal Evil or conquer-allish mastermind type behavior are not the only kinds of Evil in existence. Simply being selfish and not really caring about others without being given a self-interested reason to. Being more likely to just kill people who are obstacles and not just evildoers. Maybe taking pleasure in that violence. That's all that's needed for the Evil tag. And the Vampire template says Always Evil. Not Always Omnicidal Maniac or something. Just Evil, and that box is veeeerrrryyyy big.

[multilis]

The vamped Malack saw himself different than the living one, strongly did not want to go back to being "alive".

http://www.goblinscomic.org/01162014/ "GIVE ME MY STAFF" - no accent.

I agree that vamped Durkon using his high charisma may be putting on an act in appearing to be old Durkon, Belkar due to his instincts, own evil streak, own "put on an act as team player" plan, nose, etc may be more suspicious than the rest of party.

"Durkula" may help OOTS when it also helps him, but in long term given a choice between "saving the world" and making his own play for "ultimate (evil) power" may go for power... even now the gates may seem as a possible means to an end there.

[Michaeler]

I would argue that Belkar is doing what Durkon would have wanted him to do, because, yes, survivor's guilt. Malack considered resurrection to be akin to killing the person he had become, Durkon wouldn't want to grow as a vampire to the point that resurrection was a retrograde step.

A question for anyone who would answer it: What will Durkon think when he learns that the order chose to accept a vampire into their ranks because resurrecting him was too fiddly?

[oppyu]

Why do people think that?
The only thing that I can think of is Redcloads rant about undead and frankly, I still think that he said all that because a) he wanted to torment Tsukiko and b) he lies to himself because that way he thinks he is still in control.
Why do people think that it's still Durkon? Durkon literally had to die before a Durkon-shaped undead could be created. How do people read that and go 'Well it's clearly Durkon with a helmet of alignment change and dietary restrictions. Nothing else weird going on there.'

[Rorrik]

Maybe vampires smell funky.

Or Belkar trusts Scruffy as much as his nose. The cat doesn't seem to like Durkula much either. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html) Belkar seems to have the same animal-like sense that something is wrong.

[Snails]

Why do people think that?
The only thing that I can think of is Redcloads rant about undead and frankly, I still think that he said all that because a) he wanted to torment Tsukiko and b) he lies to himself because that way he thinks he is still in control.

I agree with a & b, but that does not mean Redcloak is wrong.

Keep in mind that all Undead can be outright controlled by any evil cleric of sufficient level. Even Xykon is potentially vulnerable to being used like a puppet -- as a practical matter a cleric needs to be at least the same level as Xykon to have a chance of succeeding, and no such cleric is available.

Negative energy seethes through Undead in a manner that is very unlike how blood or positive energy seethes through living creatures. Mechanically speaking, if the ability to manipulated negative energy through a rebuke allows outright control of undead, then undead are implicitly outright controlled by the negative energy.

Thus there is "scientific" evidence within the rules of the OotSverse that imply undead are more crude and more mechanistic than normal living creatures. One might reasonably argue that view is incomplete, but there is undeniable evidence there is some truth to what RC says.

[Seto]

Perhaps someone has already formulated that theory, but what if Durkula were to kill Belkar ?

It would give Belkar's death (which is due) a very dramatic turn, give Roy something to brood about (damn, he was right all along, and now he's dead because of me), and make the Durkula plot very urgent and interesting.

For some reason, it seems dramatically appropriate to have Belkar killed because of party members not listening to him in the only instance where he's right. Karma, Tragic irony, and all that.

[Deathmachine]

Keep in mind that all Undead can be outright controlled by any evil cleric of sufficient level. Even Xykon is potentially vulnerable to being used like a puppet -- as a practical matter a cleric needs to be at least the same level as Xykon to have a chance of succeeding, and no such cleric is available.


I don't see the difference to a Dominate Person spell here, besides some rule adjustments. You can control humans, animals and monsters through spells, and it's just the same for undead - only that it takes a special class to do that.



Why do people think that it's still Durkon? Durkon literally had to die before a Durkon-shaped undead could be created. How do people read that and go 'Well it's clearly Durkon with a helmet of alignment change and dietary restrictions. Nothing else weird going on there.'

New theory:
Roy is not Roy, he is a Flesh Golem with the same memories, loyalities and personality as old Roy. But he died so a Roy-shaped Flesh Golem could be created by Durkon. How do people read that and go "Well it's clearly Roy with a negative level and a new body."

That's about as credible as "It's not Durkon, even though it's quite the same person with only some changes".

Noone says it's only a bit alignment and dietary that has changed for him - there will be many more occasions where his new form will show itself in contrast to old Durkon, but he is still Durkon, and not "Durkons body with some glue and everything that made him Durkon, but not Durkon at all".

[WindStruck]

I think Belkar is mad because he's petty and vengeful, and frankly rather racist and not smart. And evil and selfish still.


The huge factor motivating Belkar, I believe, is that he assumes Durkon is evil simply because he transformed into a vampire. Here is poor Belkar trying so hard to act good and still being treated with more or less the same amount of trust and respect because - let's face it - they see through it. Then evil Durkula comes along, and his party members are practically fawning all over him. Why?!

Basically, he's frustrated that "evil Durkon" is being treated nicely while he still isn't. Plus, he drained his blood. Also, he wants his precious chunks of XP.

[Loreweaver15]

I think Belkar is mad because he's petty and vengeful, and frankly rather racist and not smart. And evil and selfish still.


The huge factor motivating Belkar, I believe, is that he assumes Durkon is evil simply because he transformed into a vampire. Here is poor Belkar trying so hard to act good and still being treated with more or less the same amount of trust and respect because - let's face it - they see through it. Then evil Durkula comes along, and his party members are practically fawning all over him. Why?!

Basically, he's frustrated that "evil Durkon" is being treated nicely while he still isn't. Plus, he drained his blood. Also, he wants his precious chunks of XP.

The problem with this is that we've had a hundreds-of-comics-long arc of Belkar gaining actual character development while he was faking character development. Thinking that the classical reasons for Belkar to do any of these things are all there is to it is missing the nuance of his story arc, I think.

[WindStruck]

The problem with this is that we've had a hundreds-of-comics-long arc of Belkar gaining actual character development while he was faking character development. Thinking that the classical reasons for Belkar to do any of these things are all there is to it is missing the nuance of his story arc, I think.

Not really. He's gone from a completely heartless monster to merely an evil douchebag. It's an improvement, but my argument still stands, nonetheless. After all his "effort" and "improvement" (in quotes because the amount is vastly more in his mind) he is frustrated that Durkon is getting coddled, while he still isn't shown nearly as much love. His primary motives for being jealous of Durkon are still entirely self centered.

[Loreweaver15]

Not really. He's gone from a completely heartless monster to merely an evil douchebag. It's an improvement, but my argument still stands, nonetheless. After all his "effort" and "improvement" (in quotes because the amount is vastly more in his mind) he is frustrated that Durkon is getting coddled, while he still isn't shown nearly as much love.

My contention is that you're ignoring all of the actual character development in order to pin on him the motivations of Past Belkar.

[Deathmachine]

The problem with this is that we've had a hundreds-of-comics-long arc of Belkar gaining actual character development while he was faking character development.

Lets move this all over HERE (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16813155&posted=1) so this thread can get back on topic, shall we?

[Snails]

I don't see the difference to a Dominate Person spell here, besides some rule adjustments. You can control humans, animals and monsters through spells, and it's just the same for undead - only that it takes a special class to do that.

A Dominate or similar spell has a Save, has a finite duration, can be detected as ongoing magic, can be dispelled by generic dispel magic, may offer additional Saves to the victim based on nature of actions ordered, may be blocked by low level spells. The spell Dominate is available at 9th level.

A Rebuke has no Save, has infinite duration, is not detectable, cannot be dispelled by any known form of magic (but can replaced by another controller or released by the controller), the victim can be ordered to do absolutely anything as if the undead were a puppet, influence cannot be blocked by magic. Rebuke is available at 1st level.

Besides Rebuke being more powerful and available at 1st level, while Dominate is less powerful and easy to stop and available at 9th level, you are totally right -- they are exactly the same kind of thing.

[mightycleric]

I don't see the difference to a Dominate Person spell here, besides some rule adjustments. You can control humans, animals and monsters through spells, and it's just the same for undead - only that it takes a special class to do that.




New theory:
Roy is not Roy, he is a Flesh Golem with the same memories, loyalities and personality as old Roy. But he died so a Roy-shaped Flesh Golem could be created by Durkon. How do people read that and go "Well it's clearly Roy with a negative level and a new body."

That's about as credible as "It's not Durkon, even though it's quite the same person with only some changes".

Noone says it's only a bit alignment and dietary that has changed for him - there will be many more occasions where his new form will show itself in contrast to old Durkon, but he is still Durkon, and not "Durkons body with some glue and everything that made him Durkon, but not Durkon at all".

Well, Malack certainly disagrees with your assessment. He was very clear that he was not the same person, and that the person he was had died, and he would never want to revisit that person. Being that he would seem to be the most authoritative person on the subject of vampires that we've seen, I don't currently see a reason to completely throw out his stance on vampirism.

A lot of people have mentioned Durkon using the expression "Thor's rain" to show that he is Durkon, but that might very well not be the case. Before, Durkon swore on Thor because Thor was his patron diety, but Durkon can't still have Thor as a patron diety, because he is too far removed, in terms of alignment.* To invoke the name of a deity he no longer serves to prove he is the same could easily be using his new +8 Bluff skills on a party with very few ranks in Sense Motive.

He is still Lawful, but Lawful Evil, and as such, he could choose to lie when it is convenient for him, without it being a violation of his alignment. It may be that, currently, he wants to ensure the world doesn't get destroyed (that is, after all, the reason he gives Roy for helping them, initially). It may be he just wants to ensure that he won't get destroyed.

Durkon clearly believed the right thing to do with Malack was to kill Malack and resurrect him. He has been very staunch in his opposition to the undead (and while Rich did say that he didn't fight Malack "Just" because he was a vampire, the inclusion of "Just" would seem to indicate that being a vampire was part of his decision to fight him).

Durkon, before becoming a vampire, clearly saw becoming a vampire as a bad fate for anybody to suffer (which is why he didn't want any other member of OOTS to come, and which Belkar got to witness firsthand), and Durkon wouldn't have ever wanted to become a vampire. As a person who prefers to play a LG cleric, I can say that, personally, having my character become an LE vampire cleric would be pretty much the worst fate I could ever imagine, and that I'd rather be dead.

Is it possible that this is not indicative of Belkar growing, and that Durkon really does just want to help the OOTS still? Yes, it is possible. Is it possible that Belkar** feels justified in the stance that killing Durkula is what Durkon would have truly wanted, and that his insistence to his teammates does actually indicate true caring for Durkon and that he might be more in tune with Durkon's true wishes? Yes, that is also possible.


*Of course, I thought Thor was supposed to be CG, and as such, Durkon being LG would be too far removed to be a cleric of Thor anyway, so it could be that Rich has decided that alignment restrictions are not as important in OOTS, and that Durkon could still be serving Thor, at which point my above statement would no longer hold sway, but I suspect turning evil changes his deity.

**Having witnessed Durkon's fight; having heard Durkon's discussion with Malack; having heard Malack's discussion of being a different person as a vampire and not wanting to be the same person anymore; having actually experienced character growth while trying to fake it; having watched Durkon, a guy who he constantly mocked and made fun of, decide that Belkar's life was worth dying for, and die, requesting that Belkar and the rest be spared.

[Deathmachine]

A Dominate or similar spell has a Save, has a finite duration, can be detected as ongoing magic, can be dispelled by generic dispel magic, may offer additional Saves to the victim based on nature of actions ordered, may be blocked by low level spells. The spell Dominate is available at 9th level.

A Rebuke has no Save, has infinite duration, is not detectable, cannot be dispelled by any known form of magic (but can replaced by another controller or released by the controller), the victim can be ordered to do absolutely anything as if the undead were a puppet, influence cannot be blocked by magic. Rebuke is available at 1st level.

Besides Rebuke being more powerful and available at 1st level, while Dominate is less powerful and easy to stop and available at 9th level, you are totally right -- they are exactly the same kind of thing.

That's quite a bit of rules where they differ, but at the end, the core is the same - you order someone else to do your bidding.
I don't see where the point "It's easier to control them" has the same meaning as "they aren't in control in the first place".

[WindStruck]

My contention is that you're ignoring all of the actual character development in order to pin on him the motivations of Past Belkar.

I'm not ignoring any character development. I just acknowledged it. Sure, Past Belkar probably would have enjoyed watching two best friends duel each other to the death. But that's hardly relevant for this situation. Current Belkar still isn't a good guy, and he is still very egotistical, self-centered, and still has bits of his sadism.

In fact, I would argue that Past Belkar wouldn't be having the fit Current Belkar is in now. Namely because Past Belkar wasn't putting in effort to try acting good and wouldn't care how the others treat Durkon compared to him so much.

When you keep claiming that Belkar's character has grown and completely changed... then explain why he is so upset. What would his grounds be for staking Durkon? There are no "good-aligned" arguments. Roy, Haley, and Elan would have certainly come up with some by now.

[Loreweaver15]

I'm not ignoring any character development. I just acknowledged it. Sure, Past Belkar probably would have enjoyed watching two best friends duel each other to the death. But that's hardly relevant for this situation. Current Belkar still isn't a good guy, and he is still very egotistical, self-centered, and still has bits of his sadism.

In fact, I would argue that Past Belkar wouldn't be having the fit Current Belkar is in now. Namely because Past Belkar wasn't putting in effort to try acting good and wouldn't care how the others treat Durkon compared to him so much.

When you keep claiming that Belkar's character has grown and completely changed... then explain why he is so upset. What would his grounds be for staking Durkon? There are no "good-aligned" arguments. Roy, Haley, and Elan would have certainly come up with some by now.

Okay, here you go:


Belkar is so mad about Durkula because Belkar's character growth is really hitting its stride.

There is nothing more infectious, more virulently corrupting, than Good, even the small sorts of "kindness" and "consideration" that somebody pretending to have empathy would demonstrate. The point-slash-result of Belkar's faked character development was that he began to experience real character development--he learned how to value other living beings for more than their entertainment value. He genuinely cares about Mr. Scruffy. He went out of his way to help two people who dicked him over and massively inconvenienced him, because he felt sorry for them. He's even said--straight-out--that he Gets It (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0869.html). Belkar has, against his will, learned to care, and whether Durkon was on his short list of 'other beings I genuinely value' before saving Belkar's life, he sure as hell was near the top of it afterwards, and it shocked Belkar, not just that it had happened, but that it happened to protect him.

He doesn't really think he was worth the sacrifice (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html).

And now, on top of all this introspection and brand-new self-doubt, on top of this person who saved his life walking around as a very dangerous puppeteered mockery of everything that person held dear (whether we believe it or not doesn't change that Belkar believes it), the other people who have more reason than anyone else in the world to respect Durkon are refusing to.

Belkar has a history of becoming violently murderous when anybody he values as an individual (himself, for most of the comic's run, and then later Mr. Scruffy) is even slightly threatened or even just disrespected. Now that Durkon has made that list, I'm not at all surprised that Belkar is so proactively advocating staking Durkula now rather than later.

None of this precludes Belkar from remaining Chaotic Evil, incidentally--it just means that he's learned how to have friends.

[Keltest]

Well, Malack certainly disagrees with your assessment. He was very clear that he was not the same person, and that the person he was had died, and he would never want to revisit that person. Being that he would seem to be the most authoritative person on the subject of vampires that we've seen, I don't currently see a reason to completely throw out his stance on vampirism.

He did not explicitly say "i became a radically different person overnight" or anything like that. Hundreds of years of experiences would make ANYBODY a different person. Heck, ask your grandfather or father if theyre the same person now as they were when they were 20.

[Kish]

Yeah. Malack said that he was a different person than he was 200 years ago, when he had a different name and was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists.

Paraphrasing that as, "Malack sez being turned into a vampire makes you a fundamentally different entity" lacks.

[Komatik]

He did not explicitly say "i became a radically different person overnight" or anything like that. Hundreds of years of experiences would make ANYBODY a different person. Heck, ask your grandfather or father if theyre the same person now as they were when they were 20.

Ask someone in his mid-twenties whether he's the same person as when he was in his teens.

[Nightcanon]

Belkar is trying really hard to look like he's a good person and Durkon being a vampire but accepted is confusing the hell outta him. Add on survivors guilt from getting closer to being Good, a constant reminder of that walking around and the fact that Durkon nearly killed him (and is thus untrustworthy) it makes perfect sense to me.

I see Belkar as having gone from "kill everything that looks different and mess around in between times", as played by the annoying player at the table who treats the game as a joke, to slightly more engaged but still immature "Our party has a label saying 'good guys' on it, that means that we go round looking for things with a label saying 'evil' and just kill them, right?" approach. Roy is the guy who's thought about whether the traditional "raid the goblin village because goblins are evil" starter quest makes sense for good PCs and has started asking difficult questions about motivation. I still trust Roy's judgement on alignment and what it means to go from LG to LE, in the context of a race to prevent CE unleashing mindless destruction to unmake the world. And of course, Roy has talked to Durkula (and talked more meaningfully with Durkon). Belkar may in fact believe that whatever is animating Durkon's body killed Durkon and is wearing the body like a suit, and be motivated in part by respect for Durkon's sacrifice to save him, but at present I would disagree with that assessment

[Ellye]

As other's have said, survivor's guilt probably plays a large part. Durkon went out of his way to save Belkar's life, utterly confusing the horrid little man with no concept of Good. Then Durkon was violently murdered because of it, and now dark magical energy is compelling Durkon's corpse to walk and talk in a twisted mockery of the valiant dwarf who sacrificed everything for him.

Plus, Roy and co. seriously have their heads in the sand about the bearded bloodsucker right now, treating the whole thing like their old friend just got a new set of dietary restrictions and they can solve the issue with Restoration spells and a short-term feeding plan.I share this view completely, and this is my favorite thing going on in OotS right now. I really want to know how this will end.

[mightycleric]

Yeah. Malack said that he was a different person than he was 200 years ago, when he had a different name and was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists.

Paraphrasing that as, "Malack sez being turned into a vampire makes you a fundamentally different entity" lacks.

Except that Malack considered himself such a different person that he even changed his name. Why make a different name if he thinks he is the same person, but grown since then? His statement seems to make a clear distinction between who he was before being a vampire and who he is after being a vampire.

Also, why use "sez" instead of "says" unless in a subtle attempt to insult the intelligence of the people holding a different opinion than your own?

Unlike the instances that people have referenced, about asking a grandfather if they are the same person, this is very different. For most of those cases, you ask them when they became a "different person" and they won't have an answer. "It just happened" is the most likely response. For Malack, he had an exact response, which was when he became a vampire, and it is the same for Durkon. Sure, some people could point to a specific event, like if they converted religions, or had an epiphany of some sort, but in those cases, they chose the change. In Durkon's case, he didn't choose this change, and of his own choice he wouldn't choose that change (barring something worse happening if he didn't).

[Keltest]

Except that Malack considered himself such a different person that he even changed his name. Why make a different name if he thinks he is the same person, but grown since then? His statement seems to make a clear distinction between who he was before being a vampire and who he is after being a vampire.

Also, why use "sez" instead of "says" unless in a subtle attempt to insult the intelligence of the people holding a different opinion than your own?

Unlike the instances that people have referenced, about asking a grandfather if they are the same person, this is very different. For most of those cases, you ask them when they became a "different person" and they won't have an answer. "It just happened" is the most likely response. For Malack, he had an exact response, which was when he became a vampire, and it is the same for Durkon. Sure, some people could point to a specific event, like if they converted religions, or had an epiphany of some sort, but in those cases, they chose the change. In Durkon's case, he didn't choose this change, and of his own choice he wouldn't choose that change (barring something worse happening if he didn't).

So what if he didn't choose it? It still happened. Becoming a vampire would be a hugely traumatic event for a lizardman barbarian shaman. His entire way of life would have had to change. More than likely he would be cast out of his culture at least. Not so much for Durkon.

[Kish]

Except that Malack considered himself such a different person that he even changed his name. Why make a different name if he thinks he is the same person, but grown since then? His statement seems to make a clear distinction between who he was before being a vampire and who he is after being a vampire.

Also, why use "sez" instead of "says" unless in a subtle attempt to insult the intelligence of the people holding a different opinion than your own?

"I think Malack was speaking literally" (or "I think Malack was speaking metaphorically") is an opinion.

"Malack said being made a vampire makes you a fundamentally different person" is an incorrect statement of events that never happened, with all the validity of "when Xykon and Roy last fought Xykon fell off his zombie dragon and died" or, "Soon's ghost explained to Miko that while she was still Lawful Good and had never committed an evil act, she had violated the code of conduct by executing Shojo without trial." "Malack said that he changed his name when he became a vampire" is also an incorrect statement; "Malack said that he had a different name two hundred years ago, and presumably he changed his name at some point between two hundred years ago and when he was speaking" would be the correct version. (What you're trying to use that to prove is true though; people in real life never change their names unless they consider themselves to be fundamentally different people than they used to be. This is sarcasm.)


For Malack, he had an exact response, which was when he became a vampire,

Agh. Do you even realize you're claiming things happened in the comic that never did? Point to the strip and panel where Malack said "I fundamentally changed when I became a vampire," or for the love of Nergal, cut it out.

[CaDzilla]

The thing about Malack being a different person was sort of a comment on how his whole being was now dictated by his being a vampire. He amassed that library of spells to stop his weaknesses, he planned that slaughter thing to get food to him and his children, his children were byproducts of his powers. He probably turned to Nergal because the Death god accepted the undead.

[mightycleric]

"I think Malack was speaking literally" (or "I think Malack was speaking metaphorically") is an opinion.

"Malack said being made a vampire makes you a fundamentally different person" is an incorrect statement of events that never happened, with all the validity of "when Xykon and Roy last fought Xykon fell off his zombie dragon and died" or, "Soon's ghost explained to Miko that while she was still Lawful Good and had never committed an evil act, she had violated the code of conduct by executing Shojo without trial." "Malack said that he changed his name when he became a vampire" is also an incorrect statement; "Malack said that he had a different name two hundred years ago, and presumably he changed his name at some point between two hundred years ago and when he was speaking" would be the correct version. (What you're trying to use that to prove is true though; people in real life never change their names unless they consider themselves to be fundamentally different people than they used to be. This is sarcasm.)

Agh. Do you even realize you're claiming things happened in the comic that never did? Point to the strip and panel where Malack said "I fundamentally changed when I became a vampire," or for the love of Nergal, cut it out.

No, those aren't even in the same category with this. Those things are definitively not true statements. It is clear that Xykon didn't fall off of his dragon and die, and that Soon told her that she had messed up, and that she couldn't be reinstated to being a paladin because she refused to admit she was wrong. Again, you use things to make the opinion you dislike seem less intelligent than it is. You've basically stated, "Your opinion is so absurd it would be like saying these obviously false things."

As for the debate at hand, let's look at what the wording actually is. What Malack actually said was "I had a different name when I was alive" not, "I had a different name when I was alive, and then, after being undead for a while, I changed it." This implies that, once becoming undead, he changed his name (perhaps it was a new name given to him by whoever his master was at the time). He then stated that when he was alive was 200 years ago, but that was a follow-up to his statement. He didn't say he changed the name while being a vampire, he says that his living name is different than his undead name. As such, it would seem to back up my statement of him identifying when he changed as when he became a vampire. (Just because somebody doesn't say the exact wording of the statement, doesn't mean they didn't say the same thing with different words.)

Not to mention that, in later comments he refers to it as his "other life", and even though he states that he will release Durkon from his control, and that Durkon will then "feel more like" himself, he follows that up by stating, "My final token to the Durkon that was" to Belkar. Even though he will release his control of Durkon, he still views the "Durkon that was" as gone. Otherwise it wouldn't be a "final token", and follows it up by stating that he wants to leave "where tragedy visited a friend". He seems to believe that Durkon will become a sentient person, capable of having intellectual discussions, and being his peer, but still not being the "Durkon that was".

[AgentofHellfire]

I'm not ignoring any character development. I just acknowledged it. Sure, Past Belkar probably would have enjoyed watching two best friends duel each other to the death. But that's hardly relevant for this situation. Current Belkar still isn't a good guy, and he is still very egotistical, self-centered, and still has bits of his sadism.

In fact, I would argue that Past Belkar wouldn't be having the fit Current Belkar is in now. Namely because Past Belkar wasn't putting in effort to try acting good and wouldn't care how the others treat Durkon compared to him so much.

When you keep claiming that Belkar's character has grown and completely changed... then explain why he is so upset. What would his grounds be for staking Durkon? There are no "good-aligned" arguments. Roy, Haley, and Elan would have certainly come up with some by now.


There are no "good-aligned" arguments=/="clearly, Belkar is just jealous". I'm sorry, but that's just a massive mental leap.

The reason--the totally* alignment-irrelevant reason--that Belkar is upset is that, again, he cannot accept that Durkula (even if he actually is Durkon) is in fact Durkon. He watched Durkon die. And he feels, because of the fact that Durkon died to save him, some degree of loyalty towards Durkon.

This does not mean that Belkar has moved an inch towards Good in the alignment spectrum*, necessarily. It just means that he is in fact capable of caring about people (if he wasn't already possessed of that form of loyalty, which honestly I think he was, but I'd have to make a giant thread explaining why Belkar always cared about the Order and the idea that he was ever a Complete Monster is false).

*Actually, slight edit to that--having an ability to care for others does bring you closer to Good, but Nale and Sabine have that ability. It doesn't actually bring you even halfway up.

[Keltest]

No, those aren't even in the same category with this. Those things are definitively not true statements. It is clear that Xykon didn't fall off of his dragon and die, and that Soon told her that she had messed up, and that she couldn't be reinstated to being a paladin because she refused to admit she was wrong. Again, you use things to make the opinion you dislike seem less intelligent than it is. You've basically stated, "Your opinion is so absurd it would be like saying these obviously false things."

As for the debate at hand, let's look at what the wording actually is. What Malack actually said was "I had a different name when I was alive" not, "I had a different name when I was alive, and then, after being undead for a while, I changed it." This implies that, once becoming undead, he changed his name (perhaps it was a new name given to him by whoever his master was at the time). He then stated that when he was alive was 200 years ago, but that was a follow-up to his statement. He didn't say he changed the name while being a vampire, he says that his living name is different than his undead name. As such, it would seem to back up my statement of him identifying when he changed as when he became a vampire. (Just because somebody doesn't say the exact wording of the statement, doesn't mean they didn't say the same thing with different words.)

Not to mention that, in later comments he refers to it as his "other life", and even though he states that he will release Durkon from his control, and that Durkon will then "feel more like" himself, he follows that up by stating, "My final token to the Durkon that was" to Belkar. Even though he will release his control of Durkon, he still views the "Durkon that was" as gone. Otherwise it wouldn't be a "final token", and follows it up by stating that he wants to leave "where tragedy visited a friend". He seems to believe that Durkon will become a sentient person, capable of having intellectual discussions, and being his peer, but still not being the "Durkon that was".

They are as demonstrably false as claiming that Malack said that he became a radically different person the moment he became a vampire, and that it was because he became a vampire. Anything you choose to read into his statements is just that: what you choose to believe he was implying. That does not mean that he actually meant that, that everyone or anyone else agrees with you, or that it is a valid source of information by itself.

[AgentofHellfire]

They are as demonstrably false as claiming that Malack said that he became a radically different person the moment he became a vampire, and that it was because he became a vampire. Anything you choose to read into his statements is just that: what you choose to believe he was implying. That does not mean that he actually meant that, that everyone or anyone else agrees with you, or that it is a valid source of information by itself.

Well, saying that Xykon died in the fight between Roy and Xykon is considerably less true, but regardless, the other point still stands.

However, I'm going to argue that for the purposes of Belkar's character development, it's irrelevant. And hell, for the purposes of Belkar's development of morality, it's nowhere near as relevant as some on here seem to think it is. The important part here isn't that Belkar has developed a proper, Good moral system, but that Belkar is regarding other people as people at all. That he's beginning to think in terms of right and wrong at all.

[Scow2]

Ask someone in his mid-twenties whether he's the same person as when he was in his teens.Better idea: Ask someone who's in their Late 80s if they're the same person as when they were 5.

[mightycleric]

They are as demonstrably false as claiming that Malack said that he became a radically different person the moment he became a vampire, and that it was because he became a vampire. Anything you choose to read into his statements is just that: what you choose to believe he was implying. That does not mean that he actually meant that, that everyone or anyone else agrees with you, or that it is a valid source of information by itself.

How are the statements I made "demonstrably false"? Malack states the "Durkon that was" in the past tense, and mentions a "final token". This after stating that he would give Durkula his free will back. As such, it is logical to assume that Malack sees dying and coming back a vampire to turn one into a different individual. Malack also states, like I quoted, "I had a different name when I was alive". The easiest interpretation of that (without having to jump through hoops) is that he took on a different name when he became a vampire (as I stated, it might be that his new master gave him that name).

Just because he didn't state the exact phrase does not mean he didn't state the idea. As such, how will you "demonstratively prove" that those statements aren't true?

Though, to be fair, since you said the statements about Xykon and Miko, they are "as demonstrably false" and more so, so I guess, technically, your statement is correct, even if the meaning wasn't.

[LuisDantas]

My guess is that Belkar is frustrated by having the fact that he does not understand what friendship and loyalty are all about dropped right there in front of him.

[AgentofHellfire]

My guess is that Belkar is frustrated by having the fact that he does not understand what friendship and loyalty are all about dropped right there in front of him.

Ahm...everything said thus far indicates he's quite loyal to Durkon. He's not as prepared to accept that Durkula could be considered Durkon, but his desire to kill Durkula is for Durkon's sake.

[Shale]

Yeah. Malack said that he was a different person than he was 200 years ago, when he had a different name and was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists.

Paraphrasing that as, "Malack sez being turned into a vampire makes you a fundamentally different entity" lacks.

And he only brought it up because raising him would raise that person, not the two-hundred-year-old teammate of Tarquin et al. He didn't say he was "weak" or "mortal," he said his living self was "ignorant" and a "barbarian." Two qualities that wouldn't be affected by a sudden alignment shift. There would have to be a sharp metaphysical disconnect between the living person and the vampire for Resurrection to bring back the original person with none of the undead version's experiences or maturation.

[LuisDantas]

Ahm...everything said thus far indicates he's quite loyal to Durkon. He's not as prepared to accept that Durkula could be considered Durkon, but his desire to kill Durkula is for Durkon's sake.

That is quite the jump. I don't think I will ever trust or like Belkar, but even attempting to put myself on a fan's shoes I just don't see it.

[AgentofHellfire]

That is quite the jump. I don't think I will ever trust or like Belkar, but even attempting to put myself on a fan's shoes I just don't see it.

Oh, even fans of Belkar would probably not want to look at it this way--he's supposed to be pure CE, right?

But! There are plenty of things in the comic that serve as evidence for my claim--first up, Belkar clearly states that he doesn't think of Durkula as Durkon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html). While some might say that Durkula might be Durkon, that Belkar believes Durkon to still be dead and that, well, a mockery stands in his place is certainly a key part of my argument that still stands whether his belief is true or not.

Second off! Belkar doesn't regard Durkon's death nonchalantly, even when it wasn't clear that Durkon would be accepted into the party's ranks. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0880.html) This is a markedly different attitude than Belkar had towards (say) killing Elan in far earlier strips, and can't really be explained away by saying "he doesn't understand why Durkon is accepted and he isn't", because, as his later attempt to kill Durkula shows, he didn't think that would happen.

But! You say, what if Belkar's intent in telling them that was to get them to betray Durkon? Well, that shows a bit more long-term planning capability than Belkar's supposed to have, but we've seen instances where he's bluffed for the team's sake, and gambled on party members' lives, I suppose.

Well, just one strip before my second link (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html), we have Belkar's reaction to Durkon's death--likely before he had time to plan, and definitely before any need to act for Roy showed up--and his first thought wasn't "Heh, I wonder what they'll do now that Durkon's a vampire", it was, in what to me at least sounded like a survivor's-guilty statement "How the hell does Durkon get killed and I stay alive?". His expression when going to tell Roy isn't one of amusement and anticipation, but fear and obligation. "We have to tell him what happened!" Sort of thing. That's not someone who's disloyal to the man who died for him, or his party. I'm sorry. It just isn't.

[WindStruck]

Okay, here you go:

So basically there's two options:

1) Belkar's character hasn't grown that much, and he's just jealous of how Durkon is being treated nicely when he perceives him as an evil abomination. (what I think)

2) Belkar is truly a goody good now and deeply cares about Durkon and the implications of his friend who saved his life being turned into a vampire, an evil abomination. (what you think)


Note that in both scenarios, Belkar is under the assumption that Durkon is an evil abomination. Also, I'd contend that #2 is less likely.

[AgentofHellfire]

So basically there's two options:

1) Belkar's character hasn't grown that much, and he's just jealous of how Durkon is being treated nicely when he perceives him as an evil abomination. (what I think)

2) Belkar is truly a goody good now and deeply cares about Durkon and the implications of his friend who saved his life being turned into a vampire, an evil abomination. (what you think)

First of all, your rendition of what Loreweaver thinks (and I think) contains a very misleading term--"Goody good."

Loreweaver explicitly stated that Belkar is still Chaotic Evil, even after all of that. His character growth, in other words, isn't too great--but it is great enough to allow him to care for others.



Note that in both scenarios, Belkar is under the assumption that Durkon is an evil abomination.

Which is, again, totally irrelevant given that he isn't Good.


Also, I'd contend that #2 is less likely.

See my long post on that, right above yours.

[oppyu]

So basically there's two options:

1) Belkar's character hasn't grown that much, and he's just jealous of how Durkon is being treated nicely when he perceives him as an evil abomination. (what I think)

2) Belkar is truly a goody good now and deeply cares about Durkon and the implications of his friend who saved his life being turned into a vampire, an evil abomination. (what you think)


Note that in both scenarios, Belkar is under the assumption that Durkon is an evil abomination. Also, I'd contend that #2 is less likely.
There's a difference between 'truly a goody good' and 'has successfully managed to feel empathy for one sentient being in the world; a sentient being who very recently saved his life and died a violent death for it.' I lean towards the ratified version of #2 myself.

[Loreweaver15]

Seriously, how did you get from 'Chaotic Evil and learning empathy' to 'Lore thinks Belkar's become a goody two-shoes'? :P

[SaintRidley]

Personally, I think it isn't much more than the fact that getting drained by Durkon was freakin' traumatic.

And the Belkster doesn't deal with trauma very well. Well, trauma visited upon him, at least. :smallamused:

Maybe the other points raised in this thread are playing a partial role. Belkar is becoming slightly more complex. Slightly. :smalltongue:

But in the end, I think it's the blood draining and the sense of helplessness that followed in a series of major battles that has Belkar's goat. Well that and the fact that Belkar has always been a Cut to the Chase kinda guy. With him doing the cutting, preferably. :smalltongue:


I'm going to go with this, plus everything Kish has said.

I yearn for the day when we get over this silly "Durkula" thing, too. Give him two centuries and then he'll be such a fundamentally different person from the Durkon we know that we can go with a different name. For now, though, that's not the case.

[oppyu]

I'm going to go with this, plus everything Kish has said.

I yearn for the day when we get over this silly "Durkula" thing, too. Give him two centuries and then he'll be such a fundamentally different person from the Durkon we know that we can go with a different name. For now, though, that's not the case.
We say Durkula to honour the memory of brave dwarf Durkon Thundershield, who gave his life at Girard's Gate in battle against an epic level vampire, saving the life of a wounded ally and helping defend the fabric of reality. To acknowledge the undead abomination using his face, name and memories would be a disservice to the valiant Cleric of Thor.

May his beard e'er be drenched in ale, and not vomit.

[snikrept]

I think Belkar's lack of complexity is helping him here.

Lacking any strong personal attachments to anyone but Mr. Scruffy, Belkar is free to make the call out of pragmatism alone. To him, risk of being vamped in our sleep outweighs possible benefit from a vampire fighting alongside vs. Xykon.

Durkon is not a person but just a thing to Belkar -- and he always was. He just didn't pose an immediate threat to Belkar in Belkar's eyes before.

[The Pilgrim]

Ahm...everything said thus far indicates he's quite loyal to Durkon. He's not as prepared to accept that Durkula could be considered Durkon, but his desire to kill Durkula is for Durkon's sake.

I don't think Belkar is angry at Durkula for Durkon's shake.

Up to this point, Belkar has been thinking "ok, others hate me because I'm evil". Then Durkon turns evil but everyone accepts him. So it becomes difficult even for Belkar's brain to keep ignoring the plain hard truth: That others hate him because Belkar is Belkar.

Belkar wants to fit. He desires acceptance by the rest of the Party. He is being a team player and gave up the worst of his evil tendencies in order to avoid alienating his teammates. And despite that, he is still treated with disdain by Roy (who freaked at him in the Pyramid, death threat included). Now, he sees how other people get it easier than himself: Durkon may be now a freaking evil vampire monster, yet he is accepted without any debate and contrary to any common sense.

No wonder then why Belkar is angry at Durkula. The vampire dwarf's presence reminds the hobbit halfling that he doesn't fits. Not just because he is evil, but just because he is, well, himself.

[Kish]

No, those aren't even in the same category with this. Those things are definitively not true statements.

Yes! Exactly!


You've basically stated, "Your opinion is so absurd it would be like saying these obviously false things."

Again, you made a claim of fact, not of opinion. You have the right to the opinion that what Malack meant was that being a vampire made him a fundamentally different entity. You do not have the right to the "fact" that that's what he said. Since you keep ducking behind this opinion stuff rather than acknowledging that Malack did not say what you said he said, I see little point to continuing to go around with you.

[mightycleric]

Yes! Exactly!


Again, you made a claim of fact, not of opinion. You have the right to the opinion that what Malack meant was that being a vampire made him a fundamentally different entity. You do not have the right to the "fact" that that's what he said. Since you keep ducking behind this opinion stuff rather than acknowledging that Malack did not say what you said he said, I see little point to continuing to go around with you.

Except that the rest of my response actually dealt with why the most direct interpretation of what he stated is what I said he stated, albeit with slightly different words. But you shouldn't mind that since the quotes you attribute to me are not with the exact wording I have used, so if exact wording is important to you, then your own responses contradict your point.

You have not responded to the part that I mentioned that Malack refers to non-vampiric Durkon as "Durkon that was", and having given him a "final token" despite the fact that he has also stated that he will be releasing vampiric Durkon from his control (before that statement, so it wasn't as if he later decided to return the "Durkon that was" after that).

If he didn't see Durkon as a different entity, why would he refer to the "Durkon that was" as something only in the past, unless you believe that he will provide no kindnesses to Durkon in the future for the rest of their empire of hundreds, if not thousands, of years (which seems much less likely, seeing as he wanted a peer, and did many "tokens" for Durkon before, as a peer)? Whether you disagree with Malack's assessment or not, he clearly thinks that the Durkon that is should be considered different from the "Durkon that was".

As such, your comparisons were not applicable, because those statements definitely were not true, but Malack could definitely be stating what I said he was with those quotes. Again, it is the most likely interpretation of their meaning. Prove definitively that Malack did not mean they were different entities, if you want to prove that my statements aren't true. Prove definitively that he didn't mean that he changed names upon becoming a vampire. Otherwise, the best you can do is "they might not be saying that" (which, in turn, means that they "might" be saying that, which would make it true if they did end up meaning that). The comparison you made were things that were definitively false, and easily proven to not be possibly true.

While I view them as facts, with things from the comic to back them up, they are still my opinion, as well. There is more to back up that opinion (and to regard it as fact) than there is the comparisons you made, so my statement was valid. You trying to say I'm just trying to hide behind "opinion", and brush me off that way conveniently avoids explaining why it is a "fact" that he didn't say that in those statements.

[johnbragg]

Durkon has killed plenty of others before.

So far, he still seems to be Durkon, now that he's freed from Malack - Accent's back, mannerisms are back, he's had a perspective change... but he still venerates Thor (Though he doesn't get his spells from Thor anymore), and still, well, is Durkon.

Durkon didn't hunger for the blood of the living, ping as Evil, or spontaneously cast Inflict spells. It is an entity related to Durkon, with Durkon's memories and attachments. But, if Malack is our foremost expert on vampirism in the OOTS-verse, it is also related to Malack, his "sire." That is a significant detail.


:durkon: I stay here because it's my duty, and bein' a Dwarf is all about doin' yer duty, even if it makes ye miserable... ESPECIALLY if it makes ye miserable

Right now, Durkon's duty is to save the world from the Snarl and stop Xykon. He would have been happy dying fullfilling that duty - but if it makes him miserable by being forced to be a vampire for the remainder of the trip, so be it.

I agree with this line of thought--I expected a series of strips detailing a "recruiting fair", where different evil and death-related deities and other divine-magic-granters tried to recruit Durkon. (My money was on Hel, with Durkon as her immortal High Priest, periodically venturing onto the Prime Material to corral epic level undead.)


If Durkon were 'faking' being Durkon around the party, he'd have still been talking like Malack's Thrall when defeating Nale and Zz'dtri.

Malack doesn't talk like Malack's Thrall. I think a more likely interpretation is that being a thrall supressed some Int. Or just the stress of suddenly becoming a vampire, and being ravenously blood-hungry.


There's no sign of a greater change in identity than anyone else who's had an unwanted Alignment change, aside from a few new extra 'special needs' as an Undead.

There also hasn't been a lot of confirmation of continuity of identity. We haven't seen free-Durkula when he's hungry. We didn't see him do much for long stretches of the battle against Tarquin.


He has the same memories as Durkon
He talks like Durkon
He acts like Durkon when it comes to his friends
He has the same loyalities as Durkon

How can you seriously say that he isn't Durkon, but some random evil entity?

Not a random evil entity, but an evil perversion of Durkon. Think of it as an undead analogue of puberty--he's under the influence of a completely different biochemistry and different set of hormones.


I think Belkar is mad because he's petty and vengeful, and frankly rather racist and not smart. And evil and selfish still.

He is all of these things. He's vengeful because Durkula fed on him and left him close to death. He's certainly racist against vampires, but using the term "racism" implies that the conclusion is wrong.

None of those things mean that Belkar is in fact wrong. Durkula is a wildcard, a largely unknown quantity.


The huge factor motivating Belkar, I believe, is that he assumes Durkon is evil simply because he transformed into a vampire.

Well, yeah. That and chomping on Belkar's head.

:belkar::confused::mad: Is this not a thing we're doing?

Oh come on! If trying to eat me isn't enough to officially pay his ticket to Stabbytown, I officially have no idea what you people want from me!
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0909.html


Here is poor Belkar trying so hard to act good and still being treated with more or less the same amount of trust and respect because - let's face it - they see through it. Then evil Durkula comes along, and his party members are practically fawning all over him. Why?!

Basically, he's frustrated that "evil Durkon" is being treated nicely while he still isn't. Plus, he drained his blood. Also, he wants his precious chunks of XP.

They see through Belkar's charade, but he's pretty used to that. He doesn't understand why no one acts the least bit suspicious of Durkula, who radiates evil negative energy and would normally be killed on sight by human/demihuman society.


My guess is that Belkar is frustrated by having the fact that he does not understand what friendship and loyalty are all about dropped right there in front of him.

That certainly doesn't help. But Belkar doesn't see or smell Durkula as Durkon. So loyalty to Durkon <> loyalty to Durkula.

A dialogue snippet I missed from 909:

:durkon: Aye. I feel right as Thor's rain.

Unfortunately the forum doesn't support a font choice creepy enough for undead Durkula.

At this point, Durkula feels completely comfortable with being a vampire, an undead abomination who hungers for the blood of the living.

Belkar may be wrong, but his arguments cannot be dismissed out of hand just because it's Belkar making them. Roy may be right but he is foolish to dismiss the possibility that Belkar is right.

I think Roy is right on pragmatic grounds--Durkula is an asset in the fight against Xykon. And Durkula is the key to resurrecting Durkon, if that ends up being possible.

But Roy is wrong to not be as suspicious of Durkula as he is of Belkar--Durkula could do a lot more damage.

[AgentofHellfire]

I don't think Belkar is angry at Durkula for Durkon's shake.

Up to this point, Belkar has been thinking "ok, others hate me because I'm evil". Then Durkon turns evil but everyone accepts him. So it becomes difficult even for Belkar's brain to keep ignoring the plain hard truth: That others hate him because Belkar is Belkar.

Belkar wants to fit. He desires acceptance by the rest of the Party. He is being a team player and gave up the worst of his evil tendencies in order to avoid alienating his teammates. And despite that, he is still treated with disdain by Roy (who freaked at him in the Pyramid, death threat included). Now, he sees how other people get it easier than himself: Durkon may be now a freaking evil vampire monster, yet he is accepted without any debate and contrary to any common sense.

No wonder then why Belkar is angry at Durkula. The vampire dwarf's presence reminds the hobbit halfling that he doesn't fits. Not just because he is evil, but just because he is, well, himself.

Except...

His recent actions in the story arc have suggested (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0932.html) that he's beginning to grow some real empathy (he acted to save two people's lives, whom he had nothing to do with, already) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0786.html)*, so then again, one could say it's most likely that this is an outgrowth of that.

*Actually, a better example of such real empathy here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html)

[Kish]

It still has Durkon's memories after all. It's still a sentient construct like Xykon and Malack.
So, are you saying that nothing Roy is doing against The Lich Formerly Known As The Sorcerer Xykon will count toward the Blood Oath of Vengeance (which was taken against a living sorcerer)?

(Also, even if Durkon was not Durkon but rather a refugee from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I'm pretty sure he'd still have a male gender identity.)

[The Pilgrim]

Except...

His recent actions in the story arc have suggested (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0932.html) that he's beginning to grow some real empathy (he acted to save two people's lives, whom he had nothing to do with, already) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0786.html)*, so then again, one could say it's most likely that this is an outgrowth of that.

*Actually, a better example of such real empathy here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html)

And what does that have to do with what I've written?

Belkar is a misfit. Everbody in the party treats him as a misfit. The fact that he might be growing empaty toward other living beings only adds insult to injury: he is a better, more reliable person than Durkula, yet Durkula is accepted and treated as an equal by the Party while he is still treated like a misfit.

[AgentofHellfire]

And what does that have to do with what I've written?

Belkar is a misfit. Everbody in the party treats him as a misfit. The fact that he might be growing empaty toward other living beings only adds insult to injury: he is a better, more reliable person than Durkula, yet Durkula is accepted and treated as an equal by the Party while he is still treated like a misfit.

Well, Belkar possessing concerns for people other than himself certainly makes it more likely that he possesses concern for Durkon, at least compared to what people think of as his prior characterization.

But, if you still aren't convinced that this means he's concerned about Durkon in particular, I refer you to my response to LuisDantas:

Oh, even fans of Belkar would probably not want to look at it this way--he's supposed to be pure CE, right?

But! There are plenty of things in the comic that serve as evidence for my claim--first up, Belkar clearly states that he doesn't think of Durkula as Durkon*. While some might say that Durkula might be Durkon, that Belkar believes Durkon to still be dead and that, well, a mockery stands in his place is certainly a key part of my argument that still stands whether his belief is true or not.

Second off! Belkar doesn't regard Durkon's death nonchalantly**, even when it wasn't clear that Durkon would be accepted into the party's ranks. This is a markedly different attitude than Belkar had towards (say) killing Elan in far earlier strips, and can't really be explained away by saying "he doesn't understand why Durkon is accepted and he isn't", because, as his later attempt to kill Durkula shows, he didn't think that would happen.

But! You say, what if Belkar's intent in telling them that was to get them to betray Durkon? Well, that shows a bit more long-term planning capability than Belkar's supposed to have, but we've seen instances where he's bluffed for the team's sake, and gambled on party members' lives, I suppose.

Well, just one strip before my second link***, we have Belkar's reaction to Durkon's death--likely before he had time to plan, and definitely before any need to act for Roy showed up--and his first thought wasn't "Heh, I wonder what they'll do now that Durkon's a vampire", it was, in what to me at least sounded like a survivor's-guilty statement "How the hell does Durkon get killed and I stay alive?". His expression when going to tell Roy isn't one of amusement and anticipation, but fear and obligation. "We have to tell him what happened!" Sort of thing. That's not someone who's disloyal to the man who died for him, or his party. I'm sorry. It just isn't.

*First link I refer to in the spoiler here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html)
**Second link, here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0880.html)
**Third link, here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html)

[Shale]

So, are you saying that nothing Roy is doing against The Lich Formerly Known As The Sorcerer Xykon will count toward the Blood Oath of Vengeance (which was taken against a living sorcerer)?

Repeating that over and over won't suddenly make it a good analogy. We know for a certainty that Xykon still has his soul. Whether Durkon has his is the entire subject of this debate. To assume the two are equivalent is to beg the question.

[AgentofHellfire]

Repeating that over and over won't suddenly make it a good analogy. We know for a certainty that Xykon still has his soul.


...actually, I don't know that. I'm not really entering into this one way or the other (yet), but I'd be interested in reading that bit. :smallsmile:

[Kish]

Repeating that over and over won't suddenly make it a good analogy. We know for a certainty that Xykon still has his soul. Whether Durkon has his is the entire subject of this debate. To assume the two are equivalent is to beg the question.
If I see anyone offer a reason why it is not the same that doesn't amount to, "I don't like that analogy," I'll stop using it. Repeating that you consider it a bad analogy doesn't make it bad.

In D&D rules, we know that all intelligent undead have their souls; check the description of Magic Jar. I find it...implausible...that Rich Burlew, the author who agreed that anti-vampire prejudice was inappropriate racism, is house-ruling that this is a kind of more advanced bone golem like Roy got made into, which gets intelligence from, uh, somewhere unrelated to the original person, and we'll see Durkon's soul in Celestia any strip now.

[Shale]

Because if raising the soul of the original being doesn't raise the vampire, then clearly there's a difference! If you haven't noticed anybody making that argument you might consider reading posts before you scoff at them.

(Re: magic jar, RAW also describes vampires and other intelligent undead as "controlled by a malign intelligence" foreign to the body. The rules are not definitive, which is why this is a debate.)

[Kish]

Because if raising the soul of the original being doesn't raise the vampire, then clearly there's a difference! If you haven't noticed anybody making that argument you might consider reading posts before you scoff at them.
I've read a couple people misparaphrasing Malack; I take it that's what you're referring to. You can't use something you can't prove as evidence for something else, and I'm pretty certain if I was polymorphed into a catfolk for 200 years it would not be inaccurate to say I would be a different entity at the end of it than at the beginning. So let's set disagreements over Malack aside long enough to ask this:

Do you, Shale, think Rich is house-ruling that Vampire Durkon is no more related to Durkon than Bone Golem Roy was related to Roy? Do you, Shale, think Durkon is currently in an afterlife?


(Re: magic jar, RAW also describes vampires and other intelligent undead as "controlled by a malign intelligence" foreign to the body.
Foreign to the body? Really? And liches are called out as different?

[Lizard Lord]

Because Durkula isn't Durkon and Belkar is the only one heartless enough to acknowledge it.
The fact that the rest are ok with Durkula despite the fact that they know Durkon would never be ok with it is a bit worrying. Roy and Haley should know better.
I'm assuming V isn't judging because he's done worse, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't wary.

We don't actually know V's opinion on it. V hasn't even acknowledged that Durkon is a vampire. V wasn't there when the information was revealed and wasn't one of the blood donors. Not saying hasn't figured it out, but it hasn't been shown or stated yet.

[Kish]

If Vaarsuvius comes down on the side of, "Yes, we should kill the helpful Always Chaotic Evil person" now, I will be astounded.

[AgentofHellfire]

I've read a couple people misparaphrasing Malack; I take it that's what you're referring to. You can't use something you can't prove as evidence for something else,

...ahm...that's not true?

Evidence isn't the same thing as proof--it doesn't need to confirm something 100%. What it needs to do, is at least suggest your argument is correct.



and I'm pretty certain if I was polymorphed into a catfolk for 200 years it would not be inaccurate to say I would be a different entity at the end of it than at the beginning. So let's set disagreements over Malack aside long enough to ask this:

Except, as themightycleric was saying earlier, Malack himself thought that the original Durkon was no more right after Vampire Durkon rose. That's not 200 years, yet Malack considered the two distinct.


Do you, Shale, think Rich is house-ruling that Vampire Durkon is no more related to Durkon than Bone Golem Roy was related to Roy? Do you, Shale, think Durkon is currently in an afterlife?

I don't know about what Shale thinks, but I'd guess that Durkon's soul is imprisoned in Vampire Durkon's body. That, however, is just me guessing.

[Shale]

To quote myself responding to you from a page ago:


[Malack]only brought it up because raising him would raise that person, not the two-hundred-year-old teammate of Tarquin et al. He didn't say he was "weak" or "mortal," he said his living self was "ignorant" and a "barbarian." Two qualities that wouldn't be affected by a sudden alignment shift. There would have to be a sharp metaphysical disconnect between the living person and the vampire for Resurrection to bring back the original person with none of the undead version's experiences or maturation.

And yes, I do believe that vampire Durkon is not the same individual as living Durkon. He has the living person's memories, but so does a soulless corpse animated by Speak With Dead. He has a personality and agency, but so did Tsukiko's wights and Durkon the thrall. I see no other way to square the way undead work in general with Malack's statement about resurrection and his farewell to "Durkon that was."

I have no idea where Durkon's soul is. There's been no indication in the comic of how that works. Maybe we'll find out if he gets raised.

[Kish]

Malack did not draw a distinction between vampires and liches. If you are certain that Xykon would not sneer similarly at the idea of being restored to a living sorcerer, that is a certainty I do not share.


And yes, I do believe that vampire Durkon is not the same individual as living Durkon. He has the living person's memories, but so does a soulless corpse animated by Speak With Dead.
I could have sworn Redcloak said that Speak with Dead talked to the dead person's soul in the afterlife. Might want to pick a different analogy.

Beyond that, I see. You expect no character development for Durkon to be possible here, any more than Roy could have character development from things his bone golem did; I could not possibly disagree more, so there we are. I'd still like an answer to the question you objected to from oppyu, though.

[Lizard Lord]

If Vaarsuvius comes down on the side of, "Yes, we should kill the helpful Always Chaotic Evil person" now, I will be astounded.

Okay.....Sure, but him not saying that isn't the same as not judging now is it? :smallconfused:

[Kish]

Okay.....Sure, but him not saying that isn't the same as not judging now is it? :smallconfused:
What do you mean by "judging"? What exactly are you suggesting Vaarsuvius will do?

[Shale]

Please stop putting words in my mouth. New characters can develop. The rest of the order can develop through their relationship with Durkula, and yes I an
mainly using that name because you're so obnoxious about it, thanks for asking.

Re Malack, he's talking specifically about how vampires work. It's possible to draw conclusions for that even if he didn't give a comprehensive Necromancy 101 lecture.

Also, the latest time anybody used Speak With Dead, they immediately lamented the fact that they couldn't contact the dead person's soul. I'll take that over a one-off joke about missing keys.

[Gift Jeraff]

My guess is that Belkar is frustrated by having the fact that he does not understand what friendship and loyalty are all about dropped right there in front of him.

It seems to me you are trying to be as dismissive as possible toward Belkar's character development.

[Kish]

Please stop putting words in my mouth. New characters can develop.

So you consider Vampire Durkon to be a new character?

Edited to add: I said "for Durkon," so that really doesn't contradict what I said.


The rest of the order can develop through their relationship with Durkula, and yes I an
mainly using that name because you're so obnoxious about it, thanks for asking.

That is an excellent approach to take while trying to persuade me to stop using an analogy you don't like. Thank you for alleviating any guilt I might have felt about continuing to use it.


Also, the latest time anybody used Speak With Dead, they immediately lamented the fact that they couldn't contact the dead person's soul.

Excuse me? What are you talking about? I looked at the scene where Durkon questioned the dead Draketooth to see if I'd forgotten something; did someone use Speak with Dead after that?

[Shale]

A new person wearing Durkon's body and memories, yes. There's ample storytelling potential there.

Speak With Dead: Maybe it was before the spell; what I was thinking of is that it's kind of important to that scene, specifically the failure of Resurrection, that they can't tell the Draketooths that (a) they're all dead and the gate is undefended; and (b) that Durkon isn't working for Soon.

[Kish]

A new person wearing Durkon's body and memories, yes. There's ample storytelling potential there.

Speak With Dead: Maybe it was before the spell; what I was thinking of is that it's kind of important to that scene, specifically the failure of Resurrection, that they can't tell the Draketooths that (a) they're all dead and the gate is undefended; and (b) that Durkon isn't working for Soon.
It's not anywhere. They never say they regret not being able to contact the Draketooths' souls. Presumably they could be happy if they could Send to the afterlife, but since your claim here is that they said something that proves that Speak with Dead doesn't question the soul, no. I decline to join you in your interpretation of the scene or of Malack's words.

[Shale]

RAW says Soak With Dead doesn't summon the soul. The scene in the pyramid is just consistent with that.

And I didn't expect you to suddenly agree with me; all I ask I'd that you stop insisting that nobody who disagrees with you had made an argument beyond "I don't like it."

[Kish]

And I didn't expect you to suddenly agree with me; all I ask I'd that you stop insisting that nobody who disagrees with you had made an argument beyond "I don't like it."
As I said, you cannot use something that is not proven (that your interpretation of Malack's words is the correct one, and more than that that Malack totally meant "and this is completely different from liches" even though he didn't even come close to saying that) as evidence for something else. So, excuse me; I meant that no one had made a logically valid argument for why the analogy is a bad one. I never intended to indicate that "Malack said something that, if you interpret it in a literal way and add words to the effect of 'this does not apply to liches,' means a vampire's soul goes to the afterlife and a lich's soul does not" was an unimaginable argument.

*The Libris Mortis passage that mentions the vampire's body is controlled by a malign intelligence also states--the exact same sentence--that the soul is still in the body. So yeah.

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me you are trying to be as dismissive as possible toward Belkar's character development.

Of course I am. And it turns out that in this strip that was particularly easy.

[Shale]

I find it a stretch to believe that speak with dead recalls a soul to is body but also gives it amnesia about everything that went on while it was there, without which it basically would be a variantf of sending. If you think that's reasonable, fine. I'm not expecting to change your mind, I'd just like you to act as if I have one.

(And obviously the correct interpretation of Malack's words isn't known yet. Otherwise this would be a settled question. That doesn't mean we can't take positions on what the most reasonable reading is.)

Libris Mortis says the soul is present but but not in control of the body, yes. That seems likely enough to me, we just haven't gotten any indication of whether it works like that here, even an ambiguous one.

[Wardog]

Why is Belkar so mad at Durkula?

Because Durkula is an undead abomination, a twisted parody of the late Durkon, and threat to the lives and souls of everyone on the airship.

Or at least, that's what I expect Belkar believes.

We don't know how vampires "work" in the OOTS-verse, however, judging by the way Rich had approached other creatures, including "Always Evil" ones like chromatic dragons and fiends, I expect Belkar is wrong.

I suspect that OOTS vampires (like OOTS black dragons, etc) are essentially human beings with different strengths and vulnerabilities and dietry needs. And possible with a slightly different instinctive attitude to certain things.

However, it is entierly possible (nay, probably) that many/most people in the OOTS-verse don't realise that, and assume vampires work like more traditional vampire depictions. And Belkar, despite character development, is still probably the sort of person who would be more likely to make that assumption.

[Enkai]

I had a thought on Belkar's line that "Mockery is one of the things I hold dear."

Given Belkar's previous characterization, I'm of the opinion that his distrust is far more expressive of guilt on his part than any particular insight. I mean, this is BELKAR we're talking about here. He's starting to have concern for other creatures, but he still has a wisdom score reserved for lemmings.

I was thinking on the mockery line - Durkon as a vampire could be a potential gold mine for snarky one liners and jokes. And Belkar can't make them, because in his own words "he just walked in there and saved my life and got straight up murdered for it." I mean, he made the "really turned undead" joke and when he said it, it was only tragic, not funny. If Durkon had died saving anybody else and come back as a vampire, I'm of the opinion Belkar'd be cracking jokes to no end. In that case, he's emotionally removed from the tragedy. But because he is as close as he is, cracking jokes is just inappropriate and reminds him of his own guilt.

I see it as "I'm ticked off because there all these opportunities for mockery, and I can't take them because it's not funny if *I* crack the joke."

Belkar may gaining some concern for others, but it's still in a very self-centered way.

If he's right about Durkon, of which I'm not sure he is or isn't (frankly, I think he'll be right in some ways, wrong in others), it's purely accidental.

[SavageWombat]

I find it a stretch to believe that speak with dead recalls a soul to is body but also gives it amnesia about everything that went on while it was there, without which it basically would be a variantf of sending. If you think that's reasonable, fine. I'm not expecting to change your mind, I'd just like you to act as if I have one.


It's a stretch, but a justified one. In one of the Planescape books, it explained (and feel free to call this a BS handwave, because it sounds like one) that dead spirits leave their memories on the Astral plane in the form of "memory cores" on the way to becoming petitioners. And that Speak With Dead calls the spirit back to the prime, dragging them back through the cores and overwhelming their memories of the afterlife.

So you're free to say that sounds stupid and probably isn't in 3.5 anywhere - but there's at least a justifiable reason why someone would claim that the spell works that way.

[David Argall]

Have you never wondered why a beautiful woman gets mad in the presence of another beautiful woman?


Belkie has always been the master of the Deep End Alignment Pool. Now he has another top-class swimmer in it, and with bigger boobs, too :P
Belkar has always seemed quite welcoming, both to V, and inviting others like Haley enslaving Samantha and the cleric taking the curse off him, to jump in. So it seems unlikely he wants to keep Durkon away from the deep end.

[Loreweaver15]

Of course I am. And it turns out that in this strip that was particularly easy.

Only if you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the character development.

[Ottr]

I think Roy basically agrees with Belkar and wants to 1) bring Durkon back to life or 2) let Durkon rest in peace in his homeland, but knows he can't bring about either of those right now. In the meantime he doesn't want a fight with a super-powerful vampire cleric on his hands, so he's cooperating with it.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Does anyone think we should combine all these Durkon threads into some Mega Vampire thread? After all, they pretty much are about the same thing.

[Boogastreehouse]

I think it looks better with some space

Belkar has learned to feel empathy, and it's not something he really knows how to handle.

While he may seem like the same old Durkon (with an edgy new color scheme) to us (and to Roy), Belkar believes that Durkon himself would believe that he is now a mockery of what he once was, were the Living Durkon available to comment on the matter.

Belkar knows that not long ago he would have found this turn of events to be hilarious, and now he doesn't, because he can empathize. He is now able to understand that this is not what Durkon would want, and he is now able to actually care about what Durkon might want.

Being that he's still an evil little jerk at heart, he's also mad that he now cares about such things. "Mockery is one of the things I hold dear! And he's making a mockery of it!"

Also, I agree with this:



He doesn't really think he was worth the sacrifice (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html).

Belkar feels that by putting down Vampire Durkon (what he believes Durkon would want) he will be repaying Durkon, at least a little.


I think it looks better with some space

[Rodin]

We say Durkula to honour the memory of brave dwarf Durkon Thundershield, who gave his life at Girard's Gate in battle against an epic level vampire, saving the life of a wounded ally and helping defend the fabric of reality. To acknowledge the undead abomination using his face, name and memories would be a disservice to the valiant Cleric of Thor.

May his beard e'er be drenched in ale, and not vomit.

Alternatively, you can be like me and still think Durkon is Durkon while still finding Durkula the most awesome nickname ever.

[Lizard Lord]

What do you mean by "judging"? What exactly are you suggesting Vaarsuvius will do?

Try to keep a distance from the vampire while still working on the same party with him. Not treat him like he is the same old Durkon and certainly NOT let the vampire drink any of his blood. Keep in mind two things:

1: Rich himself said that undead and certain outsiders (such as fiends) are the exception to his "your race/creature type does not guarantee your alignment." rule. (Well its lots of people's rule, just not the Monster Manuel's.)

2: Vaarsuvius deeply regrets a very recent partnership with such beings and easily considers it his biggest mistake ever. (It is the sin that keeps on taking.) I am not placing any bets here, but it would be understandable if he was hesitant to partner with another "always evil" creature. (And before someone uses the "that's racist" argument, who said Vaarsuvius wasn't racist?)

(Sabine doesn't count since he didn't really partner with her as there is really nothing to lose in following her advice and everything to gain. Camping with a vampire and expecting the honor system to keep him in check? There is definitely something to lose there.)



Also: Durkon thinks he is not the same person. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0907.html)

[marq]

The real question is this: Do balrogs have wings?

[Lizard Lord]

The real question is this: Do balrogs have wings?

Okay... I think I am missing context. Did you mean to quote someone? :smallconfused:

[Jaxzan Proditor]

That question is a frequently occurring and relatively well-known Lord of the Rings discussion that has equal support for both sides of the argument and no real answer.

[nogall]

I saw this in another thread:


Letting Belkar tag along with them is a mistake. They should have executed him a long time ago.


QFT. If they can tolerate Belkar for 900 strips, they should tolerate Durkula for now.

And then I remembered this thread. Could Belkar be so mad at Durkon because deep down it makes him realize what the order went through with him? in this sense, Belkar is mad at himself - he's coming to sense on what it means to have a potentially insane / violent / unreliable member on the order...
Going even further with this, it might pose him the question whether there is any hope for him, just like we've been endlessly debating about durkon: is he (durkula or belkar) irredeemably evil, or is there some chance of redemption?

[hamishspence]

Could Belkar be so mad at Durkon because deep down it makes him realize what the order went through with him? in this sense, Belkar is mad at himself - he's coming to sense on what it means to have a potentially insane / violent / unreliable member on the order...
Going even further with this, it might pose him the question whether there is any hope for him, just like we've been endlessly debating about durkon: is he (durkula or belkar) irredeemably evil, or is there some chance of redemption?

That seems like an interesting possibility.

[TheLoneCleric]

Loyalty and Complexity.

Everyone in the group is getting more complex. Belkar is being forced into it. he's not happy.

Durkon hasn't faced his crisis yet. I think now as an undead his is about to happen. Does he stay loyal to the Stick? Who knows.

[Lizard Lord]

That question is a frequently occurring and relatively well-known Lord of the Rings discussion that has equal support for both sides of the argument and no real answer.
That doesn't make sense
How can it have no real answer either they have wings or they don't. (I suppose it is possible for only some to have wings and others not, but that would still count as a real answer.)

There might be no real way to prove it, but that is far from there being no real answer.

[hamishspence]

That doesn't make sense
How can it have no real answer either they have wings or they don't. (I suppose it is possible for only some to have wings and others not, but that would still count as a real answer.)

There might be no real way to prove it, but that is far from there being no real answer.In one paragraph, it says "Its shadow reached out like two vast wings"

Shortly afterward, it says "The Balrog drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall."

Some people say that the second one should be taken literally,

others, that, because of the earlier paragraph about "shadow like two vast wings" - the second one is figurative rather than literal.

[TheOtherErnie]

There might be no real way to prove it, but that is far from there being no real answer.
If they are not real then there cannot be a real answer about their characteristics. They have the characteristics that the person writing about them decides that they have.

[Kish]

That doesn't make sense
How can it have no real answer either they have wings or they don't. (I suppose it is possible for only some to have wings and others not, but that would still count as a real answer.)

There might be no real way to prove it, but that is far from there being no real answer.
If only Tolkien lived in a D&D world, the answer would be as simple as Speak with Dead.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

That doesn't make sense
How can it have no real answer either they have wings or they don't. (I suppose it is possible for only some to have wings and others not, but that would still count as a real answer.)

There might be no real way to prove it, but that is far from there being no real answer.

By "no real answer", I meant that we will never be able to answer that question unless someone finds a way to contact J.R.R. Tolkien, who no longer numbers amongst the living. Until then, there will still be debate over the presence of wings on Balrogs. I personally think that they don't have wings

[hamishspence]

Reading drafts of LoTR (History of Middle Earth I think has some) might provide clues.

[Clistenes]

When Ungoliant attacked Morgoth, the Balrogs came flying from Angband to protect him, so they fly and probably have wings.

[hamishspence]

The word "flying" was not used:

Far beneath the ruined halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord; and now swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.

With their whips of flame they smote asunder the webs of Ungoliant, and she quailed, and turned to flight, belching black vapours to cover her; and fleeing from the north she went down into Beleriand, and dwelt beneath Ered Gorgoroth, in that dark valley that was ever after called Nan Dungotheb, the Valley of Dreadful Death, because of the horror that she bred there.

[Clistenes]

The word "flying" was not used:

Far beneath the ruined halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord; and now swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.

With their whips of flame they smote asunder the webs of Ungoliant, and she quailed, and turned to flight, belching black vapours to cover her; and fleeing from the north she went down into Beleriand, and dwelt beneath Ered Gorgoroth, in that dark valley that was ever after called Nan Dungotheb, the Valley of Dreadful Death, because of the horror that she bred there.

The came over a whole country, fast enough to reach Ungoliant before it had time to drink Morgoth's juice or steal the Silmarils, and came "as a tempest". That sounds to me like flying, and flying really fast.

[hamishspence]

That sounds to me like flying, and flying really fast.

It does to other people as well.

Interestingly, those tend to argue that the wings were not actually used to fly with - they were "shapes of darkness" created by the Balrog itself- and that it could fly without them.

However - this is something of a digression from the original topic -shall we return to talking about Durkon & Belkar?

[Kish]

2: Vaarsuvius deeply regrets a very recent partnership with such beings and easily considers it his biggest mistake ever.
That is quite an assumption--that Vaarsuvius considers "partnering" with three creatures of an Always Evil species her/his biggest mistake ever and it will aggravate her/his previous genocidal racism, instead of, oh I don't know, mass murdering creatures for being of an Always Evil species being her/his biggest mistake ever and it making her/him realize that racism is wrong.

I pretty much think every syllable of your post is backward, and am most certainly not going to "keep in mind" either of your two central claims, so there we are.

[Wardog]

The word "flying" was not used:
[/I]

Plus, when Tolkien does say "fly" or "flying", he is using it in the sense of "moving very fast" rather than "airborn".



'Listen, Hound of Sauron!' He cried. 'Gandalf is here. Fly, if you value your foul skin! I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you come within this ring.' "




Gandalf came flying down the steps and fell to the ground in the midst of the Company.




"Fly, you fools!"


Although, while I've always interpreted that second one to mean "Gandalf came running down the steps and collapsed with exhaustion when he reached the others", I've just realized it could equally mean "Gandalf was thrown through the air by an explosion and landed in an undignified heap among the others". Which is hilarious.

[Trixie]

I don't know. I wish I did, but all I can say is that I'm withholding judgment, and most definitely letting the "This is Belkar being morally right and everyone else in the Order being deluded" train leave the station without me.

Nothing has been confirmed, but I feel pretty confident putting "Durkon is off in the afterlife while Vampire Durkon rejoins the Order" in the "Yeah, no" barrel, m'self.

So, you were saying? :smallamused:


As I said, this is a continuation of, "We'll kill sentient creatures because they have green skin and fangs and we don't...What?" not a sudden display of new wisdom.

Or maybe, just maybe, because it's evil abomination serving evil god. Which was plenty obvious to everyone (especially after Malak announced his butcher plan) who doesn't auto-discard everything Belkar says.


Eugene swore he or his heirs would take vengeance on the sorcerer Xykon. Subsequently, Xykon died and came back as a lich.

Would you sign your name to, "Anything Roy does against the lich Xykon will be meaningless to the Blood Oath, which requires Roy to travel to the Abyss and take vengeance on a long-dead sorcerer there"?
If the fact that Xykon has a phylactery with his soul (that is still in control of his body, and all deeds, completely unlike ex-soul of vampire) in his pocket wasn't a huge plot point half a dozen times through the whole comic run you maybe would have a point. As it is, well...


Also, you're proposing that Durkon has been replaced by Something Else that...hates the Linear Guild and wants to help the Order? Again, Durkon saved the Order from being wiped out immediately after regaining (or gaining, in the this-is-a-new-entity paradigm) his free will. Nale clearly believed that Durkon was gone and a malevolent force that had no reason to care about Durkon's loyalties (except perhaps to push against them) was there. That belief cost him everything.

Heh, it's almost as if evil characters aren't auto-wrong! Who would have thought? :smalltongue:

[Killer Angel]

Oh, the sweet irony. It tastes like blood.

[Loreweaver15]

Also, I wasn't arguing that Belkar was right, only that Belkar was showing empathy.

That he was right was incidental, and not really relevant, because from Roy's perspective, he doesn't know Durkula isn't Durkon.

[oppyu]

Ha! Foolish and amoral Belkar is completely wrong about Durkon! Anyone on Belkar's side of this debate is equally foolish and amoral!

[Killer Angel]

That he was right was incidental, and not really relevant, because from Roy's perspective, he doesn't know Durkula isn't Durkon.

Durkon is now a vampire. If you (aka Roy and friends) believe the only repercussion will be a couple of fixable quirks regarding sun and feeding, you are deluding yourself.

[Kish]

Yeah, I was definitely wrong about who was piloting Durkon's body now. Well, I suppose that's one way of handling forced alignment change.

[hamishspence]

Even if Roy was wrong in this particular example - a case can be made that, given the amount of info available to him - his approach was still the best one.

Regarding Durkon's previously mentioned "character development" - I suspect he will continue to play a role - but from within - fighting his possessor - seeing to subvert their plans as best he can.

[Killer Angel]

Even if Roy was wrong in this particular example - a case can be made that, given the amount of info available to him - his approach was still the best one.

To show a little more caution when durkon isn't present, would have been better. It seems that he completely trusts the "new" durkon.


Regarding Durkon's previously mentioned "character development" - I suspect he will continue to play a role - but from within - fighting his possessor - seeing to subvert their plans as best he can.

That's probably true.

[Keltest]

To show a little more caution when durkon isn't present, would have been better. It seems that he completely trusts the "new" durkon.



That's probably true.

Its easy to appear to trust someone when they aren't actually doing anything. He kept them alive, which earned some respect, but when he was talking with V he indicated that he doesn't know what to think about Durkon yet.

[nogall]

The title says it all. Ok, he almost killed him, but this hatred still seems a bit exagerated to. I think the giant is clearly wanting to set something up for later with this, but I can't tell what.


ok, so I got part of my answer in 946. The Giant was setting up this major cliffhanger and I guess Belkar was the best option to show the reader that there might be something (very) wrong with Durkon. But I still think we will gain a better understanding of why Belkar was so mad at Durkula, other than for narrative / plot-related reasons.

ETA: I actually just read two very thoughtful on the subject in another thread:


Basic idea:

[...]
Our attention is just sufficiently lulled. Notice, that all the straight-man characters are rather efficiently and excusably disabled now. Nobody can see through the lie.

Roy - is in wishful denial and has too much on his hands to worry about to consider vampire-Durkon's danger. He's just glad to have a version of his friend back.

Haley - has her mind full of worry about her father, that's dominating her and not letting her see through this.

Vaarsuvius - is currently so humbled and riddled with guilt due to Soul Splice repricussions and traumatic experience of having been whisked away at IFCC's will, that he simply wouldn't dare to speak judgement against a party member now.

Elan - never been a straight man to begin with, and even though he's gained a lot of straightness points in this arc, he still in essense just wants everyone to get along.

So, the irony is indeed, that Belkar, having no relatives issues to worry about, no huge backstory arc consequences in this book to torment him on a personal level, happens to have the clearest head at the moment.

I believe it would be a masterful final trick to make the heartless Belkar actually make the correct call for once.




I agree with konradknox on pretty much all those points.

There's a little more, I wrote part of it in the main thread but I think it bears repeating.

Belkar is the only one who has actually seen Vampire Durkon (I hate the name Durkola) in action.

He was there when Durkon gave his speech to Malack, how the mere EXISTANCE of undead is an abomination and that the very fact that Malack is a vampire overwrite everything else, their conversation and what friendship they had and that that is why Durkon has to destroy Malack. Not because he's now a villain and works for the Linear Guild. Not because he just tried to kill Belkar. Because he's an undead monster! And now, he's "Oh well, I pray at dusk now, but no big deal". That is not Durkon!
Belkar was there when Vampire Durkon woke up. The first thing he said was "RRAARGHH!! I HUNGER FOR BLOOD, MASTER!" Yes it was thrall-dom Vampire Durkon, not free-will Vampire Durkon, but this also was before Malack really had a chance to enforce his will on Durkon. What we see there is Vampire Durkon's deepest and most base nature. And it scared the **** out of Belkar I bet.
The first time they meet Vampire Durkon is inside the Gate Room, from afar. He's just following Malack, says almost nothing, does even less. Malack's dominion over him is suppressing those base vampire urges from above, but they gotta be there still.
The next time they see him is: After Malack died and he tossed Z at the demon to make it turn tail. He tells them that he did change, but not by very much and that he's alright. See the point above. Durkon would NEVER have said that a change into a vampire was barely worth mentioning. Once again, this is not Durkon!
The way Durkon executed Z. The glee in his eyes, the casualness with which he did it. Nobody saw that except for us, the readers. We know it happened, but none of the characters do. We saw how he killed a defenseless enemy - a evil, horrible enemy to be sure, but helpless - for two reasons only. First because it was fun, just look at Vampire Durkon's face. Second to use it to scare Nale. And then continue to turn around and threaten to suck Nale's blood. Let's face it: Durkon would NEVER have done that. And this was Free-Willed Vampire Durkon now, he doesn't have the excuse of hiding behind the thralldom anymore. You can see that same base nature from above is still there, but when he talks to the other's it's hidden. You could say his Free Will is now suppressing it, but I don't think so. Not suppressing it, but hiding it. Disguising it.


So with all that, yes I think there is more evil to Vampire Durkon than meets the (party's) eyes, but Belkar has seen some of it, and so have we.

THIS IS NOT DURKON!

[Death Knight of]

What if Belkar walks in on durkula praying to hel and offers assistance?

[Keltest]

What if Belkar walks in on durkula praying to hel and offers assistance?

that would go against his character development. And of course "Wait, so you really did mean to suck all my blood out?!"

[Death Knight of]

Belkar and durkon are 2 of my favorite characters, I think the revelation of durky's soul binding will develop chemistry between them

[Death Knight of]

that would go against his character development. And of course "Wait, so you really did mean to suck all my blood out?!"

The belkster knows that was malacks thrall and not durkula

[Death Knight of]

I still hope durkon (not durkula) breaks free and denounces hel
All glory to dwarf kind and the Norse gods! Rage rage rage!

[Torrasque]

Ha! Foolish and amoral Belkar is completely wrong about Durkon! Anyone on Belkar's side of this debate is equally foolish and amoral!

spot on! :D

[PhallicWarrior]

I suspect that Belkar can subconsciously tell that something is OFF about Durkula. He'll probably wave it off because of the forced alignment change, or have it dismissed whenever he brings it up on those grounds, but it would be just perfect for a character who underwent fake character development to be outed by a character who faked his own character development. :smallamused:

[Komatik]

So, you were saying? :smallamused:

Or maybe, just maybe, because it's evil abomination serving evil god. Which was plenty obvious to everyone (especially after Malak announced his butcher plan) who doesn't auto-discard everything Belkar says.

We did not know that. Not back then. Evil Durkon would have no reason to betray his friends etc.

Durkula, the Hel-Spawned Demon/OtherwiseMalignIntelligence? Yes. All of this is pretty much par for the course when it's an actual new intelligence in control.


If the fact that Xykon has a phylactery with his soul (that is still in control of his body, and all deeds, completely unlike ex-soul of vampire) in his pocket wasn't a huge plot point half a dozen times through the whole comic run you maybe would have a point. As it is, well...

?

The main sources of how intelligent undeath works are Xykon and ABD, both of which clearly retain their own souls despite being vastly different beings. To use that as a baseline for how vampirism works until proven otherwise is quite reasonable.


Durkon is now a vampire. If you (aka Roy and friends) believe the only repercussion will be a couple of fixable quirks regarding sun and feeding, you are deluding yourself.

Absolutely. But if he still believes it's still Durkon at the helm, though turned evil? Much less problems.


To show a little more caution when durkon isn't present, would have been better. It seems that he completely trusts the "new" durkon.

This, though? 100% signed. If it's your old friend, you don't know how far he's been twisted. If it's a separate monster like Durkula is, well...

[Michaeler]

The great thing about arguments like this is that all you have to do is wait. :smallsmile:

[Jaxzan Proditor]

The real irony here is that Belkar was still wrong. His only justification for the killing of Durkon was that he viewed him as a mockery of the original. Belkar had no way of knowing what the reality was, and he was still not right to demand that Durkon be killed. Of course, know that we have seen the reality, we know that he deserves to be staked. *brandishes stake* :smallbiggrin:

[Rakoa]

The real irony here is that Belkar was still wrong. His only justification for the killing of Durkon was that he viewed him as a mockery of the original. Belkar had no way of knowing what the reality was, and he was still not right to demand that Durkon be killed. Of course, know that we have seen the reality, we know that he deserves to be staked. *brandishes stake* :smallbiggrin:

Or maybe Belkar has been putting some cross-class ranks into Knowledge: Religion and knows exactly what Durkula is, and just assumed that the rest of the party did too?

[hamishspence]

The real irony here is that Belkar was still wrong. His only justification for the killing of Durkon was that he viewed him as a mockery of the original. Belkar had no way of knowing what the reality was, and he was still not right to demand that Durkon be killed.

It parallels when V killed Kubota rather well:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html

in both cases - the being deserves the procedure being advocated (and in the former case, carried out)- but the grounds for the procedure are somewhat limited.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

It parallels when V killed Kubota rather well:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html

in both cases - the being deserves the procedure being advocated (and in the former case, carried out)- but the grounds for the procedure are somewhat limited.
I agree. While they might both be correct in what they are doing, they are doing so for the wrong reasons.

[busterswd]

Pragmatically, they still made the proper decision to not stake Durkon (To paraphrase Roy: "He wants to help us and we need it.") They literally had no way to refuse Durkula's help at the time, and at the present, they still have no access to heals, resurrection, or any of that cleric mojo without going along with the vampire.

[Ghost Nappa]

Pragmatically, they still made the proper decision to not stake Durkon (To paraphrase Roy: "He wants to help us and we need it.") They literally had no way to refuse Durkula's help at the time, and at the present, they still have no access to heals, resurrection, or any of that cleric mojo without going along with the vampire.

The problem with asking for help is that there's always strings attached.

Or in this case a inevitable backstab. While Belkar is all for the stabbing and the evulz, he's much more upfront about it and is probably more than a little frustrated than he is the only one who can see clearly but he has little to no credibility amongst the group (despite quite often being brutally honest if not flat-out rude).

[happyman]

OK, I honestly didn't see this coming.

In some ways, I really like how this worked out. But only in some ways. I mean, I'm not at all glad that Durkon is now trapped in his body while it is controlled by a malign entity that wants death and destruction. I really, really, really hope that he can get out of it.

The reason I like out it worked out is two-fold. The first is a hope spot. My hope is that, given that his soul is still in his body and that Hel felt the need to ask about it, it means that Durkon actually can influence things from the inside and Durkula is just being overconfident.

The thing I like is that I was starting to get really itchy about Durkon being turned evil against his will. It seemed to go against everything Rich had shown with respect to morality. In this case, it meshes much more easily with morality. It makes the "turns Evil" alignment mechanics into sensible world mechanics. I can live with that. Also, see hope spot, above.

[Death Knight of]

Remember belkar's prophecy? Maybe he walks in on durkon and gets killed to be silenced

[Death Knight of]

And can i be directed 2 the belkar's prophecy thread?

[snikrept]

I'm also curious how this plays out for Durkon's prophecy.

If he's not in control of his body enough to will it to travel someplace, or to will it to do bad things when it gets there, in what sense can he be said to have brought any death and destruction to anyone? "Fated to be dragged along while somebody else brings death and destruction using his resources" seems quite different than "fated to bring death and destruction."

IMO there will be another twist giving Durkon control back, before the death and destruction happens.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I'm also curious how this plays out for Durkon's prophecy.

If he's not in control of his body enough to will it to travel someplace, or to will it to do bad things when it gets there, in what sense can he be said to have brought any death and destruction to anyone? "Fated to be dragged along while somebody else brings death and destruction using his resources" seems quite different than "fated to bring death and destruction."

IMO there will be another twist giving Durkon control back, before the death and destruction happens.
He is bringing death and destruction in the sense that it is still his body that is doing the bringing, regardless of the spirit currently in charge.

[Dragolord]

I reckon it's either that he thinks that Durkon will kill the team himself, robbing Belkar of the opportunity, or that he thinks that he actually can't kill a vampire. They've got, what, DR10 against magic or silver? Those 1d4 daggers don't look silvered to me, and his strength bonus can't be that high.

[Knight.Anon]

Belkar knows evil, and he can recognize the threat on an instinctive level. Nale didn't fool him, Darth V didn't fool him. Its kind of like how a dog can be a better judge of character than a trained psychologist. Belkar is a ranger and the new Durkon, moves differently, smells differently, has different reactions, and body language. Belkar knows all of this at an unconscious level. Its too bad that Belkar isn't smart enough to articulate what must be incredibly obvious to him to the rest of his team.

Durkula probably has a 1000 tells and has to make bluff rolls constantly. Haley will give Durkula a chance, but she will catch on. Roy won't see it until its too late, Elan will never see it. V already knows - Durkula blew it when he went for his staff. She won't say anything about though (high INT, low WIS) .

I also think that Belkar was raised by the equivalent of a halfling Miko, so he has a smite reflex against the undead. We won't find out what really makes Belkar tick until after he's gone.

[Ramien]

And can i be directed 2 the belkar's prophecy thread?
Is this the thread you're looking for? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326233)

[Death Knight of]

Belkar knows evil, and he can recognize the threat on an instinctive level. Nale didn't fool him, Darth V didn't fool him. Its kind of like how a dog can be a better judge of character than a trained psychologist. Belkar is a ranger and the new Durkon, moves differently, smells differently, has different reactions, and body language. Belkar knows all of this at an unconscious level. Its too bad that Belkar isn't smart enough to articulate what must be incredibly obvious to him to the rest of his team.

Durkula probably has a 1000 tells and has to make bluff rolls constantly. Haley will give Durkula a chance, but she will catch on. Roy won't see it until its too late, Elan will never see it. V already knows - Durkula blew it when he went for his staff. She won't say anything about though (high INT, low WIS) .

I also think that Belkar was raised by the equivalent of a halfling Miko, so he has a smite reflex against the undead. We won't find out what really makes Belkar tick until after he's gone.

amen, brother