Enlighten me

[Raven777]

I don't think Roy is fully grasping the reality of 'his best friend has been violently murdered and replaced with an undead Evil mockery of life'. Future plot foreshadowing ahoy.


It's really interesting that Belkar seems to be the only one that understands that Durkon is dead. It makes sense, as Roy is in denial that his best friend died, and Belkar was the one shocked to see it in front of his eyes.

I don't understand this interpretation. D&D is not Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There's no demon or evil spirit possession going on. A D&D vampire is still the same soul driving its now undead body in the same way a Necropolitan or Lich is, with blood cravings on top. The usual undead drive to snuff life certainly nudges one's mindset to Evil™, but otherwise he's still himself. Durkon is not dead or gone. He's not hanging out with devas in the afterlife. He's right there.

[Shale]

But that doesn't mesh with Malack telling Durkon that he'd rather be reduced to ash than resurrected, because the person he was in life isn't the same as the vampire he became. I'll take the in-universe statements of how vampirism works over the (often contradictory) word of splatbooks.

[Rakoa]

I don't understand this interpretation. D&D is not Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There's no demon or evil spirit possession going on. A D&D vampire is still the same soul driving its now undead body in the same way a Necropolitan or Lich is, with blood cravings on top. The usual undead drive to snuff life certainly nudges one's mindset to Evil™, but otherwise he's still himself. Durkon is not dead or gone. He's not hanging on with devas in the afterlife. He's right there.

I think the confusion comes from the Always Evil mode that the template sets a character into. For something to immediately turn someone evil (in this case, the Good Dwarf Durkon), what does it to do you? Make you think really evil? Hate people? Take away your soul? Corrupt your already-existing soul?

To my knowledge, it is never explained in RAW, and so interpretations come and go.

[DaggerPen]

But that doesn't mesh with Malack telling Durkon that he'd rather be reduced to ash than resurrected, because the person he was in life isn't the same as the vampire he became. I'll take the in-universe statements of how vampirism works over the (often contradictory) word of splatbooks.

Malack wanted to create a ruling class of vampires in which the mortals of the Western continent were put into what is more or less factory farms. It's possible that Malack considered his vampirism an essential part of his identity and a crucial part of his own servitude to Nergal, something that gave him the right to shape the Western Continent to his vision of Nergal's will, something without which he would be incomplete, yet still had his original soul.

Aside from that, basically what Rakoa said.

[Loreweaver15]

Well, there are multiple reasons.

For starters, several of the things Malack said about vampirism smack to a lot of forumgoers as very directly Buffyverse, and they've operated under that assumption (which we do not have the information one way or the other about in-comic) ever since.

Second, by his own admission, Durkon is Evil, with a capital E. Whatever else happened to him, that is an unholy mockery of everything Durkon-That-Was held dear.

Third, Belkar is angry because Durkon made it to the top of his Short List of People I Treat As Worthwhile Individuals when he got murdered saving Belkar. In Belkar's book, whatever his own attitude about Evil, Durkon would not want this and thus just letting it happen is disrespectful to one of the few beings Belkar harbors any sort of actual respect for. Also, trauma, etc.

[Tiiba]

Second, by his own admission, Durkon is Evil, with a capital E.

He didn't actually say that. He said he's less evil than Belkar. And if he does think of himself as evil, that might be the same stereotypes that make everyone else think he's evil. It's not like people are all that great at judging their own morality, and when Durkon said that, he has only been a free-willed vampire for a couple rounds.

Durkon was not even evil enough to retaliate when Belkar jumped on him, just frowned and waited for the attack to run its course.

[Loreweaver15]

He didn't actually say that. He said he's less evil than Belkar. And if he does think of himself as evil, that might be the same stereotypes that make everyone else think he's evil. It's not like people are all that great at judging their own morality, and when Durkon said that, he has only been a free-willed vampire for a couple rounds.

"Not any more'n Belkar, I'd wager."

That's a dodgy half-truth meant to draw attention away from the answer of "Yes, I am."


Durkon was not even evil enough to retaliate when Belkar jumped on him, just frowned and waited for the attack to run its course.

Self-preservation instincts are not evidence one way or the other.

Even if he weren't committed to the whole 'save the world' brand of 'I want to keep existing', 'I want to keep existing' is a pretty good reason to not start swinging at a party of adventurers when you're out of spells.

Really, though we have no evidence one way or the other yet. It could have been Durkon not fighting his friends just as much as it could have been Durkula calculating his odds of survival. Being Evil doesn't preclude you from caring about other people, after all.

[Rorrik]

I'm inclined to think that he really has become evil. There's a little too much pleasure in his face when he kills the unconscious drow (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html). He now has evil desires he didn't have before, but he seems to have retained his lawful status and his loyalty and love for his friends means he is happy to work with them. This is all just a little too complicated for Belkar to comprehend, but Roy, Elan, and Haley expressing continued solidarity with Durkon certainly helps to keep him on their side.

[Kish]

"Not any more'n Belkar, I'd wager."

That's a dodgy half-truth meant to draw attention away from the answer of "Yes, I am."

...You realize your lack of consistency there? "We can believe he's evil because he said he is. He didn't actually say that? Well, that's because what he said is a dodgy half-truth, what it means is that he's evil, because I say so."

[Rakoa]

...You realize your lack of consistency there? "We can believe he's evil because he said he is. He didn't actually say that? Well, that's because what he said is a dodgy half-truth, what it means is that he's evil, because I say so."

Do you believe that he is not Evil?

[Kish]

Do you believe that he is not Evil?
I do not believe he was lying or misleading in any way when he said, "Not any more'n Belkar, I wager."

I do not wish to address the subject of Durkon's alignment here and now, because if I did, I anticipate either answer being an excuse to ignore the whole "Loreweaver15 is declaring that Durkon said something he made up and imputed to Durkon" thing.

[Loreweaver15]

...You realize your lack of consistency there? "We can believe he's evil because he said he is. He didn't actually say that? Well, that's because what he said is a dodgy half-truth, what it means is that he's evil, because I say so."

Fine, if you won't parse it without me laying it out, here it is:

What are the situations in which you would respond to the question "Are you evil?" with "Not any more than that very Evil character you really dislike but allow to remain on our team (which I am hoping to do for various reasons)!"

1. Because the answer is "Yes" and you don't particularly feel like copping to it.

2. Because the answer is very obviously "Yes" and you're feeling like a sarcastic ass at the moment.

3. That's about it.

For what it's worth, my answer is number one. Bad liars tell you almost as much as somebody telling you the straight truth, and Durkon is, at best, an okay liar. "Durkon dodged the question" leads to exactly one possible conclusion--that the answer is "Yes".

[Tebryn]

But that doesn't mesh with Malack telling Durkon that he'd rather be reduced to ash than resurrected, because the person he was in life isn't the same as the vampire he became. I'll take the in-universe statements of how vampirism works over the (often contradictory) word of splatbooks.

Except he never says that the person he was before was a separate individual and the same language you want to use to prove that was the case can just as easily be used to prove the opposite. He didn't say "This vessel was a different person. You'd be killing me." He said "I", a form of possession more intimate than you give him credit to mean. He's lived for longer than several human (and lizard folk) lifetimes. He's changed. He wasn't the Barbaric Lizardfolk Shaman he was before. The Live Him isn't who he wants to be again. His identity is that of a Vampire Cleric of Nergal, that is who is today and it is who he wishes to stay. Not the Now Alive Cleric of Nergal.

[Kish]

Fine, if you won't parse it without me laying it out, here it is:

Right. If I disagree with you, it must mean I'm refusing to parse. It can't mean I legitimately disagree with you, that the fact that you can only imagine two situations doesn't mean there are only two possible situations, or that you, you know, shouldn't claim people have said things they didn't say.

[WindStruck]

"Not any more'n Belkar, I'd wager."

That's a dodgy half-truth meant to draw attention away from the answer of "Yes, I am."

I think of that more as a witty, armor-piercing statement. Roy travels around with Belkar who's obviously evil. Why the hell should he care if at worst Durkon's gotten a darker sense of humor?

On the other hand, yes, it could be a half-truth, a possible clue the Giant has thrown in our direction. Or maybe a red herring. We really don't know at this point, so basically the only real argument anyone seems to have is that vampires are "Always Evil", as it says in the rules. Rules I'm sure the Giant printed out his own custom toilet paper of and wipes his ass daily with.

[Porthos]

But that doesn't mesh with Malack telling Durkon that he'd rather be reduced to ash than resurrected, because the person he was in life isn't the same as the vampire he became. I'll take the in-universe statements of how vampirism works over the (often contradictory) word of splatbooks.


Except he never says that the person he was before was a separate individual and the same language you want to use to prove that was the case can just as easily be used to prove the opposite. He didn't say "This vessel was a different person. You'd be killing me." He said "I", a form of possession more intimate than you give him credit to mean. He's lived for longer than several human (and lizard folk) lifetimes. He's changed. He wasn't the Barbaric Lizardfolk Shaman he was before. The Live Him isn't who he wants to be again. His identity is that of a Vampire Cleric of Nergal, that is who is today and it is who he wishes to stay. Not the Now Alive Cleric of Nergal.

Pretty much.

The thing is, Malack was shown to be a highly philosophical character. Perhaps the one of the most philosophical in the entire strip. As such, I'm not going to take his famous statement on not being the same person as he was a couple of centuries ago as a blanket statement of someone being the same person pre/post vamping. And certainly not a statement on souls and whatnot.

To put it another way, his statement could easily be read as metaphorical. And thus nearly entirely useless on the more mechanical nitty-gritty end of things.

[Loreweaver15]

Right. If I disagree with you, it must mean I'm refusing to parse. It can't mean I legitimately disagree with you or that you, you know, shouldn't claim people have said things they didn't say.

Then kindly dissect the argument I laid out for you, Kish. You're just acting smug and superior, otherwise.

My contention is that dodging the question is a very, VERY clear "THE ANSWER IS YES" and that no other conclusion being drawn makes sense. Prove me wrong, or stop accusing me of making things up.

[WindStruck]

Then kindly dissect the argument I laid out for you, Kish. You're just acting smug and superior, otherwise.

My contention is that dodging the question is a very, VERY clear "THE ANSWER IS YES" and that no other conclusion being drawn makes sense. Prove me wrong, or stop accusing me of making things up.

See my previous post.

[Tiiba]

Self-preservation instincts are not evidence one way or the other.

Well, yes, of course. But he didn't even say anything. I suppose it could just be scorn and not benevolence, but I don't know a lot of evil people who would weather a volley of insults, and not even ask the offender to stop. And I doubt that his low charisma would let him fake tranquility while a tempest brews beneath the surface. He just doesn't have that much malice.

People keep bringing up that he killed Zz'dri. A hostile, evil, dangerous freak. The Belkar-like glee was scary, but it was not an evil act.

Also, he called a devil, but he was vampire spawn back then. They have a separate entry in the manual, and obviously, Durkon is not the person he was back then. I doubt he could call an archon back then, even if his first act when freed was to extinguish a burning orphanage.

(All that said, I would not be overly shocked by further displays of murderous glee or rage. He certainly is not good. But he's just as definitely not Malack.

Also, like I said, even if Durkon thought he's evil, that doesn't prove it, because he was freed like a minute earlier.)

[Loreweaver15]

See my previous post.

Thank you, THAT'S an actual argument.

The tone of the conversation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html) does not appear to me to match that at all, but I can see how you'd draw that conclusion. Curse the limited facial range of stick figures. Still, having been reading Durkon for nearly a thousand comics by this point, I do not believe that interpretation fits with his established character. He can be sarcastic, but I can't recall him ever being flippant. Anyone care to summon up a link where he was? I'm genuinely curious.

[WindStruck]

I think Durkon has made some sarcasm before... I just cannot remember any exact quotes or comics. lol

[Tiiba]

I think Durkon has made some sarcasm before... I just cannot remember any exact quotes or comics. lol

There was the time he "forgot" to prepare Protection from Elements for Belkar.

[Yuki Akuma]

Souls are made of positive energy. Explicitly.

Undead are powered by negative energy. Again, explicitly.

So there's something weird going on with Durkon's soul.

[rbetieh]

Does alignment necessarily have to affect personality. Durkon seemed to always be the most *ethical* character of the oots. Could he still be just as *ethical*, but with a different D&D alignment?
Edit note: Originally wrote Moral, but Ethical is the more correct term for what I meant.

[WindStruck]

Souls are made of positive energy. Explicitly.

Undead are powered by negative energy. Again, explicitly.

So there's something weird going on with Durkon's soul.

The undead powered by negative energy thing is probably more for zombies, skeletons, wights, and such that don't really have to eat anything. Vampires DO need blood though. I would argue vampires are powered by blood.

And what of Xykon? He's a lich, and his soul is definitely sticking around inside him. It's 100% true. Soo...

I think that argument needs more work.

[Peelee]

But that doesn't mesh with Malack telling Durkon that he'd rather be reduced to ash than resurrected, because the person he was in life isn't the same as the vampire he became. I'll take the in-universe statements of how vampirism works over the (often contradictory) word of splatbooks.

I'm not the same person I was ten years ago. I grew. Same with Malack. He grew into a different person over two hundred years. I'd be surprised if he was the exact same person after that long a stretch.

[HZ514]

But that doesn't mesh with Malack telling Durkon that he'd rather be reduced to ash than resurrected, because the person he was in life isn't the same as the vampire he became. I'll take the in-universe statements of how vampirism works over the (often contradictory) word of splatbooks.

That (a vampire being a different entity than the pre-vamp host with Durkon discretely in the afterlife) would be the most literal, and admittedly straightforward interpretation of Malack's statement, yes. But there is another way to interpret Malack's words which would mesh with the idea that Durkon is still there in/as vamp-Durkon.

Perhaps Malack just meant that staking-resurrecting him would remove such a fundamental aspect of his personality at that point that the resulting non-vamp Malack could properly be labeled an entirely different person. He still would be and always was Malack, but over centuries of life revolving around being a vampire, that status is so intertwined with his identity that it is him.

Taking Malack's words that way, it's eminently possible that Durkon still is entirely Durkon, albeit with a thirst for blood and a gravitational pull toward...darker inclinations. Durkon's only been a vampire for a matter of hours, so it's no more a facet of his personality than a new shirt would be for you or me (okay, that's an exaggeration, but the idea roughly equates). Staking and resurrecting Durkon would take away his newfound strength and abilities, but it wouldn't strip him of a fundamental aspect of his identity like the process would have done to Malack.

Edit: I personally believe that Durkon's soul is gone to the afterlife and the husk of his corpse has been animated by negative energy complete with an imprint of his memories, motivations, etc. But it's not a knowable truth, per se.

[Deathmachine]

The tone of the conversation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html) does not appear to me to match that at all, but I can see how you'd draw that conclusion. Curse the limited facial range of stick figures. Still, having been reading Durkon for nearly a thousand comics by this point, I do not believe that interpretation fits with his established character. He can be sarcastic, but I can't recall him ever being flippant. Anyone care to summon up a link where he was? I'm genuinely curious.

So you say that "he is acting different than before" means "he is a completely other entity and lying all the time"? Do I get that right?

Just because his Character development was forced onto him doesn't mean that it's no real development.


To me it seems that there are some extreme Buffy fans here who can't cope with the Giant creating a different kind of vampirisation. I remember having a similar discussion about vampires years ago, and in the end the consensus was "everyone sticks to the vampire he knows and bends everything else to this".

[Loreweaver15]

So you say that "he is acting different than before" means "he is a completely other entity and lying all the time"? Do I get that right?

Just because his Character development was forced onto him doesn't mean that it's no real development.


To me it seems that there are some extreme Buffy fans here who can't cope with the Giant creating a different kind of vampirisation. I remember having a similar discussion about vampires years ago, and in the end the consensus was "everyone sticks to the vampire he knows and bends everything else to this".

Lying all the...what? I said he lied once, and that that lie, that dodged question, outright gave us the answer.

[Deathmachine]

Lying all the...what? I said he lied once, and that that lie, that dodged question, outright gave us the answer.

In the other topic you said that he fakes his whole character development (thus lying to the others). I took the liberty to take that here, so we can leave the other topic to Belkar.

[Yuki Akuma]

The undead powered by negative energy thing is probably more for zombies, skeletons, wights, and such that don't really have to eat anything. Vampires DO need blood though. I would argue vampires are powered by blood.

And what of Xykon? He's a lich, and his soul is definitely sticking around inside him. It's 100% true. Soo...

I think that argument needs more work.

In D&D, liches keep their souls outside their bodies. Liches in OoTS are a bit different to regular D&D liches.

[Loreweaver15]

In the other topic you said that he fakes his whole character development (thus lying to the others). I took the liberty to take that here, so we can leave the other topic to Belkar.

I was talking about Belkar :P

[Tebryn]

Thank you, THAT'S an actual argument.

The tone of the conversation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html) does not appear to me to match that at all, but I can see how you'd draw that conclusion. Curse the limited facial range of stick figures. Still, having been reading Durkon for nearly a thousand comics by this point, I do not believe that interpretation fits with his established character. He can be sarcastic, but I can't recall him ever being flippant. Anyone care to summon up a link where he was? I'm genuinely curious.

How about the time he didn't give Belkar a Protection from Elements? He's certainly being more than sarcastic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0683.html)

[Loreweaver15]

How about the time he didn't give Belkar a Protection from Elements? He's certainly being more than sarcastic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0683.html)

That's much closer, and certainly more arguable.

I'm going to say I don't think it fits, still, because that was comeuppance, and thus had a point beyond 'tell a joke that nobody laughs at', but I can see where you're coming from there.

[Tebryn]

So...it doesn't count because it doesn't fit the narrow criteria you're using? You said he can be sarcastic but he's never been flippant in your memory. He's been flippant, he's capable of flippancy. A comment taking a jab at another team mate he has taken pot shots at before doesn't fit your criteria? Alright then.

[Reathin]

In D&D, liches keep their souls outside their bodies. Liches in OoTS are a bit different to regular D&D liches.

Are you certain? I know liches tie their souls to their phylacteries so they go there instead of to their appropriate afterlife, but I never got the impression that regular dnd lich souls occupy anything but their animated bodies until destroyed.

Not that it matters in this case, as your second point seems to be correct, if Xykon's statements in Start of Darkness are true (ie. yes, his soul is still very much occupying his skeleton body).


On topic, I'm with the OP on this one. I never thought of Durkula as having a different soul than Vanilla Durkon. He's got new biological impulses to deal with, but it's still him in there. Malack's statements never once struck me as indicitive that he was literally a different person 200 years back. I'm a tremendously different person than I was twenty years ago (heck, 10 years ago), I can't imagine how changed I would be after 200.

[Jasdoif]

My contention is that dodging the question is a very, VERY clear "THE ANSWER IS YES" and that no other conclusion being drawn makes sense.Maybe Durkon wasn't sure he knew the answer, having been recently freed from Malack's control (still unaware his spontaneous casting produced inflict spells instead of cure spells now that he was a vampire, even), and thought "I dinnae know" wouldn't go over very well with Roy. The vague answer could be technically accurate without needing specifics Durkon didn't have.

Or, perhaps Durkon believed the answer was "no", but didn't think Roy would accept that (he certainly doesn't look too trusting at first (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html)). So Durkon went with "Not anymore'n Belkar" to work with Roy's preconception, and possibly to suggest that the OOTS can already work with evil members in it so there was no reason to treat him any differently.

[Loreweaver15]

So...it doesn't count because it doesn't fit the narrow criteria you're using? You said he can be sarcastic but he's never been flippant in your memory. He's been flippant, he's capable of flippancy. A comment taking a jab at another team mate he has taken pot shots at before doesn't fit your criteria? Alright then.

Who's he taking a jab at? Roy? And if he is taking a jab rather than covering up that he's Evil, why is he doing it at all? "Are you evil" is a very serious and pertinent question when you've been turned into a vampire, even in worlds where the answer isn't always "Yes."

EDIT:


Maybe Durkon wasn't sure he knew the answer, having been recently freed from Malack's control (still unaware his spontaneous casting produced inflict spells instead of cure spells now that he was a vampire, even), and thought "I dinnae know" wouldn't go over very well with Roy. The vague answer could be technically accurate without needing specifics Durkon didn't have.

Or, perhaps Durkon believed the answer was "no", but didn't think Roy would accept that (he certainly doesn't look too trusting at first (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html)). So Durkon went with "Not anymore'n Belkar" to work with Roy's preconception, and possibly to suggest that the OOTS can already work with evil members in it so there was no reason to treat him any differently.

THAT makes a lot of sense, yeah.

[Thokk_Smash]

To expand on "he might not've known for sure", characters in the series are never 100% sure of their specific alignment (barring characters so self-assured that they will kill to maintain the facade to themselves). Roy believed himself to be Lawful Good, but he still needed to go through the trial-by-deva for the Universe to be sure.

Like Jasdoif said, he had only had free will for a few minutes. Having just come back to his own senses, with all these new thoughts and outlooks, how could he possibly give a clear answer when he's almost a stranger in his own body?

[Raven777]

To elaborate on my initial post, of course Durkon is evil now. The Vampire template makes you so. There's really nothing to contest until proven otherwise in-comic.

My grievance is with the interpretation of the situation where people treat Vampire Durkon as some sort of body snatching non-Durkon entity.

[Keltest]

To elaborate on my initial post, of course Durkon is evil now. The Vampire template makes you so. There's really nothing to contest until proven otherwise in-comic.

My grievance is with the interpretation of the situation where people treat Vampire Durkon as some sort of body snatching non-Durkon entity.

The Giant has expressed disdain for that sort of reasoning, to the point where he goes out of his way to write subversions of that. Paladins committing genocide, for example.

[Heksefatter]

As I understand it, when someone is vampirized (D&D), there are some factors combining to turn someone towards evil.

1) The Master Vampire. A new vampire is under the control of its creator. This process twists the vampire's mentality very quickly.

2) The negative energy infusion. A vampire without a Master Vampire has, according to the most comprehensive D&D guide to vampires, a chance to keep its alignment and much of its personality. However, the vampire will gradually become more and more selfish, cruel and vampiriffic. As I understood it, this was due to the corrupting influence of the negative energy plane and the vampiric state.

Note that 1), according to D&D rules, holds true even though some might say that a creature that wasn't free-willed might not be capable of being evil.

If we accept this, which is from Van Richten's Guide to Vampires, it makes perfect sense for Malack to think that resurrecting him would be annihilating the being he is now. You would sever the connection to the negative energy plane, which has formed Malack's personality for two centuries.

Regarding Durkon, even if he is a mostly good vampire (which I doubt), he will be corrupted sooner or later. His soul remains the same, unlike in the Buffyverse, but it gets corrupted. So Durkon will almost surely become evil, even if he isn't already. Also note that he doesn't just become Evil, but his personality changes.

So it is entirely reasonable to think of Durkula being a mockery of Durkon, or in the process of becoming such a mockery.

[oppyu]

To elaborate on my initial post, of course Durkon is evil now. The Vampire template makes you so. There's really nothing to contest until proven otherwise in-comic.

My grievance is with the interpretation of the situation where people treat Vampire Durkon as some sort of body snatching non-Durkon entity.
Because it's not Durkon. Durkon was a living, breathing, Lawful Good dwarf. Then he died. Then Malack used his vampire mumbo jumbo to inject negative energy into Durkon's corpse. The negative energy coursed through Durkon's corpse and manifested as a new being which used Durkon's brain and got his memories and such as part and parcel, making him seem like Durkon without actually being Durkon. Durkula is literally a body snatching non-Durkon entity.

[Kish]

I'd just like to mention that Van Richten's Guide to Vampires is a 2ed supplement which has a lot of rules for vampires, all of which range from "that aspect of vampirism not yet established either way, so some house-ruled import from 2ed could theoretically be the case, though there's no reason to think it is" to "proven not to be in the comic."

Edited to add: I wonder, are all the descriptors in "living, breathing, Lawful Good dwarf" necessary conditions to Be Durkon, or are they rather an exhaustive list of sufficient conditions? That is, if Durkon had been polymorphed into a halfling, would he be Not Durkon? If he reconsidered his rigid beliefs and changed alignment to Neutral Good, would he be Not Durkon? If he got a magic item that obviated his need to breathe, would he be Not Durkon? If he died and we saw him in Celestia like we did Roy, would he be Not Durkon? (Was the Roy in all those scenes Ruya...?)

[Ellye]

@OP

While one of the quotes you provided are mine, I actually don't think that Durkon's soul is gone and that there's a new soul in his body.

I agree with you - his soul is still residing on his now undead body. But it has been corrupted and twisted, and that's why I feel safe in saying that "Durkon died".

[Amphiox]

Why does everyone seem to accept Malack's statements about vampirism as rote truth? Lest we forget, Malack was a murderous complete monster who LIKED being a vampire and did not want to be changed back to his old self. He had every motivation to lie there, or he could have been speaking metaphorically. Furthermore there's no guarantee that Malack knows anything about vampirism beyond his own personal experience, and as far as we know he'd never been killed and raised before -he may not actually even know what really happens to a vampire's personality in that case.

[Komatik]

The Giant has expressed disdain for that sort of reasoning, to the point where he goes out of his way to write subversions of that. Paladins committing genocide, for example.

That just means Paladins have free will and can do nasty things. IIRC, those paladins also fell according to Word of Giant.

The way I see vampirism working in OOTS-verse, consistent with what we've seen thus far, and from what I understand of Giant's MO:

Apply Vampire template. Base creature undergoes a Helm of Opposite Alignment-esque one-shot alignment change: It's as if it had naturally encountered and adopted a new philosophy, a new outlook on life. Changes many things about it deeply, but doesn't impact things the new outlook isn't relevant to (compare: Chances are my beliefs on politics have little effect on my actions around the MTG table, even if they change drastically). The resultant Vampire has free will like his living incarnation did, but as a person to whom an outlook is natural he isn't exactly in a hurry to change. But change is certainly possible.

[Raven777]

The Giant has expressed disdain for that sort of reasoning, to the point where he goes out of his way to write subversions of that. Paladins committing genocide, for example.


To elaborate on my initial post, of course Durkon is evil now. The Vampire template makes you so. There's really nothing to contest until proven otherwise in-comic.

My statement is infallible! :smalltongue:

[Keltest]

That just means Paladins have free will and can do nasty things. IIRC, those paladins also fell according to Word of Giant.

The way I see vampirism working in OOTS-verse, consistent with what we've seen thus far, and from what I understand of Giant's MO:

Apply Vampire template. Base creature undergoes a Helm of Opposite Alignment-esque one-shot alignment change: It's as if it had naturally encountered and adopted a new philosophy, a new outlook on life. Changes many things about it deeply, but doesn't impact things the new outlook isn't relevant to (compare: Chances are my beliefs on politics have little effect on my actions around the MTG table, even if they change drastically). The resultant Vampire has free will like his living incarnation did, but as a person to whom an outlook is natural he isn't exactly in a hurry to change. But change is certainly possible.

Do you happen to have the quote where The Giant said all the paladins fell? I want to see that.

[Raven777]

Because it's not Durkon. Durkon was a living, breathing, Lawful Good dwarf. Then he died. Then Malack used his vampire mumbo jumbo to inject negative energy into Durkon's corpse. The negative energy coursed through Durkon's corpse and manifested as a new being which used Durkon's brain and got his memories and such as part and parcel, making him seem like Durkon without actually being Durkon. Durkula is literally a body snatching non-Durkon entity.

Now you are just inventing stuff. :smallconfused:

[oppyu]

Edited to add: I wonder, are all the descriptors in "living, breathing, Lawful Good dwarf" necessary conditions to Be Durkon, or are they rather an exhaustive list of sufficient conditions? That is, if Durkon had been polymorphed into a halfling, would he be Not Durkon? If he reconsidered his rigid beliefs and changed alignment to Neutral Good, would he be Not Durkon? If he got a magic item that obviated his need to breathe, would he be Not Durkon? If he died and we saw him in Celestia like we did Roy, would he be Not Durkon? (Was the Roy in all those scenes Ruya...?)
Eh, I'm OK with that path as well. If Durkula really is Durkon, then staking and reviving Durkon is simply curing an old friend of an illness, and all protests of 'but I want to be a vampire' are simply delusions brought on by said illness. You don't refrain from treating a schizophrenic because they say they're Jesus after all.

That being said, I do believe that once a person dies and their corpse is reanimated with negative energy that comes with its own alignment, they cease to be that person. But that's personal speculation on a completely and utterly unverifiable subject.


Now you are just inventing stuff. :smallconfused:
Hmmm? I thought there were others on the forum saying that undead are corpses reanimated by negative energy, and popular lore is that vampires spread their vampirism otherwise known as 'vampire mumbo jumbo'. What did I make up?

[Deathmachine]

But that's personal speculation on a completely and utterly unverifiable subject.

Then why do you keep repeating it like it's a matter of fact?



What did I make up?

The following statement:


Durkula is literally a body snatching non-Durkon entity.

[oppyu]

Then why do you keep repeating it like it's a matter of fact?
Same reason everyone else does, in my opinion; because typing 'in my opinion' after every sentence is tedious, in my opinion. No such thing as objective truth, everything is someone's opinion... in my opinion.

[Deathmachine]

Same reason everyone else does, in my opinion; because typing 'in my opinion' after every sentence is tedious, in my opinion. No such thing as objective truth, everything is someone's opinion... in my opinion.

There'S a huge different with "coming to a conclusion, based on what the comics show" and "throwing around wild speculations without any indication by the comic".

The ONLY reasoning for "It's not Durkons soul in there" was "Buffy does it that way, so it's the same here", and sorry, that's just stupid.

[oppyu]

There'S a huge different with "coming to a conclusion, based on what the comics show" and "throwing around wild speculations without any indication by the comic".

The ONLY reasoning for "It's not Durkons soul in there" was "Buffy does it that way, so it's the same here", and sorry, that's just stupid.
Well, that's your opinion, in my opinion. But in my opinion, your opinion is incorrect, but that's just my opinion.

[Tebryn]

Who's he taking a jab at? Roy? And if he is taking a jab rather than covering up that he's Evil, why is he doing it at all? "Are you evil" is a very serious and pertinent question when you've been turned into a vampire, even in worlds where the answer isn't always "Yes."


1. To Belkar. Just because he's not there to hear it doesn't make it not a jab.

2. Being Evil may or may not be a serious question considering this is D&D. It may be a serious question to you but it may not be to people in a world where you can tell if someone is evil with a glance and a spell. As we've seen, being Evil doesn't make you some homicidal maniac. You can be just as pleasant and nice as anyone. So the answer "No more than X" isn't a dodge. The answer is "I'm no more evil than a character we know is evil." that doesn't mean he's evil, that just means that if he -were- he'd be no more evil then Belkar. That's a pretty straight forward question, you're the one wanting to read into it.

[Kish]

Hmmm? I thought there were others on the forum saying that undead are corpses reanimated by negative energy, and popular lore is that vampires spread their vampirism otherwise known as 'vampire mumbo jumbo'. What did I make up?
You made up the idea that Vampire Durkon is Godawful Name rather than being, y'know, Durkon.

Yes, you are not the only person on the forum to have made it up.

So?

(And "I'm okay with that path as well" does not actually seem to be an answer to my question.)

[Keltest]

1. To Belkar. Just because he's not there to hear it doesn't make it not a jab.

2. Being Evil may or may not be a serious question considering this is D&D. It may be a serious question to you but it may not be to people in a world where you can tell if someone is evil with a glance and a spell. As we've seen, being Evil doesn't make you some homicidal maniac. You can be just as pleasant and nice as anyone. So the answer "No more than X" isn't a dodge. The answer is "I'm no more evil than a character we know is evil." that doesn't mean he's evil, that just means that if he -were- he'd be no more evil then Belkar. That's a pretty straight forward question, you're the one wanting to read into it.

To add on to this, Roy and Durkon were in the middle of a big fight. That is not a good place for philosophical discussion of any sort. Durkon's point was that he wasn't past the line that Roy wouldn't cross, not that he was toeing the ling or anything like that.

[Raven777]

Hmmm? I thought there were others on the forum saying that undead are corpses reanimated by negative energy, and popular lore is that vampires spread their vampirism otherwise known as 'vampire mumbo jumbo'. What did I make up?

Excuse me. Reading my own quote, it comes off as more aggressive than I intended to be. To be fair, the part where an undead is powered by negative energy is in sync with common lore and RAW. The problem of sentient undead like Liches or Vampires, though, and what your argument doesn't take into consideration, is that the sentient undead's soul is nowhere to be seen in the afterlife, and that there is no text that precises what happens to it. Considering Liches, Necropolitans and Vampires tend to keep to the same agenda they had while alive, it is easier to surmise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) that they themselves are still at the wheel.

To sum up, undeath warps you (sometimes a lot, like the stark raving mad Bodak), but it does not replace you.

Finally, to nail the topic once and for all, there is a core spell that flat out says sentient undead have souls. Magic Jar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicJar.htm) goes out of its way to stipulate sentient undead are valid targets.


While in the magic jar, you can sense and attack any life force within 10 feet per caster level (and on the same plane of existence). You do need line of effect from the jar to the creatures. You cannot determine the exact creature types or positions of these creatures. In a group of life forces, you can sense a difference of 4 or more Hit Dice between one creature and another and can determine whether a life force is powered by positive or negative energy. (Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)

[DaggerPen]

Do you happen to have the quote where The Giant said all the paladins fell? I want to see that.

Here you go. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8081896#post8081896)

[Keltest]

You know this how?



Here you go. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8081896#post8081896)

Thanks. Reading that post, he does not say "the paladins who did that all fell." He did say that some might have gone too far, and them immediately follows up saying that most who participated likely did not.

[David Argall]

What are the situations in which you would respond to the question "Are you evil?" with "Not any more than that very Evil character you really dislike but allow to remain on our team (which I am hoping to do for various reasons)!"

1. Because the answer is "Yes" and you don't particularly feel like copping to it.

2. Because the answer is very obviously "Yes" and you're feeling like a sarcastic ass at the moment.

3. That's about it.

While I doubt it's the case, a #3 would be "No, I am good [or at least non-evil], but you would take that answer as a lie, making you more unfriendly. So I try to show you that you don't really care."



For what it's worth, my answer is number one. Bad liars tell you almost as much as somebody telling you the straight truth, and Durkon is, at best, an okay liar. "Durkon dodged the question" leads to exactly one possible conclusion--that the answer is "Yes".
I would not bet against it even at odds, but it's not [un?]dead certain just yet.

[mightycleric]

Why does everyone seem to accept Malack's statements about vampirism as rote truth? Lest we forget, Malack was a murderous complete monster who LIKED being a vampire and did not want to be changed back to his old self. He had every motivation to lie there, or he could have been speaking metaphorically. Furthermore there's no guarantee that Malack knows anything about vampirism beyond his own personal experience, and as far as we know he'd never been killed and raised before -he may not actually even know what really happens to a vampire's personality in that case.

As for his knowledge, he collected a large library of information, partially to construct a "Protection from Daylight" spell. It is quite possible (perhaps even likely) that his library holds a lot of overall information on the undead, and vampires in particular, since it even had extensive enough information on the subject to help Durkon come up with a spell that wards multiple people from negative energy.

[happyman]

As for his knowledge, he collected a large library of information, partially to construct a "Protection from Daylight" spell. It is quite possible (perhaps even likely) that his library holds a lot of overall information on the undead, and vampires in particular, since it even had extensive enough information on the subject to help Durkon come up with a spell that wards multiple people from negative energy.

Heh. You always know somebody's argument has run into the ground when they start speculating on possible sources of information that aren't established. While this is all possible, it still remains necessary to support the assertion that Malak cared about the truth, actually knew the truth (he was likely to be somewhat biased, no?), or was expressing it carefully. And I always read his statement about killing and resurrecting him as changing him to be philosophical, rather than literal. It's the kind of character he is.

I never even once considered the possibility that free-will Durkula wasn't Durkon until I saw people believing it so very deeply in this thread. I guess the fact that I never paid any real attention to the Buckyverse probably helped with that. My only extended connection with "real" undead was the Dresden Files, which is so off-norm it doesn't bleed over, and this comic strip. The only other free-willed undead I can remember is Xykon, whose Lichification had almost no effect on his core personality (tasting coffee duly noted, but it was more like having a really bad day with many more to come than a fundamental change), and who claims to have his soul. Claims I had no reason to disbelieve, and still don't. I have always assumed Durkon would be the same way.

The only really obvious non-superficial difference between cases to me was the forced alignment change. Drinking blood? Inconvenient. Sunlight trouble? Call it an allergy. Those are mechanics. No, the core difference is that Xykon was Chaotic Evil from the word go, and that so totally did not change with his lichification. He and being an evil lich go together like peanut butter and jelly. Durkon and being a vampire, on the other hand, go together rather more like oil and water.

My opinion on the subject is: we haven't seen enough yet to really know. The glee with which Durkon snapped Z's neck was disturbing and the way he threatened Nale was a bit more vindictive than I would have thought of him, but that is literally the only act which I have seen Durkula do which could show any real fundamental differences. However, I've seen the Giant weigh in on more than enough alignment debates to watch my step very carefully when talking about forced alignment changes. The strip makes it clear to me, at least, that the Giant thinks that alignment is ultimately determined by actions and motivations, not mechanics. How this will play out with Durkon, I have no idea. I don't play D&D, and more than a few posters have convinced me that the Giant can follow any version of the rules he likes when it comes to vampires, including making up a version which fits with his morality better.

[mightycleric]

Heh. You always know somebody's argument has run into the ground when they start speculating on possible sources of information that aren't established. While this is all possible, it still remains necessary to support the assertion that Malak cared about the truth, actually knew the truth (he was likely to be somewhat biased, no?), or was expressing it carefully. And I always read his statement about killing and resurrecting him as changing him to be philosophical, rather than literal. It's the kind of character he is.

I never even once considered the possibility that free-will Durkula wasn't Durkon until I saw people believing it so very deeply in this thread. I guess the fact that I never paid any real attention to the Buckyverse probably helped with that. My only extended connection with "real" undead was the Dresden Files, which is so off-norm it doesn't bleed over, and this comic strip. The only other free-willed undead I can remember is Xykon, whose Lichification had almost no effect on his core personality (tasting coffee duly noted, but it was more like having a really bad day with many more to come than a fundamental change), and who claims to have his soul. Claims I had no reason to disbelieve, and still don't. I have always assumed Durkon would be the same way.

The only really obvious non-superficial difference between cases to me was the forced alignment change. Drinking blood? Inconvenient. Sunlight trouble? Call it an allergy. Those are mechanics. No, the core difference is that Xykon was Chaotic Evil from the word go, and that so totally did not change with his lichification. He and being an evil lich go together like peanut butter and jelly. Durkon and being a vampire, on the other hand, go together rather more like oil and water.

My opinion on the subject is: we haven't seen enough yet to really know. The glee with which Durkon snapped Z's neck was disturbing and the way he threatened Nale was a bit more vindictive than I would have thought of him, but that is literally the only act which I have seen Durkula do which could show any real fundamental differences. However, I've seen the Giant weigh in on more than enough alignment debates to watch my step very carefully when talking about forced alignment changes. The strip makes it clear to me, at least, that the Giant thinks that alignment is ultimately determined by actions and motivations, not mechanics. How this will play out with Durkon, I have no idea. I don't play D&D, and more than a few posters have convinced me that the Giant can follow any version of the rules he likes when it comes to vampires, including making up a version which fits with his morality better.

It isn't that my argument has run into the ground at all. Malack amassed an extremely large library, one which Durkon used to create Mass Death Ward, stating that he did it to research his Protection from the Sun spell. It seems fairly likely that it didn't take that many books to figure that out, and that, he was probably researching vampires in general, in order to know more about how to protect himself from various dangers of being one.

Since Malack's comments about being a different person were stated when either 1) telling Durkon he'd rather be staked, 2) talking to his new vampire that was under his control, 3) telling Belkar he was free to go as a last sign of kindness to a friend (and it seems that was not a deception, since he saw the OOTS, and then pretended he didn't notice anything, as part of honoring that), it seems weird to think he was lying. Perhaps his perspective is off, but it seems almost certain that he believes his words.

[snikrept]

Whether or not it's still Durkon in there is irrelevant. You don't need to postulate an alternate being hijacking your body to see how you might get two different responses to this situation.

Replace "vampirism" with "drug addiction." The victim's personality is still replaced by another, less likable one, but there's no nonconservation-of-self mumbo-jumbo going on.

Some acquaintances don't want to interfere with the victim, thinking it will destroy the friendship or make the situation worse. These are the "enabler" type.

Others see the victim personality as already destroyed, and say why not take steps to get rid of the thing that has done it? In this analogy Belkar is the guy trying to organize an intervention or something -- "let's all bull-rush him together."

[Amphiox]

As for his knowledge, he collected a large library of information, partially to construct a "Protection from Daylight" spell. It is quite possible (perhaps even likely) that his library holds a lot of overall information on the undead, and vampires in particular, since it even had extensive enough information on the subject to help Durkon come up with a spell that wards multiple people from negative energy.

There is nothing inherent in the information needed to craft spells like protection from daylight or mass death ward that would require knowing about what happens to a vampire's personality after destruction and resurrection. The library could be arbitrarily large and it does change our assessment of the reliability of Malack's statement concerning his resurrection.

[Amphiox]

Whether or not it's still Durkon in there is irrelevant. You don't need to postulate an alternate being hijacking your body to see how you might get two different responses to this situation.

Replace "vampirism" with "drug addiction." The victim's personality is still replaced by another, less likable one, but there's no nonconservation-of-self mumbo-jumbo going on.

Some acquaintances don't want to interfere with the victim, thinking it will destroy the friendship or make the situation worse. These are the "enabler" type.

Others see the victim personality as already destroyed, and say why not take steps to get rid of the thing that has done it? In this analogy Belkar is the guy trying to organize an intervention or something -- "let's all bull-rush him together."

Drug interventions do not involve the murder of sentient self-willed beings. You cannot equate a reluctance to commit murder with "enabling" a drug addict.

[hamishspence]

In D&D, liches keep their souls outside their bodies. Liches in OoTS are a bit different to regular D&D liches.

It's actually left a bit unclear as to whether this is the case, or, like in OoTS, the phylactery is a "bolthole for the soul to flee to when the body is destroyed"

The 3.5 book Complete Divine, which goes into some depth on the subject of undead, souls, etc, says that the soul is "trapped in the undead body" in the case of liches.

In the case of spawning undead, like vampires, besides saying that, it also says that the body is "controlled by a malign intelligence" - with the implication that it's the "malign intelligence" and not the original soul, that's in the driving seat so to speak.

However, even within D&D, there is considerable variance in interpretation.

[Deathmachine]

Drug interventions do not involve the murder of sentient self-willed beings. You cannot equate a reluctance to commit murder with "enabling" a drug addict.

Well, vampirism is the dire half-dragon version of that ;)

On the serious note, Belkar doesn't consider Durkula to be Durkon, so it's not entirely clear if he sees Durkula as a sentient self-willed being (and even if, this is Belkar - he simply does not care.).

[snikrept]

Drug interventions do not involve the murder of sentient self-willed beings. You cannot equate a reluctance to commit murder with "enabling" a drug addict.

That's what I'm getting at. Reluctance to commit murder is not the issue here. Reluctance to destroy previous relationship, is. One doesn't need to bring in whether or not body-stealing magic stuff is in play, to see how Roy or Belkar might reasonably react two different ways to a radical change in an acquaintance's personality.

Recall that Roy is an adventurer. He murders people who look different from him and takes their stuff for a living.

[Kish]

Recall that Roy is an adventurer. He murders people who look different from him and takes their stuff for a living.
Argh. I defy you to cite a single strip where he murdered someone for looking different from him and having stuff he wanted, or a single citation from Rich on the subject that is anything other than 100% opposed to the claim that Roy would do anything like that.

(I can certainly cite Roy saying he won't: On the Origins of PCs.)

[137beth]

Recall that Roy is an adventurer. He murders people who look different from him and takes their stuff for a living.

Roy explicitly does not kill people just because they look different from him. That was a big plot point in On the Origins of the PCs, and one of the primary mindsets that the author is trying to criticize in this story.

[SiuiS]

I don't understand this interpretation. D&D is not Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There's no demon or evil spirit possession going on.

That's worse. That means that Durkon himself has been forcibly changed and is now okay with things that were once abhorrent. Depending on how you choose to view it Durkon is either basically constantly drugged by his undead state (the negative energy and the unliving state a constantly refreshing veil through which he views the world) or has been singularly mind-raped by the transformation.

Either way, this is terrible. Some people would rather view it through a more stark lens. Durkon is a constant victim either way; better to have a victimized dwarf who isn't revelling and growing into his deformed role instead of one who has been broken like a sapling and will be shaped by his circumstances into a monster (moral sense) such that he cannot recover, and cannot even see what is wrong with himself.

Much cleaner, to be a doppleganger inhabiting the body. Much cleaner.

[Amphiox]

Well, vampirism is the dire half-dragon version of that ;)

On the serious note, Belkar doesn't consider Durkula to be Durkon, so it's not entirely clear if he sees Durkula as a sentient self-willed being (and even if, this is Belkar - he simply does not care.).

If Belkar does not see Durkula as a sentient self-willed being, and the mistake is an honest mistake, out of ignorance (as opposed to prejudice against undead), then his error is not a moral or ethical failing, but instead one of knowledge, in which incomplete understanding has lead him to the wrong conclusion.

But the conclusion he has reached is still wrong.

[Amphiox]

That's what I'm getting at. Reluctance to commit murder is not the issue here. Reluctance to destroy previous relationship, is. One doesn't need to bring in whether or not body-stealing magic stuff is in play, to see how Roy or Belkar might reasonably react two different ways to a radical change in an acquaintance's personality.

I question your priorities, when confronted with a situation wherein both murder and the destruction of a previous relationship are involved, and indeed it is the act of murder that destroys the relationship, you choose to insist that it is the relationship issue, and not the question of murder, that is the more important one to consider.


Recall that Roy is an adventurer. He murders people who look different from him and takes their stuff for a living.

Roy most emphatically does NOT do that.

[Socksy]

About the "Raising me would kill the man I am today"(or whichever words he actually used) comment from Malack:-
Perhaps he had just been through several hundred years of character development as a vampire?
Maybe resurrecting him would undo all of that? Including any EXP/levels he gained since then?

I'm fairly sure it would be different for Durkon, a newly-created vampire, with no real time to change beyond alignment.

[Vinyadan]

I don't understand this interpretation. D&D is not Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There's no demon or evil spirit possession going on. A D&D vampire is still the same soul driving its now undead body in the same way a Necropolitan or Lich is, with blood cravings on top. The usual undead drive to snuff life certainly nudges one's mindset to Evil™, but otherwise he's still himself. Durkon is not dead or gone. He's not hanging out with devas in the afterlife. He's right there.

Are you sure it is? The fact that a special ritual is needed to keep the lich's soul in place makes me think this isn't all that evident.


But that doesn't mesh with Malack telling Durkon that he'd rather be reduced to ash than resurrected, because the person he was in life isn't the same as the vampire he became. I'll take the in-universe statements of how vampirism works over the (often contradictory) word of splatbooks.

I believe he meant that his personal development was still at such a low level, that he couldn't see that person as himself anymore. Personally I believe vampires do think they are the same person as before.



To my knowledge, it is never explained in RAW, and so interpretations come and go.

I think this is the important part. This is one of those chances for storytelling unexplained stuff gives - the Giant counts on this ambiguity, as he counted on the ambiguity of what would have happened, had the phylactery been thrown into the rift.

The only part I can think of, which gives a partial answer, was that of a magic user who wanted to be a free vampire. So he let a vampire sire him; he had however hired a few mercenaries, who killed the master. He thus became a free vampire. If his knowledge was as right as he thought, then a vampire is the same person of a living, only different. I wonder where this character example was, probably in a 3.5 book.

[TheMiningDwarf]

I just went back and reread the fight scene with Durkon and Malack and I would like to point out that Malack does make a distinction between Durkon and Durkula when he says "I do not care to linger where tragedy visited a friend." When I read in between the lines this is what I see: No, you're not the same person you were before and you never will be, but you are not so different that I would be content with subjugating you indefinitely like any other spawn. He wanted to vamp Durkon for his potential companionship not to gain a minion.

Durkula is Durkon as far as character development is going to be concerned, I believe we're going to be seeing a lot of changes in his behavior before the end of the comic. I can't help but think that being a vampire is not something Durkon would have wanted and Belkar is actually spot on for once for trying to get everyone else to realize the distinction between Durkon and the thing standing before them calling itself Durkon. The conflict between Durkula and Belkar in future strips whether it be with words or with action is going to be a polarizing factor among the Order pushing Belkar character development even further by contrasting between what he is now and what he is trying to be.

This is just speculation on my part but would Durkula have rejoined the order so readily if the world inclusive of himself was in danger? I'm leaning towards no. Maybe what's left of Durkon genuinely wants to rejoin the Order just out of nostalgia for his old life but the jeopardy that the world is in certainly justifies his helping them. The Giant has shown his willingness to defy the preset D&D alignments before and according to the Deva that reviewed Roy's case what's most important is to try, it is possible albeit unlikely that Durkon's alignment is going to be unaffected by his "condition", after all what would be the point of treating his vampirization so seriously up to this point only to go back on it now and say that his alignment is going to be completely unchanged. Zz'dtri's murder at the hands of the newly freed Durkula isn't something in and of itself the old Durkon wouldn't have done accept of course for his obvious pleasure in doing so ala :smallbiggrin:

Whether or not Durkula has Durkon's soul is debatable and wouldn't really change anything regardless since Malack at least thought if not knew that if he was raised he would have no memory of what has taken place since his vampirization and all subsequent changes would be rendered moot. Either way, if the order raises Durkon they're probably going to have quite a bit of explaining to do. Which in and of itself could make for some good drama when they have to decide what to, and what not to tell him, now that I think about it. :smallwink:

In conclusion, I will mourn the loss of my favorite, tree-fearing Thor worshiping, Dwarven cleric and say, long unlive Durkula since he's all we're going to get

[Komatik]

I just went back and reread the fight scene with Durkon and Malack and I would like to point out that Malack does make a distinction between Durkon and Durkula when he says "I do not care to linger where tragedy visited a friend." When I read in between the lines this is what I see: No, you're not the same person you were before and you never will be, but you are not so different that I would be content with subjugating you indefinitely like any other spawn. He wanted to vamp Durkon for his potential companionship not to gain a minion.

Durkula is Durkon as far as character development is going to be concerned, I believe we're going to be seeing a lot of changes in his behavior before the end of the comic. I can't help but think that being a vampire is not something Durkon would have wanted and Belkar is actually spot on for once for trying to get everyone else to realize the distinction between Durkon and the thing standing before them calling itself Durkon. The conflict between Durkula and Belkar in future strips whether it be with words or with action is going to be a polarizing factor among the Order pushing Belkar character development even further by contrasting between what he is now and what he is trying to be.

This is just speculation on my part but would Durkula have rejoined the order so readily if the world inclusive of himself was in danger? I'm leaning towards no. Maybe what's left of Durkon genuinely wants to rejoin the Order just out of nostalgia for his old life but the jeopardy that the world is in certainly justifies his helping them. The Giant has shown his willingness to defy the preset D&D alignments before and according to the Deva that reviewed Roy's case what's most important is to try, it is possible albeit unlikely that Durkon's alignment is going to be unaffected by his "condition", after all what would be the point of treating his vampirization so seriously up to this point only to go back on it now and say that his alignment is going to be completely unchanged. Zz'dtri's murder at the hands of the newly freed Durkula isn't something in and of itself the old Durkon wouldn't have done accept of course for his obvious pleasure in doing so ala :smallbiggrin:

Whether or not Durkula has Durkon's soul is debatable and wouldn't really change anything regardless since Malack at least thought if not knew that if he was raised he would have no memory of what has taken place since his vampirization and all subsequent changes would be rendered moot. Either way, if the order raises Durkon they're probably going to have quite a bit of explaining to do. Which in and of itself could make for some good drama when they have to decide what to, and what not to tell him, now that I think about it. :smallwink:

In conclusion, I will mourn the loss of my favorite, tree-fearing Thor worshiping, Dwarven cleric and say, long unlive Durkula since he's all we're going to get

Malack's quotes can also simply be interpreted as his vampirism being a really big part of who and what he is. I mean, imagine if you retained your faculties but were turned into, say, a chimpanzee? You're very invested in being human, so you really wouldn't want to turn into a chimpanzee.

Also, Durkon is without a doubt Lawful Evil. He's a nontheistic Cleric, he called a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally. That is only possible if he is Lawful Evil.

The fun thing here is that vampirization seems to work like a Helm of Opposite Alignment - a quick, one-shot brainwashing to alter the character's perspective and philosophy some, but that new perspective is as natural as any other - he has free will and can change in time, though few people actively want to. So say Vampire Durkon dies, and they Resurrect him. Resurrection says nothing about alignment, so they'd have Evil Durkon with them. Would be funny.

Right now, I just want about a dozen more Durkon strips ASAP to devour so I can satisfy my ravening curiosity. I also want to see what Durkon's disguised-as-living look is. I hope it will differ from old Durkon some.

[LuisDantas]

Drug interventions do not involve the murder of sentient self-willed beings. You cannot equate a reluctance to commit murder with "enabling" a drug addict.

Nor do we actually have evidence that Durkula is Evil at all. Vindictive and sometimes aggressive he has shown to be. But he is not known to be evil yet. He killed Z in something that is best described as resentful revenge - while Z was unconscious and helpless.

Very borderline IMO.

Going by a book rule or meta-rule that Durkula must be Evil due to what is written in some book is just absurd, be it in the story or out of it. Actual facts must be observed for one to know.

[Komatik]

Nor do we actually have evidence that Durkula is Evil at all. Vindictive and sometimes aggressive he has shown to be. But he is not known to be evil yet. He killed Z in something that is best described as resentful revenge - while Z was unconscious and helpless.

Very borderline IMO.

Going by a book rule or meta-rule that Durkula must be Evil due to what is written in some book is just absurd, be it in the story or out of it. Actual facts must be observed for one to know.

Yes, yes we do. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0883.html)

See also Giant's comments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15060436#post15060436) for further proof.

[Shale]

I believe he meant that his personal development was still at such a low level, that he couldn't see that person as himself anymore. Personally I believe vampires do think they are the same person as before.

But then why bring it up in reference to resurrection? People in OOTS keep their memories of being dead after coming back to life, except their memories of their actual assigned afterlife (although Jirix got to keep his, so even those memories stay sometimes). If it's the same person and the same soul, resurrection shouldn't wipe out Malack's memories.

[Keltest]

Are you sure it is? The fact that a special ritual is needed to keep the lich's soul in place makes me think this isn't all that evident.

Lichdom requires a special ritual because the soul is not being stored in the body anymore. Breaking the body is a temporary inconvenience for the lich. Moreover, the ritual ALSO turns them into an undead being; they aren't simply humans with displaced souls until they die the first time.

[Keltest]

But then why bring it up in reference to resurrection? People in OOTS keep their memories of being dead after coming back to life, except their memories of their actual assigned afterlife (although Jirix got to keep his, so even those memories stay sometimes). If it's the same person and the same soul, resurrection shouldn't wipe out Malack's memories.

He could consider being a vampire a fundamental part of his new being though. He was overly attacked to those he had turned into vampires, calling them his children, and going into a homicidal rage when Nale killed them.

[Amphiox]

Yes, yes we do. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0883.html)

See also Giant's comments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15060436#post15060436) for further proof.

If I observe a being perform a task that the cosmic rules of universe decree can only be done by an Evil creature, but observe that this task in itself was not inherently evil, and that his performance of the task was not free-willed, and I henceforth observe that his behaviour shows no indication of evil, then I can only conclude that there is a loophole in my universe's rules that allow a creature to be Evil without acting evil. I would also conclude that this rule is unjust, and I would find a cleric and see if I can convince him to petition the gods to change that rule slightly.

This does raise an interesting mechanics question. Suppose a Good Cleric were cursed by a spell that makes him ping as Evil to Detect Evil, and along comes a paladin who says to him "I detect you as Evil. Prove to me you're not." Can this Cleric cast Summon Planar Ally and prove his alignment by the creature he summons?

What if it was a Helm of Reversed Alignment that was doing the effect?

But I must point out that this was debated when it first appeared, and some did argue that the result of the spell is a result of Durkula's status as Malack's thrall, and it would be different if free willed Durkon cast the spell. Also I read the Giants comment as indicating that Durkon can still cast spells, and not actually committing to the question of is he evil now explicitly.

[Shale]

He could consider being a vampire a fundamental part of his new being though. He was overly attacked to those he had turned into vampires, calling them his children, and going into a homicidal rage when Nale killed them.

But then why talk about how his old self was ignorant and uncivilized? He wouldn't lose his knowledge or maturity if it was a simple switch in outlook.

[Deathmachine]

I mean, imagine if you retained your faculties but were turned into, say, a chimpanzee? You're very invested in being human, so you really wouldn't want to turn into a chimpanzee.


But after the transformation you might want to stay that way. While we're at humans turning into apes (don't use the "m" word!): How about the Librarian of the Unseen University?
Very slight Discworld-Spoiler:
He's the Librarian at a magical university and was turned into an orang-uten due to a magical accident. While he didn't want to be turned into an ape, afterwards he wanted to stay this way because he got lot less problems than humans.

So, while Malack (and maybe Durkon, for that matter - we will see about that in the future) wasn't keen on becoming a vampire he might have been looking forward to staying a vampire.
Especially after he was a vampire for 200 years and a not-vampire for something between 20 and, say, 50 years.


On a different note, why do so many people have problems with calling Durkula evil?
Sure, he hasn't done that many things that would put him into that corner (ignoring the Barbed Devil for once), but he hasn't done anything to prove him to be good otherwise.
I see him now as I saw early Tarquin - seems to be a kinda nice guy, maybe a bit harsh sometimes because of his duty (being a general), but nothing evil there.
In retrospect he clearly IS evil, but he just didn't show it back then.

I'll burrow Komatiks signature for this:
Evil =/= Jerk

So, why not accept that Durkula is evil (because of the rules and the Barbed Devil) and just wait how it will turn out?

[Keltest]

But then why talk about how his old self was ignorant and uncivilized? He wouldn't lose his knowledge or maturity if it was a simple switch in outlook.

Like I said, its NOT just outlook. Imagine if you will that you are missing, say, an arm. Then one day, somebody restores it to you using methods that are... questionable. After living your whole life with your new arm, would you ever want to go back to having one arm, especially for such an arbitrary reason as "I didn't like the way you got it"

[Loreweaver15]

If I observe a being perform a task that the cosmic rules of universe decree can only be done by an Evil creature, but observe that this task in itself was not inherently evil, and that his performance of the task was not free-willed, and I henceforth observe that his behaviour shows no indication of evil, then I can only conclude that there is a loophole in my universe's rules that allow a creature to be Evil without acting evil. I would also conclude that this rule is unjust, and I would find a cleric and see if I can convince him to petition the gods to change that rule slightly.

This does raise an interesting mechanics question. Suppose a Good Cleric were cursed by a spell that makes him ping as Evil to Detect Evil, and along comes a paladin who says to him "I detect you as Evil. Prove to me you're not." Can this Cleric cast Summon Planar Ally and prove his alignment by the creature he summons?

What if it was a Helm of Reversed Alignment that was doing the effect?

But I must point out that this was debated when it first appeared, and some did argue that the result of the spell is a result of Durkula's status as Malack's thrall, and it would be different if free willed Durkon cast the spell. Also I read the Giants comment as indicating that Durkon can still cast spells, and not actually committing to the question of is he evil now explicitly.

Your example is overly narrow, as we've seen a pair of very strongly Good-aligned people ping as Evil already (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html). Detecting as Evil is different from being Evil, and the latter is required, even under domination of any sort, to summon the creature Durkula did.

[Shale]

Maybe not, but if I were going to justify that to somebody, I'd talk about things that are, you know, arm-related. My tennis career, maybe. Not, "when I lost that arm, I was a teenager. Why would I want to go back to high school?" Malack talks like he would revert to his exact mental state from the last moments of his life.

[Amphiox]

Your example is overly narrow, as we've seen a pair of very strongly Good-aligned people ping as Evil already (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html). Detecting as Evil is different from being Evil, and the latter is required, even under domination of any sort, to summon the creature Durkula did.

So then mechanistically, the good cleric COULD prove his alignment by casting the spell then?

(My second paragraph was meant to be a stand alone question, not as any analogy to the first.)

Presumably a Helm WOULD however, change the target of the spell, given what the rules say about the Helm actually changing the alignment?

[Keltest]

So then mechanistically, the good cleric COULD prove his alignment by casting the spell then?

(My second paragraph was meant to be a stand alone question, not as any analogy to the first.)

Presumably a Helm WOULD however, change the target of the spell, given what the rules say about the Helm actually changing the alignment?

In theory, although that is an entirely excessive amount of effort.

[Keltest]

Maybe not, but if I were going to justify that to somebody, I'd talk about things that are, you know, arm-related. My tennis career, maybe. Not, "when I lost that arm, I was a teenager. Why would I want to go back to high school?" Malack talks like he would revert to his exact mental state from the last moments of his life.

He was making a point, not speaking that he would literally become an ignorant barbarian shaman again. "My life sucked, why would I want to go back to living?"

[orrion]

If I observe a being perform a task that the cosmic rules of universe decree can only be done by an Evil creature, but observe that this task in itself was not inherently evil, and that his performance of the task was not free-willed, and I henceforth observe that his behaviour shows no indication of evil, then I can only conclude that there is a loophole in my universe's rules that allow a creature to be Evil without acting evil. I would also conclude that this rule is unjust, and I would find a cleric and see if I can convince him to petition the gods to change that rule slightly.

There's no reason to assume that he would have summoned something different if he weren't a thrall. Being a thrall did not make him evil. Being a vampire did.

Evil characters can act in a way that shows no indication of evil and complete tasks that aren't evil. Tarquin didn't act evil every second he was on panel.



This does raise an interesting mechanics question. Suppose a Good Cleric were cursed by a spell that makes him ping as Evil to Detect Evil, and along comes a paladin who says to him "I detect you as Evil. Prove to me you're not." Can this Cleric cast Summon Planar Ally and prove his alignment by the creature he summons?

Should be able to. You stated the curse in question fools the Detect Evil spell. Planar Ally acts based on the alignment you are - not the alignment someone else perceives you have. Moreover, there are other ways for the Cleric to prove himself. He could cast a Turn Undead. He could cast Protection from Evil (1st level spell). He or the Paladin could cast a Zone of Truth. He could cast any spell from the Good domain, if he has it. He could cast Magic Circle Against Evil. He could use any of the Summon Monster line of spells to summon a Good creature. Etc, etc.



What if it was a Helm of Reversed Alignment that was doing the effect?

Well, the description of the "Helm of Opposite Alignment" states that only Miracle or Wish can restore the former alignment and moreover that the individual doesn't make any attempts to return to the former alignment. So, there would be no way for the Cleric to prove it, nor would the Cleric desire to do so in the first place. The Paladin would have to treat the Cleric as evil.



But I must point out that this was debated when it first appeared, and some did argue that the result of the spell is a result of Durkula's status as Malack's thrall, and it would be different if free willed Durkon cast the spell. Also I read the Giants comment as indicating that Durkon can still cast spells, and not actually committing to the question of is he evil now explicitly.

I agree that the Giant's comment doesn't clarify anything regarding alignment.

[Loreweaver15]

So then mechanistically, the good cleric COULD prove his alignment by casting the spell then?

(My second paragraph was meant to be a stand alone question, not as any analogy to the first.)

Presumably a Helm WOULD however, change the target of the spell, given what the rules say about the Helm actually changing the alignment?

From what I'm aware, that's exactly how it would work. The Good cleric holding Xykon's crown could still summon Devas, who would presumably be just as confused as the paladin for several seconds. The Helm'd cleric would only be able to call up creatures from the nether regions, because it's something he or she IS, not something he or she APPEARS to be. Same with Thrall Durkula.

[Komatik]

If I observe a being perform a task that the cosmic rules of universe decree can only be done by an Evil creature, but observe that this task in itself was not inherently evil, and that his performance of the task was not free-willed, and I henceforth observe that his behaviour shows no indication of evil, then I can only conclude that there is a loophole in my universe's rules that allow a creature to be Evil without acting evil. I would also conclude that this rule is unjust, and I would find a cleric and see if I can convince him to petition the gods to change that rule slightly.

This does raise an interesting mechanics question. Suppose a Good Cleric were cursed by a spell that makes him ping as Evil to Detect Evil, and along comes a paladin who says to him "I detect you as Evil. Prove to me you're not." Can this Cleric cast Summon Planar Ally and prove his alignment by the creature he summons?

What if it was a Helm of Reversed Alignment that was doing the effect?

But I must point out that this was debated when it first appeared, and some did argue that the result of the spell is a result of Durkula's status as Malack's thrall, and it would be different if free willed Durkon cast the spell. Also I read the Giants comment as indicating that Durkon can still cast spells, and not actually committing to the question of is he evil now explicitly.

D&D alignment is not just actions, it's also about the character's personal outlook. And yes, calling a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally may not in itself be an Evil act. If you notice my wording, I simply said it was an act that was only possible for a nontheistic cleric if he was Lawful Evil. Never once did I imply anything about the action itself. Someone's outlook may place them in an Evil alignment slot, but that's the end of it. Doesn't mean they need to be killed on sight or anything. Just that their basic nature needs to be taken into account.

Also the way he killed Z showed indication of Evil, especially compared to his old self.

I'd imagine the Good cleric could prove his alignment by casting Planar Ally. That depends a bit, though, because PA called creature's alignment only absolutely matches the caster if he is a nontheistic cleric. A cleric with a patron deity calls a creature that serves his/her deity. So a LN Cleric of an Evil god could conceiveably call a Barbed Devil if such creatures are in service of the deity in question.

Helm of Opposite Alignment, the Cleric's alignment would now actually be Evil, not just detect as such. He'd be a more selfish, ruthless version of his old self, though much more changed because the Law-Chaos axis also gets flipped by the Helm. Vampirization leaves that intact.

The people who argued that the result of the spell was a result of thralldom were the same kind of people who thought Malack was LN - they pulled theories out of thin air with no support because they refused to believe a character they liked was Evil. Probably has something to do with people's strange insistence that Evil automatically translates into being a completely depraved monster that would give a fusion of Xykon and Belkar a run for his money.

[Deathmachine]

Probably has something to do with people's strange insistence that Evil automatically translates into being a completely depraved monster that would give a fusion of Xykon and Belkar a run for his money.

But isn't Belkar chaotic neutral? :P

[Keltest]

But isn't Belkar chaotic neutral? :P

According to Word of Giant hes Chaotic Evil. Whether or not he will remain that way by the end of the story is presumably one of the things Rich will address with his character development.

[Loreweaver15]

According to Word of Giant hes Chaotic Evil. Whether or not he will remain that way by the end of the story is presumably one of the things Rich will address with his character development.

(joke it was a joke :P)

[Keltest]

(joke it was a joke :P)

Then it was far too subtle for me.

[Shale]

He was making a point, not speaking that he would literally become an ignorant barbarian shaman again. "My life sucked, why would I want to go back to living?"

That doesn't make any sense as "a complicated way of destroying the person I am today." Going back to a life that sucked in the past is not obliteration by any stretch of the imagination, especially when the things that made it suck are gone forever.

[Loreweaver15]

Then it was far too subtle for me.

Belkar is one of the characters that had lots of alignment arguments, with people insisting that he was anything from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Good because they didn't want to admit they enjoyed an evil sociopath as a character.

[Keltest]

That doesn't make any sense as "a complicated way of destroying the person I am today." Going back to a life that sucked in the past is not obliteration by any stretch of the imagination, especially when the things that made it suck are gone forever.

Sigh. Ill give it one last try to make you understand what im saying, because apparently you still aren't getting it. he is NOT literally afraid/reluctant to go back to being an ignorant barbarian shaman. he is quite obviously aware that even were he to be resurrected that wouldn't happen. he IS resistant to becoming alive again, because he LIKES being a vampire. He structures his life around it and its part of who he defines himself as. Hes not Malack the lizardfolk, hes Malack the Lizardfolk Vampire.

There would be nothing stopping him from picking up and continuing to be a cleric, or Tarquin's partner, or part of the team. But he considers his vampirism to be a positive part of his personality, and doesn't want it ripped away from him.

[Deathmachine]

Belkar is one of the characters that had lots of alignment arguments, with people insisting that he was anything from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Good because they didn't want to admit they enjoyed an evil sociopath as a character.

That's exactly the point I was hoping to make, because I think it's the same for at least the majority of the people who argument that Durkula isn't a changed Durkon but something entirely different.

[Amphiox]

I'd imagine the Good cleric could prove his alignment by casting Planar Ally. That depends a bit, though, because PA called creature's alignment only absolutely matches the caster if he is a nontheistic cleric. A cleric with a patron deity calls a creature that serves his/her deity. So a LN Cleric of an Evil god could conceiveably call a Barbed Devil if such creatures are in service of the deity in question.

At the very least I suppose if he summoned a Good planar ally he would prove to the Paladin that he wasn't Evil, since that would be a two category jump, and the cleric has to be within one category of his god, right?

[Amphiox]

Sigh. Ill give it one last try to make you understand what im saying, because apparently you still aren't getting it. he is NOT literally afraid/reluctant to go back to being an ignorant barbarian shaman. he is quite obviously aware that even were he to be resurrected that wouldn't happen. he IS resistant to becoming alive again, because he LIKES being a vampire. He structures his life around it and its part of who he defines himself as. Hes not Malack the lizardfolk, hes Malack the Lizardfolk Vampire.

There would be nothing stopping him from picking up and continuing to be a cleric, or Tarquin's partner, or part of the team. But he considers his vampirism to be a positive part of his personality, and doesn't want it ripped away from him.

Exactly. The "person I am now" is a Vampire. Remove the vampire, and even if all else stays exactly the same, and he is not the same person anymore. How serious a change that is is entirely subjective to the individual experiencing the change. If he wants to view that as drastically as "destroying me" that is his perogative, and no one can gainsay him on it.

Which means that Malack's statement really says nothing at all about what really happens to a Vampire after being destroyed and resurrected, other than he ends up not a Vampire anymore.

[Komatik]

At the very least I suppose if he summoned a Good planar ally he would prove to the Paladin that he wasn't Evil, since that would be a two category jump, and the cleric has to be within one category of his god, right?

In a world where the one-category maximum was in effect, yes. In OOTSverse and Eberron, for example, that wouldn't work.

[Loreweaver15]

In a world where the one-category maximum was in effect, yes. In OOTSverse and Eberron, for example, that wouldn't work.

Wait, are you saying the one-category max ISN'T in effect here?

[Vinyadan]

But then why bring it up in reference to resurrection? People in OOTS keep their memories of being dead after coming back to life, except their memories of their actual assigned afterlife (although Jirix got to keep his, so even those memories stay sometimes). If it's the same person and the same soul, resurrection shouldn't wipe out Malack's memories.

Uh-oh, you got me there. The only decent explanation I have is that experimental knowledge says that a destroyed and resurrected vampire will not retain memory of his life as a vampire, and that Malak is aware of this. I am still brought to think that he believes he is the same as before; however, my theory is that a vampire is a different person from the one before, and he is a well learned cleric of a death deity, so he probably studied the problem in depth. Mmmh. Looks problematic.
It's a pity that he didn't say anything completely conclusive. But what he said about Durkon feeling more like himself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html) - not like his former self - makes me think he believes that the person is still the same.


Lichdom requires a special ritual because the soul is not being stored in the body anymore. Breaking the body is a temporary inconvenience for the lich. Moreover, the ritual ALSO turns them into an undead being; they aren't simply humans with displaced souls until they die the first time.

Yes, but the creation of a Necropolitan also needs a ritual. It isn't like being killed by a wight or vamped by a vampire. The fact is that both undead which surely retain their soul need a ritual to be created while others don't.

Are there other ritual-needing undead?

[Komatik]

Wait, are you saying the one-category max ISN'T in effect here?

Thor probably isn't NG. Durkon was LG, and a priest of Thor...

[Keltest]

Yes, but the creation of a Necropolitan also needs a ritual. It isn't like being killed by a wight or vamped by a vampire. The fact is that both undead which surely retain their soul need a ritual to be created while others don't.

Are there other ritual-needing undead?

To my knowledge, the only undead that need a ritual to become are ones where the transformation is a self-induced effect, IE youre manually going from a living being to XXX undead by yourself through the ritual. Someone being vamped doesn't require a ritual because the Sire vampire is providing the necessary "ingredients" to transform you, whereas a normal human cannot just spontaneously turn into a lich whenever they feel like it; they need lots of energy and the ritual to focus it and keep themselves "alive."

[Amphiox]

Wait, are you saying the one-category max ISN'T in effect here?

Well, if Thor is Chaotic Good, and Durkon is (was) Lawful Good, then it wouldn't be in effect.

But I'm not sure we canonically know Thor's alignment in the Stickverse. He certainly behaves Chaotic in a lot of the joke panels we've seen him in. But perhaps he's really Neutral Good, and just behaves Chaotic when he's drunk, and we've only seen him when he's drunk because it was funnier that way....

[mightycleric]

Uh-oh, you got me there. The only decent explanation I have is that experimental knowledge says that a destroyed and resurrected vampire will not retain memory of his life as a vampire, and that Malak is aware of this. I am still brought to think that he believes he is the same as before; however, my theory is that a vampire is a different person from the one before, and he is a well learned cleric of a death deity, so he probably studied the problem in depth. Mmmh. Looks problematic.
It's a pity that he didn't say anything completely conclusive. But what he said about Durkon feeling more like himself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html) - not like his former self - makes me think he believes that the person is still the same.



Yes, but the creation of a Necropolitan also needs a ritual. It isn't like being killed by a wight or vamped by a vampire. The fact is that both undead which surely retain their soul need a ritual to be created while others don't.

Are there other ritual-needing undead?

In that same page that you linked, though, he says he does something as a "final token" to the "Durkon that was". If he believed the "Durkon that will be" (as in, a vampiric Durkon with free will) to be the same person, then why mention a "final token"? Unless somebody is actually going to suggest that Malack planned to not do anything for the "Durkon that will be" when they are peers discussing different things and doing different things for hundred of years (which was Malack's plan). This doesn't have a 200 year gap, this doesn't go from Barbarian Shaman to Cleric, it is all about before being a vampire, and after being a vampire. He still seems to identify Durkon as a different individual (that has some traits of the former individual, so "more like himself").

Malack seems very clear that he ended the "Durkon that was" by turning him into a vampire. So it seems that the best interpretation of Malack's comments to Durkon is that resurrecting Malack's former self would obliterate the current Malack is that Malack views them as different identities. (Especially since Malack could, if he wanted, find a vampire to sire him again, and have Tarquin and co. immediately kill the sire, to give him back his free will, if it was only whether he was a vampire that made a difference, but he was the same entity other than that.)

[Cerlis]

well the fact of the matter is, Durkon is an evil vampire. and no amount of conjecture will change that. Ill admit it was good timing to dump the well fed human-predator amongst the few people he is most emotionally attached too. oh yea sure. i could be wrong. no reasonable person says anything with finality without the understanding "unless i am wrong". i personally think this is a direct reversal of belkar,s drama. belkar is the horribly evil person who people said wasnt evil and now he is legitimately getting slightly better. while Durkon is the previous good and well mannered person who is now evil. but since he is behaving its not a "big deal".


We KNOW that Durkon isnt himself. he was horribly biased against undead(lots of people are. since undead are evil.). No horror at being a monster. attacking his friends. going against his god. durkula seems to be completely cool with this. and if his experience with malack and trees are any indication he isnt the type to keep his cool.

two things i take issue with is people bringing up liches and malak. the ENTIRE point of a lich is to use dark power to bind yourself to this mortal world via a powerful magical artifact. so of course liches have souls. nothing to do with vampires. and yes vampires are created by negative energy via necromancy or necromatic means. he isnt "blood powered".

the other is once again taking a horribly evil persons justifications and philosophies into consideration. Malak says that killing him would end who he is. if the resurrection spell brought back Malak from hundreds of years ago then that wasnt him was it? if his soul is in control of vampire Malak his resurrected self would be a living verson of who he was 10 minutes ago. vamp Malak isnt Living Malak cus Living malak died long ago.

And in regards to the notion of he objected to being raised because getting resurrected would take away the affliction he could probably regain 24 hours later...because being a vampire is part of his self identity (I guess in a similar way to "Gender identity). Well either he was talking about being an actual different person ...because he is a vampire and his soul is trapped in the evil negative energy filled husk of his body and he IS a different "person"...Or he was being saying that Being a Vampire intrinsically changed who you were. Which would make Durkon (who was turned into a vampire) a intrinsically changed person.

If Resurrecting L.Malak is killing Malak, then the reverse should be the same person. Durkon's soul aside, He is a different person. The only thing up for debate is if its identity or physically.

[Amphiox]

And in regards to the notion of he objected to being raised because getting resurrected would take away the affliction he could probably regain 24 hours later...

24 hours later?

First he would have to find another vampire, a class of being of which he was the only known example of in the world at the time he made that statement, in a world where powerful undead creatures are rare enough that an epic Druid failed to take into account undead immunity to disease in preparing her defence of a Cosmic Keystone, an epic and famously paranoid Illusionist failed to consider undead immunity to illusions in HIS defence of a Cosmic Keystone, and an epic Wizard entered battle with one while failing to prepare a defence for level-drain attacks.

I'd say it is at least 80:20 that Malack is the only vampire on the Western Continent (before Durkon) and 50:50 that he's the only one in the world.

Second, that other vampire (likely Evil) would have to agree to turn Malack, and not just kill him. Is Malack the type to want to place such trust in another? Doubtful.

Thirdly, that other vampire would have to agree to release him from thraldom, or else he would have to prevail on his teammates to help him with some treachery with respect to destroying his new master. Malack's identity is as a vampire MASTER, not a vampire thrall.

Fourthly there is the question of what happens to all the levels, spells and class abilities Malack earned as a vampire. Would he lose them on resurrection? Those he will not get back if he is revamped, and his identity is not just a vampire, but a POWERFUL vampire cleric.

And of course, fifthly, and most trivially, unless the vampire he seeks out has Malack's homebrewed ability (and would Malack want to give another vampire his staff, assuming he even could since in the scenario in question the staff will likely be looted by Durkon), it takes 3 days, ie 72hours for a freshly minted vampire to rise from the grave.

So 24 hours? That strains credulity.

[SowZ]

Fine, if you won't parse it without me laying it out, here it is:

What are the situations in which you would respond to the question "Are you evil?" with "Not any more than that very Evil character you really dislike but allow to remain on our team (which I am hoping to do for various reasons)!"

1. Because the answer is "Yes" and you don't particularly feel like copping to it.

2. Because the answer is very obviously "Yes" and you're feeling like a sarcastic ass at the moment.

3. That's about it.

For what it's worth, my answer is number one. Bad liars tell you almost as much as somebody telling you the straight truth, and Durkon is, at best, an okay liar. "Durkon dodged the question" leads to exactly one possible conclusion--that the answer is "Yes".

4. He's trying to say, "Does it even matter?"

5. He actually doesn't know if he's truly evil yet. He's had seconds to take stock of his new existence.

[Elricity]

2. Being Evil may or may not be a serious question considering this is D&D. It may be a serious question to you but it may not be to people in a world where you can tell if someone is evil with a glance and a spell. As we've seen, being Evil doesn't make you some homicidal maniac. You can be just as pleasant and nice as anyone. So the answer "No more than X" isn't a dodge. The answer is "I'm no more evil than a character we know is evil." that doesn't mean he's evil, that just means that if he -were- he'd be no more evil then Belkar. That's a pretty straight forward question, you're the one wanting to read into it.

I'm late to the party on this but being Evil is just as serious in this strip as it is in reality, regardless of detection. The named evil characters in this strip, supernatural or otherwise, have all caused quite a lot of harm to themselves and others which makes them extremely dangerous.

It's fully understandable why the order is keeping Durkola around in the same way that it is that they keep Belkar around. But it is set up to have similar, probably worse, consequeneces. Other characters not coping with that has repeatedly caused themselves a lot of misery. Durkola is already roadmapped to bring death and destruction to the dwarven lands, for example.

Evil is not a pair of pants you take off when you get home from work. Evil is a mindset that says "If I have to choose between what I want and other people suffering, I will choose what I want if at all possible." They don't exempt anyone from that. Family, etc, is usually lucky in that the Evil person doesn't overtly want anything from them although if that changes, they become equally valid targets. See Tarquin vs Elan, Redcloak vs Right-eye, Malack vs Durkon.

I do agree with the original poster that Durkula dodges the "are you evil?" question for the same reason Durkon dodges certain other questions in the past. Because he is creatively lying. I don't see why the comic would include the mechanics that he now spontaneously inflicts and has to pray at a different time of day than his original diety other than to draw attention to the mechanics that evil cannot spontaneously cure and clerics cannot gain spells from a good diety if evil.

Then again, this is from the same forum that had problems grasping that Belkar is evil so I'm aware I'm wasting my time with the vocal portion. I stopped lurking for this one post just to let the other lurkers know they aren't crazy for seeing the obvious.

Edit: And I don't see why it's important how vampire=evil works. It's an amusing side argument but I'm not confident it will even be addressed in the strip as it's not exactly relevant on the how. It's basically just a story mechanic to explore the consequences of a person radically changing into something they weren't and how that impacts themselves and others. One I'm greatly looking forward to seeing how it plays out.

[Loreweaver15]

4. He's trying to say, "Does it even matter?"

5. He actually doesn't know if he's truly evil yet. He's had seconds to take stock of his new existence.

4. That's another dodge, the only reason to answer so being if the answer is
"Yes."

5. That's where things start getting interesting, but the evidence very shortly piles up that he IS. Beyond his gleeful murder of Z, he almost immediately spontaneously Inflicts wounds, and unless I'm mistaken a summoned creature with alignment restrictions stops obeying its master if the master's alignment changes. (Am I mistaken about that? Genuine question, there.)

[hamishspence]

unless I'm mistaken a summoned creature with alignment restrictions stops obeying its master if the master's alignment changes. (Am I mistaken about that? Genuine question, there.)

As far as I know, if you cast the spell, request a service, then change alignment, the creature must still carry out the service.

[Komatik]

4. That's another dodge, the only reason to answer so being if the answer is
"Yes."

5. That's where things start getting interesting, but the evidence very shortly piles up that he IS. Beyond his gleeful murder of Z, he almost immediately spontaneously Inflicts wounds, and unless I'm mistaken a summoned creature with alignment restrictions stops obeying its master if the master's alignment changes. (Am I mistaken about that? Genuine question, there.)

Neutral-aligned Clerics can channel negative energy. Durkon channeling it can be the result of him turning Evil or him becoming a Vampire - both happen simultaneously and rules text isn't exactly clear whether vampirism alone causes a cleric to channel negative energy.

As to a summoned creature, no, they do not. Planar Ally doesn't summon a creature, though - it calls one from the Outer Planes, that you then contract. How alignment factors into the spell's effects is that if the cleric casting the spell has a patron deity, he calls a creature that serves his deity. So a Lawful Neutral Cleric of a Lawful Evil deity could call a Barbed Devil with it.

Durkon is a nontheistic Cleric by Word of Giant, though, and in that case the spell calls a creature whose alignment matches the caster's. A Barbed Devil is Lawful Evil. That and the Vampire template turning the base creature Evil on application are pretty much the most ironclad proof of what Durkon's alignment currently is. The glee he displayed while snapping Z's neck is just more nails to a coffin that's already been thoroughly nailed shut.

[Loreweaver15]

Neutral-aligned Clerics can channel negative energy. Durkon channeling it can be the result of him turning Evil or him becoming a Vampire - both happen simultaneously and rules text isn't exactly clear whether vampirism alone causes a cleric to channel negative energy.

As to a summoned creature, no, they do not. Planar Ally doesn't summon a creature, though - it calls one from the Outer Planes, that you then contract. How alignment factors into the spell's effects is that if the cleric casting the spell has a patron deity, he calls a creature that serves his deity. So a Lawful Neutral Cleric of a Lawful Evil deity could call a Barbed Devil with it.

Durkon is a nontheistic Cleric by Word of Giant, though, and in that case the spell calls a creature whose alignment matches the caster's. A Barbed Devil is Lawful Evil. That and the Vampire template turning the base creature Evil on application are pretty much the most ironclad proof of what Durkon's alignment currently is. The glee he displayed while snapping Z's neck is just more nails to a coffin that's already been thoroughly nailed shut.

On top of that, I am also pretty-sure-correct-me-if-I'm-wrong that Neutral clerics can still spontaneously channel positive energy :P

[Jasdoif]

Durkon channeling it can be the result of him turning Evil or him becoming a Vampire - both happen simultaneously and rules text isn't exactly clear whether vampirism alone causes a cleric to channel negative energy.The Giant indicates vampirism alone is sufficient.

[BroomGuys]

Then it was far too subtle for me.

A very common problem on the internet, especially when the joke is to parody an assertion that has actually been made before. We communicate that something is a joke nonverbally most of the time, which is why some folks use blue text or emoticons to show they're being sarcastic/facetious.

As for the question "Is this Durkon?"...

...Well, uh, do y'all realize how big a can o' worms that is? The philosophical question of "self"? Sure, if Durkon's soul is off in the afterlife and his body is just a reanimated, intelligent husk that fools people into thinking it's Durkon, then the answer is obviously "no." But if that's the case, it's a twist about the undead that has yet to be revealed in OotS; the lack of evidence to support it doesn't disprove it, but we don't really have a positive argument in favor of it.

No, I think the question is "if becoming a vampire flipped the alignment switch on Durkon, but everything else stayed the same (except his dietary needs), is he still Durkon?" To which I would answer by shrugging my shoulders.

[David Argall]

4. That's another dodge, the only reason to answer so being if the answer is
"Yes."

An alternate reason would be "you would not believe me if I said 'no'.".

[orrion]

On top of that, I am also pretty-sure-correct-me-if-I'm-wrong that Neutral clerics can still spontaneously channel positive energy :P

A Neutral cleric chooses whether to channel positive or negative energy at creation, but that's trumped Durkon's case by his being a vampire. They channel negative.

[Vinyadan]

On top of that, I am also pretty-sure-correct-me-if-I'm-wrong that Neutral clerics can still spontaneously channel positive energy :P


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

A cleric who is neither good nor evil and whose deity is neither good nor evil can convert spells to either cure spells or inflict spells (player’s choice). Once the player makes this choice, it cannot be reversed. This choice also determines whether the cleric turns or commands undead.

Also, I think clerics of Cuthbert only channel positive energy, but I am not sure, while clerics of Wee Jas only channel negative energy.

[mightycleric]

24 hours later?

First he would have to find another vampire, a class of being of which he was the only known example of in the world at the time he made that statement, in a world where powerful undead creatures are rare enough that an epic Druid failed to take into account undead immunity to disease in preparing her defence of a Cosmic Keystone, an epic and famously paranoid Illusionist failed to consider undead immunity to illusions in HIS defence of a Cosmic Keystone, and an epic Wizard entered battle with one while failing to prepare a defence for level-drain attacks.

I'd say it is at least 80:20 that Malack is the only vampire on the Western Continent (before Durkon) and 50:50 that he's the only one in the world.

Second, that other vampire (likely Evil) would have to agree to turn Malack, and not just kill him. Is Malack the type to want to place such trust in another? Doubtful.

Thirdly, that other vampire would have to agree to release him from thraldom, or else he would have to prevail on his teammates to help him with some treachery with respect to destroying his new master. Malack's identity is as a vampire MASTER, not a vampire thrall.

Fourthly there is the question of what happens to all the levels, spells and class abilities Malack earned as a vampire. Would he lose them on resurrection? Those he will not get back if he is revamped, and his identity is not just a vampire, but a POWERFUL vampire cleric.

And of course, fifthly, and most trivially, unless the vampire he seeks out has Malack's homebrewed ability (and would Malack want to give another vampire his staff, assuming he even could since in the scenario in question the staff will likely be looted by Durkon), it takes 3 days, ie 72hours for a freshly minted vampire to rise from the grave.

So 24 hours? That strains credulity.

Well, he happened to run into a vampire before, and he certainly was able ot acquire a massive library while trying to figure out how to protect himself from Daylight, and Durkon and Belkar were both familiar with vampires, so the odds of him being the only one seems actually quite low. With the resources available to Tarquin and co., it wouldn't be hard to find another vampire if there was one, then wormhole to the location. It also wouldn't be hard for high level casters to coerce a vampire into turning Malack into one, and then it would be easy for them to kill it. They seem to have a strong attachment to Malack (more than Tarquin), so I would be willing to guess they would do that for him (especially since they like his character).

If you want to use the argument that no levels or anything else stay with him after he is killed and resurrected, that's fine, because that really helps the stance that he is a different entity. If he were the same person, he'd keep the xp and the levels and everything except the vampire template, because that would be part of him. So the only thing missing would be the vampire template, and the odds of there not being other vampires are rather low.

Using the Scribblers as examples of there not being undead doesn't seem like a good example for me. Soon's defense hinged on using a different type of undead, after all. Not to mention, while being epic level members, they are often quite short-sighted. They knew the world was at stake, but fell into petty arguments. Girard was so short-sighted that he set a trap for Soon, in case he or his paladins ever showed up, despite the fact that they might show up after the gate was destroyed, because it was destroyed, to try to help defend Girard's gate. They had a lot of mistakes made. Not to mention that the example with Dorukon would fit when facing any caster that can cast energy drain spells, not just to facing undead.

I agree it would take longer than 24 hours, but I don't think it would even take 1 week, if he still wanted to become a vampire again. For a character who has existed over 200 years, and plans to exist for thousands, 1 week doesn't make much difference. The only reason that he would see it as anything more than a momentary setback is if he believed he was a different entity now, than he was then. If he were the same, he'd keep his memories of his time on earth (like Roy did), he wouldn't lose his other levels, everything would be the same, except he wouldn't be a vampire, and that could be remedied.

[SowZ]

An alternate reason would be "you would not believe me if I said 'no'.".

To expand on that, he could sincerely be arguing, "Look, we could argue this back and forth all day. But why bother? We clearly aren't an all Good party, so why even bother trying to convince you I'm non-Evil when it makes little to no difference?

[Loreweaver15]

To expand on that, he could sincerely be arguing, "Look, we could argue this back and forth all day. But why bother? We clearly aren't an all Good party, so why even bother trying to convince you I'm non-Evil when it makes little to no difference?

...Except these two are literally each other's best friend in the world? And it does make a difference in how they treat each other, and how wary they are of each other. Roy is already planning to get his murder on as soon as it's easy to Resurrect Durkon.

[BroomGuys]

...Except these two are literally each other's best friend in the world? And it does make a difference in how they treat each other, and how wary they are of each other. Roy is already planning to get his murder on as soon as it's easy to Resurrect Durkon.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions about what Roy is actually thinking about this (I'm not sure he's worked out how he feels). What we've seen of his reaction to free-willed vampire Durkon has almost exclusively been in the middle of a battle in which he's the leader, and thus the party's survival has been far and away his top priority. Actually expressing his feelings on the matter would potentially be disruptive to the party's cohesion, which is too important to risk when a silicon golem and/or Tarquin is all up in your business.

[Kish]

...Except these two are literally each other's best friend in the world?
Now, that's a non-sequitur.

And it does make a difference in how they treat each other, and how wary they are of each other. Roy is already planning to get his murder on as soon as it's easy to Resurrect Durkon.
Really? Did Roy say that? Must be in a panel I didn't see.

(He repeatedly told Belkar he wouldn't attack Durkon immediately, and indicated a desire to have Durkon resurrected; that Belkar assumes that everyone should be looking at the situation with Durkoneverything in terms of "The violent conflict is when, not if" is neither to Belkar's credit nor something readers should rush to join him in.)

[Amphiox]

Using the Scribblers as examples of there not being undead doesn't seem like a good example for me. Soon's defense hinged on using a different type of undead, after all. Not to mention, while being epic level members, they are often quite short-sighted. They knew the world was at stake, but fell into petty arguments. Girard was so short-sighted that he set a trap for Soon, in case he or his paladins ever showed up, despite the fact that they might show up after the gate was destroyed, because it was destroyed, to try to help defend Girard's gate. They had a lot of mistakes made. Not to mention that the example with Dorukon would fit when facing any caster that can cast energy drain spells, not just to facing undead.

I use the Scribblers as an example that *powerful*, *self-willed*, *sentient* undead must be rare. There is no way in the high heavens that a high level druid, dedicated to the protection of life, could not know about the properties of such beings IF they were a common threat to living things. Part of the role of protecting nature and knowing about nature that druids must have is knowing what kinds of enemies nature is likely to be confronted with.

So I take Lirian's failure against Xykon as pretty definitive evidence that self-willed undead of the level and power of Xykon and Malack are pretty rare in the Stickverse. No more than a handful at best.

[orrion]

I use the Scribblers as an example that *powerful*, *self-willed*, *sentient* undead must be rare. There is no way in the high heavens that a high level druid, dedicated to the protection of life, could not know about the properties of such beings IF they were a common threat to living things. Part of the role of protecting nature and knowing about nature that druids must have is knowing what kinds of enemies nature is likely to be confronted with.

So I take Lirian's failure against Xykon as pretty definitive evidence that self-willed undead of the level and power of Xykon and Malack are pretty rare in the Stickverse. No more than a handful at best.

That sort of error is common enough in fiction even if they should know things like that.

Random example: Was reading up on Magic: The Gathering lore recently. 3 Planewalkers joined together to bind a menace to a single plane, and they stipulated that in order for the menace to be freed 3 Planeswalkers needed to be in the room. Not even one of them, just 3 random Planeswalkers. Thus an evil Planeswalker put his Planeswalker pawn in the room and suckered 2 others into going there who didn't even know about what was sealed. And meanwhile I'm screaming "Morons! Should have made it your presences specifically!"

Also, "Malack is the only vampire that currently exists" and "sentient undead as powerful as Malack and Xykon are pretty rare" seem to be very different assertions.

[mightycleric]

I use the Scribblers as an example that *powerful*, *self-willed*, *sentient* undead must be rare. There is no way in the high heavens that a high level druid, dedicated to the protection of life, could not know about the properties of such beings IF they were a common threat to living things. Part of the role of protecting nature and knowing about nature that druids must have is knowing what kinds of enemies nature is likely to be confronted with.

So I take Lirian's failure against Xykon as pretty definitive evidence that self-willed undead of the level and power of Xykon and Malack are pretty rare in the Stickverse. No more than a handful at best.

Level and power, maybe. Malack doesn't need a high level vampire cleric, though. He just needs your run of the mill vampire. You know, the CR 7 one? I doubt Lirian was too worried about that. In the MM, the "Elite Vampire" is only a CR 15 (none of the Libris Mortis sample vampires, of which it has ten, get close to epic levels, with the closest CR being 14). I doubt the vampire that turned Malack was an epic level vampire.

Also, many vampires aren't even casters (other than what they get for being a vampire). Not to mention, both Sunbeam and Sunburst destroy vampires if they fail their save. Both are Druid spells, one 7th level, one 8th level (and Sunbeam would give her 6 beams to hit a vampire with, so it failing a save from an epic level caster could be considered likely within those 6). It could be that she had preparations for vampires, but not for liches (even having it surrounded by running water would be enough to keep a vampire from getting to it), but I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't have as many preparations for a vampire that had researched a Protection from Daylight spell.

Normal liches in the MM are CR 13, but since they are normally spellcasters that are fairly powerful to begin with, that oversight seems a bit of a bigger issue for her (and maybe indicates that there aren't many liches, with another example of that being Durkon not knowing that Xyxon wasn't destroyed just because his body was gone).

I view the Scribble as having prepared themselves, generally, for most opponents, but not fully prepared, especially for outlying cases, because they didn't know what to anticipate. Any party of epic level characters could probably have fared well against any individual defense of a gate. Their main protection was supposed to be that nobody knew of the existence of the Snarl, much less wanted to unleash it.

Dorukan seems to have been the most prepared, that we've seen, with Soon being the next most prepared. Lirian's gate was destroyed because of fire. As a Druid, you would also think she'd be prepared for dealing with fires. Does this mean that fire is a rare existence? Or just casters that know how to make big fires? Since she had that major oversight, do we really want to say other oversights mean that undead don't exist? We don't know if Girard had any further preparations for undead at his disposal. After all, he was figuring the illusions would keep most away, and that he had a family of sorcerors to take care of anybody who saw through the illusions.

That being said, the assumption that there aren't many high level undead that would pose a threat to the Scribblers, I'm willing to see as quite plausible. The idea that there aren't many liches around, I'm willing to entertain (especially, as I said, because Durkon didn't know it would regenerate). The idea that there are even odds that there is only one vampire in the entire world, now? Not so much. With as many undead as have been featured, and with Durkon's strong opposition to undead from very early in the comics (again, a reason for believing liches are rare), it seems there are plenty of undead in the world, and as such, I find no reason to think that a mid-level undead like vampires wouldn't exist throughout the world.

[Loreweaver15]

To be fair, Lirian not guarding against fire was a different kind of commentary than the vampires--namely, on those 'environmentalists' who push ALL SAVING ALL THE TIME and prevent the important forest fires that are a part of the natural cycle of forest life and both control brush density and spread seeds and new life. Lirian's druids held that forest in an unnatural stasis to preserve what they believed to be its pristine state, and the brush built up and up until a single misaimed bit of fire brought down an entire forest.

[The Giant]

We do not need three separate threads about whether or not the vampire that is currently in the comic is the same person as the dwarf that was in the comic.

Please refrain from starting new threads with the exact same topic as an existing thread, which means looking at the list of active threads and seeing if there is one similar to what you want to talk about already transpiring. Just having a new idea about an existing topic is not enough reason to start a new thread—it must be a wholly distinct subject matter.

Normally, I would merge threads, but since several of these threads each have several pages of discussion, I'm locking all but the oldest active one, here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326077