I think we have a vampire problem.

[konradknox]

Basic idea:

Durkon's putting on an act, and we're gonna have a cutaway scene for when he is alone and is definitely up to something involving either Xykon, or Gates, or Nergal, or Hel.

Supporting arguments:

1. Giant's Trickery.

Subjective nature of the comic lately, rather than objective nature of narration. We hear what we like to hear from the mouths of characters, only to be shown that this was just their opinion. The Giant has been heavy on such tricks in this book. Turning our attention in one direction, introducing a sudden surprise, and then saying "the hints were all there, the character lied, and it's on you that you believed his lie". The whole book, from Girard's illusion nature, to the final moments, had been themed around deceit and deception. Building facades, and then revealing to us that things were not as they seem.

I mean really, this book is like a book of trickery and surprises.

Examples range from trivial to plot-critical:

A. Vaarsuvius being served a divorce notice by a lawyer under guise of random mage in the shop.

B. Haley's lying potion and the strips dedicated to it.

C. Girard's pyramid trick and gate illusion.

D. The whole Draketooth meta-illusion. Big anticipation build up of their faction, to reveal they all been wiped by Familicide.

E. Tarquin's entire thing. Huge build up of character, to reveal a rather narrow-sighted man.

F. Kilkil. Big build up, because we believed a random harmless kobold with an ominous name would off Belkar, and nope. Just a kobold accountant.

G. Malack being offed by Nale in a sudden surge of surprising competence.

H. Return of Zzdtri, whom we thought long gone.

I. Redcloak's deception of Xykon with the philactery and a sudden reveal of his assertive mastermind when he offs Tsukiko. For the first time in the main online content, it is in this book we see the tables turned and learn what Redcloak really is.

The list goes on, but in this chain of deception, it would be rather fitting to suddenly reveal that Durkon has his own agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Straight Foreshadowing

The symbolism of Durkon's death scene is just too strong. Look at it. More than 5 amazingly tense panels of his battle with Malack. His final words.
The symbolic dropping of the hammer. I mean, if he follows Thor, why did he drop his hammer? I don't know if it was Durkon's ancestral hammer, or if it was a hammer to pay homeage to symbolism of Mjolnir, I just don't know.

What I do know is the strong metaphor of that hammer hitting the ground and being buried in that ruined pyramid. You don't just throw away a move like that.

Look at vampire Durkon's development on the other hand. Compared to his glorious 5-strip heroic death scene, his return to consciousness is rather sudden and takes place all within one strip. He is released from Thralldom, and immediately resumes functioning.

The Giant distracts us with the Zzdtri kill and makes us look that way. A clever move. He could have brought in any new spellcaster as a replacement into Linear Guild. There were only two viable reasons it had to be Zzdtri and only two characters who could have killed him.
First would be Vaarsuvius, to illustrate his growth and finally learning proper use of magic in defeating his evil opposite. Initially I thought Vaarsuvius would be the one killing the drow, and when that did not happen despite V's stellar and clever duel performance, I realized that this is not why Zzdtri returned.

He returned to be killed by Durkon. And why? To draw our attention away from the fact that Durkon does not seem to experience any angst or adaptation trauma. Where is the comparable lamentation to something like what Vaarsuvius is feeling? Durkon just got murdered dramatically, and he just gets up and goes. "It's okay, I'll still be able to heal you, lad, I just prepare my spells differently from now on."

Tarquin and company were keeping us so busy, we only thought Durkon as a combat asset. Don't you think something is up, and we're in for some serious character drama? We're definitely due for something special to pop.

3. Not the end of the book yet.

You would think that "THIS IS A TERRIBLE ENDING" would have been it, if there wasn't something major coming.

I think it's gonna be Durkon.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Very interesting points. I think that Zz'dtri might have served a different function from what you have stated. Unless I misinterpreted what you said, you claimed that Zz'dtri served to distract us from his recovery. However, that scene actually makes me all the more suspicious that something is not right with Durkon. Whether it is the look of glee on his face, or the fact that he killed a dazed foe, that scene raises alarm bells.

With that said, I think it is still to early to tell what exactly is up with Durkon. He may, as you said, be putting on an act, or he may be genuinely trying to help.

[Warren Dew]

Where is the comparable lamentation to something like what Vaarsuvius is feeling?
I don't remember any angst when Vaarsuvius got turned into Darth Vaarsuvius - just mad cackling. The obvious source of angst has been headed off neatly by Roy's rules lawyering.

[orrion]

The time to do the cutaway to mention Nergal or whatever other god would have been while he was praying for spells, though I suppose there could still be a flashback to that effect.

[Ghost Nappa]

-snipped-

I think you have highlighted enough evidence to knock it out of the park. Worse yet, I'm a little concerned now. :smalleek:

Remember Belkar's prophecy?

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

For similar reasons that you state it had to be Durkon who killed Z'zdrti and not Vaarsuvius, I think Belkar is going to have the anti-hero equivalent of a Heel-Face Turn shielding the Order or something. You are exactly and perfectly right, he's in the perfect position to notice any deception and he's raising the flags and blowing the whistles but no one else WANTS to see it, or at least all of the consequences of it. It's an old fashioned Cassandra Truth, and the wisest person among them has every motivation not to say anything about it. I think his personal vendetta against Durkula is going to wind up with the two of them fighting, but not like Vaarsuvius' prank wars, I mean like far more violently that ends with Belkar's death.


Your theory has so much evidence in it's favor and makes so much sense.

And it scares me.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Belkar figured out Durkula, and that's probably how he's going to die.

[TheBST]

Damn good theory, chief. Though you might wanto to consider putting 'spoiler' in the title.

On top of all that, there's also:

a) Durkon was prophesised to bring destruction and doom to the Dwarven Lands upon his return. Since Xykon's already made a beeline there, I'd assume Durkon's going to be personally bringing his own extra-layer of doom on top of that.

b) as lampshaded, Belkar's already done the evil-but-sorta-cooperative teammate thing for years. The evil-backstabbing teammate thing would be a new one.

c) It'd be a fun subversion of things if Durkon's vampirism was treated like a
minor medical condition and no big deal by itself. But then there' be no real point to it after so much drama and heartache.

[Hyzhenhok]

Durkon regaining his free will so quickly after being vamped is a good enough explanation for why he apparently is much the same as before. His identity as a dwarf remains strong, though even by his own words he has changed.

So while he almost certainly can no longer draw divine power from Thor, he's likely to stick with the Dwarven pantheon rather than get tangled up with Nergal or his mortal self's old enemies. I don't think half a comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) was spent introducing Hel and explaining dwarven death mythology just for fluff. Vampire Durkon is probably going to be revealed as drawing his divine power from Hel.

However it's hard to guess what the implications of that would be since we know very little about Hel beyond that her alignment is probably Evil (otherwise, Durkon would not be so skeptical of Malack's speech about how gods of death are not necessarily evil).

[MartianInvader]

Oh man, now would be the perfect time to kill Belkar too. Right after he gets healed from being on the edge of death, when all the speculators had just started to relax...

[ti'esar]

I don't buy this, for several reasons:


The nastiest things we've seen from post-vampirization Durkon so far don't come across at suggesting he's turning against the Order. Rather, what it actually seems like is that he may be much more likely to use dubious means to achieve their goals. Furthermore, at least to my mind, it doesn't make a lot of sense that his allegiances would change "just" because his alignment did (even if we assume the vampire isn't actually Durkon, it still has his memories). Why, for instance, would becoming a vampire suddenly make him want to work with Xykon?
Rich has said that Durkon's transformation as a plot point predates literally every other aspect of the plot, and everything about him so far has been written with this in mind. It seems very unlikely that the end result of all that would be his rapid transformation into an antagonist. If Durkon goes completely darkside, I think we're much more likely to see it as a result of further character development then a "ha ha, he was never really on their side, suckers!" reveal.
"You would think that "THIS IS A TERRIBLE ENDING" would have been it, if there wasn't something major coming." You might think that, but I certainly wouldn't. Every other online arc- even DCF, though it did it all in one strip - has had a denouement after the climax that wraps up or provides closure to some of the remaining plot points and sets up new ones for the next book. None of them have just ended suddenly on a dramatic moment. It is not entirely implausible that there's still a major twist to occur, but it's not an obvious inference from the book still going on.
Frankly, the whole thing seems premised on a sort of conspiratorial attempt to rationalize away a plot point you didn't like (in this case, that Durkon seemed to adjust to his vampirization way too quickly). Not only does my experience with other fiction show that this sort of thing is almost always wrong, but it's awfully, well, Tarquinesque to assume that there's only one reason to do anything. There's a lot more reasons why Durkon might have "gotten over it" so far than Rich trying to mislead the audience. For all we know, maybe he just looks like he has - after all, I think it's pretty clear that there's a good chance that next book will be focused on Durkon in the way that this one was focused on Elan.


Now, do I think that it looks like Rich is setting up a "Cassandra-type" plot here with Belkar's warnings, and that Roy easily accepting the new Durkon will come back to perhaps-literally bite him? Yes. But I doubt it's going to happen in this book and I strongly doubt it's going to be as simple as "Durkon has straight-up turned against the Order and has been faking his behavior for the last 30 strips".

[colanderman]

Sums up what I was thinking as well (though better written than I could have!). Durkon's vampirization is meant to be character development; if his condition were really as inconsequential as he and the others make it out to be, there'd have been no point but to complete a decade-old joke. That's not worth a week of daily updates.

Belkar was right about Durkon being vamped; he'll be right about this too.

(Though I find it strange that Durkon being evil would be at odds with Rich's mantra that predetermined alignment is hogwash. Maybe we will see Durkula grow away from the LE vampire he is now, back closer to the LG Durkon he used to be.)

EDIT: Not to mention we conspicuously do NOT see Durkula praying. That's one of his fundamental changes, since part of his character is defined by his relation to his god. If there were nothing to hide, I'd have expected at least a few panels evincing the new ritual (since he likely can't get spells from Thor anymore), and how Durkula handles it emotionally. "Look, I'm back, nothing to see here!" is awfully suspicious to me.

[hoff]

I think durkon will leave when they cross over the dwarven lands, he will try to get revenge on the high priest of thor/odin (don't remember) for exiling him.

[colanderman]

I think durkon will leave when they cross over the dwarven lands, he will try to get revenge on the high priest of thor/odin (don't remember) for exiling him.

I'd place money on this as well. Revenge is no longer a foreign concept to Durkon/Durkula, and this would provide him a goal that would evince his new alignment.

Excited to see what role the lost (eaten) letter that ended his exile will play.

[ti'esar]

(Though I find it strange that Durkon being evil would be at odds with Rich's mantra that predetermined alignment is hogwash. Maybe we will see Durkula grow away from the LE vampire he is now, back closer to the LG Durkon he used to be.)

I'm pretty sure Rich draws a distinction between creatures portrayed as basically similar to real humans and explicitly supernatural beings like outsiders and the undead.

[ThePhantasm]

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

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

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

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

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

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


I like this a lot, and think it is absolutely right.

[ella ventic]

"You would think that "THIS IS A TERRIBLE ENDING" would have been it, if there wasn't something major coming." You might think that, but I certainly wouldn't. Every other online arc- even DCF, though it did it all in one strip - has had a denouement after the climax that wraps up or provides closure to some of the remaining plot points and sets up new ones for the next book. None of them have just ended suddenly on a dramatic moment. It is not entirely implausible that there's still a major twist to occur, but it's not an obvious inference from the book still going on.

I don't feel qualified to judge the rest of the points, but I think ti'esar is spot on for this particular one; we're in the denouement now. "THIS IS A TERRIBLE ENDING" was indeed the end of the real story; we've probably got between 5-15 strips left in the book itself. Which is not to say that major plot twists can't crop up in the denouement (I think they did when Roy's sword was being reforged), but they'll be cliffhangers for the next book, not dealt with in this one.

[Morquard]

I agree with konradknox on pretty much all those points.

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

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

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


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

Don't let Durkon's current attitude and behavior fool you.

This is not Durkon. This is something evil and malicious that walks around in Durkon's skin and has Durkon's memories and maybe even some of Durkon's motivations. He might even genuinely feel friendship to the Order of the Stick.
But don't be fooled!

THIS IS NOT DURKON!

[137beth]

I'm pretty sure Rich draws a distinction between creatures portrayed as basically similar to real humans and explicitly supernatural beings like outsiders and the undead.

Here, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14785214#post14785214) he pretty clearly calls out that vampires, at least in OOTS, shouldn't be assumed evil by default.
Durkon didn't think negatively of Malack until he saw Malack drinking Belkar's blood and claiming to only kill people that Tarquin doesn't mind killing. Obviously, Belkar disagrees, but it's hardly the first time Belkar and the Giant have disagreed on moral issues:smalltongue:

[snikrept]

I, too, was a bit hopeful that we'd get to have him prep his new spells on-panel, to find out whom he now serves.

He's doing the legacy of Malack good justice right now with his evasions and mysteries !

[Lombard]

Durk playing the long con leading up to the big reveal? Could be good.

[Amphiox]

Belkar has not called it right and never will have called it right, no matter what Durkula does. Belkar wanted to destroy Durkula solely for what Durkula is, "a mockery of all we hold dear", not for what Durkula has done.

If it should come to pass that the Order will need to confront an evil Durkula, it will be evil ACTS that he has done, not for being what he is. That possibility arising does not make Belkar right now, because he isn't right, he's dead wrong, and no future circumstance will change that.

[oppyu]

Belkar has not called it right and never will have called it right, no matter what Durkula does. Belkar wanted to destroy Durkula solely for what Durkula is, "a mockery of all we hold dear", not for what Durkula has done.

If it should come to pass that the Order will need to confront an evil Durkula, it will be evil ACTS that he has done, not for being what he is. That possibility arising does not make Belkar right now, because he isn't right, he's dead wrong, and no future circumstance will change that.
Note: I've included alternate phrasings to preclude a continuation of 'Are Durkula and Durkon the same person' debate.

I was under the impression that the whole team, not just Belkar, was planning a stake-and-resurrect, and the dispute on-panel was the first indicator that Roy may actually be considering the idea of not staking the sentient construct using blood and negative energy to wear Durkon's corpse as a meat-suit (not curing his friend of his condition). Is your argument that if the Order decided to terminate the vampire to bring back Durkon (if the Order decided to cure Durkon and restore him to life), they would be in the wrong?

[Copperdragon]

I agree to the basic idea here. It's a classic of vampire stories that someone who got turned tries to seem "just the same old chap", while the point of vampirism is that he is not anymore.

The biggest issue that Durkon is aware of this and deliberatly fools the party (Roy) is his mentioning of Thor. We know for a fact he cannot worship Thor anymore, this is confirmed OOC by the author and IC we know that the alignment after the template got added does not fit anymore.
Durkon also very bluntly reassures everyone "everything is back in order", which is along the lines of Nale's competence of deception.
Durkon is very subtle about his mentioning of Thor: He does not directly address him anymore (like praying to, calling to, whatever to) but drops side-remarks containting Thor so everything thinks all is in Order.
This is fishy at best and combined with our knowledge he is an evil, blood sucking monstrosity now - whatever is left of his old character - makes this outright suspicious and alarming.

I find it very curious that the other evil monster in the party sees right through it. Belkar is not fooled, Belkar knows when he sees another evil killing machine and abomination of what is good.
Roy can attempt to use two horribly evil creatures for his task but he really should listen to Belkar when it comes to caution. Right now, there is no way what of his Old Friend is left after the turning.

Belkar knows. Listen to him.

[Amphiox]

I was under the impression that the whole team, not just Belkar, was planning a stake-and-resurrect, and the dispute on-panel was the first indicator that Roy may actually be considering the idea of not staking the sentient construct using blood and negative energy to wear Durkon's corpse as a meat-suit (not curing his friend of his condition). Is your argument that if the Order decided to terminate the vampire to bring back Durkon (if the Order decided to cure Durkon and restore him to life), they would be in the wrong?

Yes they would absolutely be in the wrong, if the intent was solely to bring back Durkon, and not because Durkula is doing or threatening to do something that needs to be stopped and that requires staking him to stop. It is never right to kill one sentient being solely for the benefit of another. Unless of course Durkula himself provides consent.

It is really irrelevant whether Durkula is a sentient construct or not.
The only relevant part is that he is sentient.

[oppyu]

Yes they would absolutely be in the wrong, if the intent was solely to bring back Durkon, and not because Durkula is doing or threatening to do something that needs to be stopped and that requires staking him to stop. It is never right to kill one sentient being solely for the benefit of another. Unless of course Durkula himself provides consent.

It is really irrelevant whether Durkula is a sentient construct or not.
The only relevant part is that he is sentient.
How about Durkon's (not Durkula's) preferences? Regardless of whether Durkula is a separate yet sentient construct, or some kind of disease, living Durkon would not want his corpse to be walking, talking and biting people. Vampirism was induced without his consent and likely against his wishes. Is he beholden to carry a vampire around in his corpse for eternity if said vampire doesn't do anything explicitly stakeworthy? Especially considering that Durkon is unable to come back to life while Durkula is using his corpse, so it comes down to whether Durkula should be allowed to exist on the mortal plane, or Durkon.

[ti'esar]

Here, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14785214#post14785214) he pretty clearly calls out that vampires, at least in OOTS, shouldn't be assumed evil by default.
Durkon didn't think negatively of Malack until he saw Malack drinking Belkar's blood and claiming to only kill people that Tarquin doesn't mind killing. Obviously, Belkar disagrees, but it's hardly the first time Belkar and the Giant have disagreed on moral issues:smalltongue:

Huh, I wasn't aware of that quote. I assumed from Durkon's immediate turn towards a darker personality that the Giant considered vampires to be along the lines of, say, demons.

Although, really, that just strengthens my objection to this theory.

[RMS Oceanic]

You know, I'm confident that Durkon's vampirism will pose problems and create conflict for the Order, both with other people and internal conflict. What I'm not seeing is how Durkon will be creating these problems with agency, or that he's now actively working towards a goal that conflicts with Roy's.

For one thing, there's an assumption that the free-willed acts we've seen since his liberation, namely Z and Nale, means there are other as-yet unseen traits to his personality now: We've seen that he's ruthless in combat now, but this leads people to assume he's also now sneaky, manipulative, and power-hungry, with no evidence to that effect.

In addition to that, if Durkon is now embracing his being evil, why bother rejoining the Order? If he didn't care, it would be easy to recall the devil to him and flee into the desert.

So where does this leave Belkar's perception of him? Well obviously part of it is being mad at being blood drained. Belkar's always been one for grudges. However I think Belkar has been talking with sincerity about believing Durkon isn't Durkon. I do like the angle of survivor's guilt is playing into blind hatred of him. It would make a neat scene where Belkar confronts Durkon about his last mortal act.

I think one of the most interesting pieces of information to chew on in this book is Redcloak's view of the undead: That they're all tools without being really people. I think people who now believe the worst of Durkon seem to follow this belief, which is one I think he developed as a coping mechanism for interacting with Xykon, and it contains flaws, biases and rationalisations. While not every undead has a soul, the Ancient Black Dragon seemed to, clearly remembering her afterlife until Vaarsuvius interrupted that. That alone is evidence enough for me that some undead retain souls, and thus are still the character they were in life, albeit with changes.

One of the points of this happening to Durkon is to develop his character, and if this means he now has a big evil plan and he's selling the Order a lemon, well then he truly isn't Durkon anymore, and I don't think that's what Rich is planning. I think the point is supposed to be that at the core of his character he is still Durkon, that whatever his alignment he is still dutiful, loyal to his allies and fairly stoic, for such things aren't impacted by hypohaemia. What will change is how he acts on these core parts of his character, and that is where conflict can emerge. And this can even include temptation to shed off his inhibitions and embrace his new self entirely.

Of course, if we get a scene where Durkon is alone and is all "The fools! They're playing into my hand!" I'll withdraw this argument. After all, I was one of those blindsided by Malack's vampirism. But since there is currently no evidence of it, I have to assume the best. I'm a Blue Lantern like that. I wonder if we'll ever see Durkon's opinion on being resurrected before an opportunity to do so lands in front of them, because I think the answer to that question will help us shape our view of him.

[Morquard]

So where does this leave Belkar's perception of him? Well obviously part of it is being mad at being blood drained. Belkar's always been one for grudges. However I think Belkar has been talking with sincerity about believing Durkon isn't Durkon. I do like the angle of survivor's guilt is playing into blind hatred of him. It would make a neat scene where Belkar confronts Durkon about his last mortal act.

I'm sorry, but "Belkar holds grudges, it's nothing more" is a little shortsighted. Yes, he may hold grudges, but that's beside the point.
It's exactly what the Order is doing. They're dismissing his opinion because "Belkar's opinion is always wrong" or "He's just mad he got bitten, but that wasn't Durkon's fault!".
Right, it wasn't. Durkon was dead at that point.

I don't wanna repeat myself too much so I'm pointing at my post a little bit further up.

[RMS Oceanic]

I'm sorry, but "Belkar holds grudges, it's nothing more" is a little shortsighted. Yes, he may hold grudges, but that's beside the point.
It's exactly what the Order is doing. They're dismissing his opinion because "Belkar's opinion is always wrong" or "He's just mad he got bitten, but that wasn't Durkon's fault!".
Right, it wasn't. Durkon was dead at that point.

I don't wanna repeat myself too much so I'm pointing at my post a little bit further up.

Um, sentence after the grudge I immediately mention that I think Belkar is sincere in his beliefs about Durkon now, namely the whole isn't Durkon and should be staked ASAP thing. Maybe I didn't make it clear, but obviously the grudge is not the be-all end-all of his distrust.

[LuisDantas]

So far, there is no justification at all for attempting to stake or destroy "Durkula". It would be wrong on several symultaneous levels.

There is certainly a real danger that he might turn against the Order at some point. But we do not know that he will, even with the obvious dramatic possibilities that this danger offers.

As stated above, we even know that the Giant has stated that vampires aren't automatically Evil in the OOtS-verse.

His behavior offers no evidence whatsoever that he has become evil, either. The closest one gets is that he was vindictive against Z and Nale. We have seen far worse from Haley (when she killed Cristal - although only Belkar among the OOtS knows of that), Vaarsuvius and even Elan, to say nothing of Belkar himself, yet no one is considering slaying them.

It would not even make tactical sense at this point. As Durkon himself pointed out quite properly in #908, he has as legitimate an interest at avoiding the end of the world as anyone else, and he is a powerful caster willing to work with the Order.

Be wary of his vampiric nature, sure. Attempt to find out how much of him is still Durkon, no doubt. Seek the opportunity to ressurrect him, of course. But to simply assume that Vampires Are Always Evil against all the evidence is just unwise.

[hamishspence]

We have seen far worse from Haley (when she killed Cristal - although only Belkar among the OOtS knows of that),

Elan knows:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0672.html

I don't remember her specifically telling Belkar about it though.

[johnbragg]

In addition to that, if Durkon is now embracing his being evil, why bother rejoining the Order? If he didn't care, it would be easy to recall the devil to him and flee into the desert.

"World's still at stake, isn't it?"
Why would Durkula want to exist under Xykon's domination?

To quote the Tick, as best I remember--
"You can't destroy the world! That's where I keep all my stuff!"


One of the points of this happening to Durkon is to develop his character, and if this means he now has a big evil plan and he's selling the Order a lemon, well then he truly isn't Durkon anymore, and I don't think that's what Rich is planning.

I don't think that Durkula means the Order any harm. That doesn't mean that Durkula's ultimate plan won't horrify the Order and wouldn't have horrified Durkon.

Durkula likes being a vampire, maybe he offers to share the gift? Open ended offer, no rush, no pressure, but if you're ever interested....


I think the point is supposed to be that at the core of his character he is still Durkon, that whatever his alignment he is still dutiful, loyal to his allies and fairly stoic, for such things aren't impacted by hypohaemia. What will change is how he acts on these core parts of his character, and that is where conflict can emerge. And this can even include temptation to shed off his inhibitions and embrace his new self entirely.

Right. We can think about vampirism vaguely like the emotional changes and states created by changing hormone levels--puberty, "roid rage."


Of course, if we get a scene where Durkon is alone and is all "The fools! They're playing into my hand!" I'll withdraw this argument. After all, I was one of those blindsided by Malack's vampirism. But since there is currently no evidence of it, I have to assume the best. I'm a Blue Lantern like that.

Also subpar storytelling. If Durkula is not Durkon-under-a-curse but an independent being, then it's some sort of hybrid of Durkon and his vampiric nature. Or un-nature. That doesn't really add up to an Evil Plan capped by a monologue and a Maniacal Laugh.


So far, there is no justification at all for attempting to stake or destroy "Durkula". It would be wrong on several symultaneous levels.

Well, if they could do it and resurrect Durkon, I think everyone would be in agreement--including Durkon. If Durkula has a different idea, that is in fact evidence that Durkula != Durkon.


It would not even make tactical sense at this point. As Durkon himself pointed out quite properly in #908, he has as legitimate an interest at avoiding the end of the world as anyone else, and he is a powerful caster willing to work with the Order.

This is true. The question is what happens after Xykon is defeated and the Snarl problem is revealed--what does Durkula do the next day, and for the eternity following?


Be wary of his vampiric nature, sure. Attempt to find out how much of him is still Durkon, no doubt. Seek the opportunity to ressurrect him, of course. But to simply assume that Vampires Are Always Evil against all the evidence is just unwise.

Vampires always have strong compulsions to evil, which more often than not they do not overcome. That doesn't say that Durkon/Durkula won't, but you are right to be wary. OOTS, except for Belkar, shows no signs of being wary.

[LuisDantas]

Roy seemed plenty wary back in #908. Maybe he is fooled now. But going by what he actually has as a basis to judge, he can't justify going against Durkula.

Until he actually acts suspiciously or the party has the chance to find a cleric capable of raising/ressurrecting him, Durkula should be treated with respect.

[Jay R]

Whoever this is, he remembers what Durkon remembers, fights for the Order, heals the Order, and wants to help save the world.

:roy:: It's Durkon enough for our purposes. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html)

[Deliverance]

This is true. The question is what happens after Xykon is defeated and the Snarl problem is revealed--what does Durkula do the next day, and for the eternity following?

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

[Aasimar]

I think the two options of.

1) Yay, Durkon is back!

and

2) That's not Durkon at all.

Are both stupidly simplistic.

There are two middle-ground options which I feel are much more plausible.

A) It's Durkon who has gone through a severe shift of circumstances and has a whole new set of outlooks, desires and feelings that drastically alter how he acts and essentially, who he is, though it is still him in some basic sense, though there is nothing to stop him from becoming drastically different as he has more time to process what's happened, during which time, a positive relationship with the friends of his living self will be able to influence his development as an undead monstrosity to a great extend, modulating, effectively, who he becomes.

and

B) It isn't Durkon, but whatever it is possesses his memories and thoughts and identifies with him enough that it THINKS it is Durkon, even if it has a whole new outlook, desires and thoughts on top of that, meaning that to some degree it can effectively 'be' Durkon until new developments say otherwise, it might do a complete 180° at some point if a severe enough conflict arises, but there's nothing to say it won't do it's best to just 'be' a rather benign LE version of someone who thinks they're Durkon.

[King of Nowhere]

Even if we accept the argument that durkula is not durkon, which I do not, still he is a powerful caster that got his powers further buffed by becoming a vampire, and he's willing to help oots to fight xykon because, even if he had become evil, he still would not want to be ruled by xykon or to die by accidental snarl release.
Staking and resurrecting him would only ensures that he loses his vampire power. and a level, since rich stated that no one in oots will have access to true resurrection. Sabotaging your war assets before a fight that will decide the fate of the world don't seem such a smart choice.
The oots can worry about durkon after they saved the world. If there will still be a world after that.

[Kish]

I would add that Belkar's, "Now let's attack the vampire. No? Now then! Now!" attitude effectively pushes Roy to treat this as a situation without nuance, and he's not going to both do that and come down on Belkar's side, for reasons that would be obvious if Belkar didn't have such low Wisdom.

If Roy is speaking to Haley privately and insists that Vampire Durkon should be treated and regarded exactly the same as Living Durkon, then he'll be showing a dangerous level of trust.

[Rift_Wolf]

Here's my two cents...

Someone early in the thread linked to a comic setting up Hel. The line that stood out to me was 'No-one follows her, much less becomes her cleric'. If Durkon is praying to her, that might make him the first. And that makes him scary to the other Dwarves.
On another note, are we sure Kraagor's gate is in the Dwarf-lands? Or is it entirely possible that Durkon only returns after the Gate is captured, and we learn the true nature of the Gates/Snarl, rather than the mythologised version that Shojo told?

[Kish]

Here's my two cents...

Someone early in the thread linked to a comic setting up Hel. The line that stood out to me was 'No-one follows her, much less becomes her cleric'. If Durkon is praying to her, that might make him the first. And that makes him scary to the other Dwarves.
On another note, are we sure Kraagor's gate is in the Dwarf-lands?

From what Roy said about where they're going, it sounds like Kraagor's Gate is past the dwarven lands. By the terms of Serini's original compromise, it must be the gate which was closest to...Serini's homeland.

[orrion]

So far, there is no justification at all for attempting to stake or destroy "Durkula". It would be wrong on several symultaneous levels.

Well, Durkon was destroyed - or remade, whatever - in order to create the vampire Durkon.

Why does vampire Durkon take precedence in importance? Durkon as a living dwarf was a sentient creature too.

[Kish]

Well, Durkon was destroyed - or remade, whatever - in order to create the vampire Durkon.
That's only relevant if you would say Malack was not wrong to do that. The axiom "It's wrong to forcibly transform someone against her or his will" leads to "Malack committed an atrocity, and the Order should not repeat that atrocity in the name of getting Living Durkon back."

(Although, I think "Durkon is both a fundamentally different entity from Living Durkon, and not a dangerous monster who needs to be stopped" is the least likely of a lot of more or less unlikely possibilities, so it's unlikely to come up.)

[orrion]

That's only relevant if you would say Malack was not wrong to do that. The axiom "It's wrong to forcibly transform someone against her or his will" leads to "Malack committed an atrocity, and the Order should not repeat that atrocity in the name of getting Living Durkon back."

Reversing an atrocity is itself an atrocity?

Again, why does undead Durkon's will (if indeed he's against the transformation) take precedence over living Durkon's will?

What's the justification if Durkon were still Malack's thrall? He's got no free will (yet) so it would have been ok to transform him back? Or do you try to return his free will, which likely means killing Malack?

[johnbragg]

Reversing an atrocity is itself an atrocity?

It is if you have to commit an atrocity in the process of reversing the atrocity. If the Yeggs drive the Keggs out of Keggland with a vicious, savage campaign of ethnic cleansing, you're probably not going to reverse that atrocity without launching a pretty-vicious, pretty-savage campaign against the Yeggs to get them out.

Similarly, if Durkon != Durkula, then you can't bring back Durkon without killing Durkula, which at this point Durkula has done nothing to deserve.


Again, why does undead Durkon's will (if indeed he's against the transformation) take precedence over living Durkon's will?

The logic is that Durkula is a sophont worthy of respect, and Durkon is no longer a sophont, so his wishes and desires are secondary.

I don't agree, but that's the logic.


What's the justification if Durkon were still Malack's thrall? He's got no free will (yet) so it would have been ok to transform him back? Or do you try to return his free will, which likely means killing Malack?

Yeah, I don't know about that one.

[Amphiox]

Reversing an atrocity is itself an atrocity?

If the method by which you do the reversing is the same as the method of the atrocity, it is. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.


Again, why does undead Durkon's will (if indeed he's against the transformation) take precedence over living Durkon's will?

They are equal. And that equality means you cannot destroy undead Durkon for previously-living Durkon's benefit.


What's the justification if Durkon were still Malack's thrall? He's got no free will (yet) so it would have been ok to transform him back? Or do you try to return his free will, which likely means killing Malack?

Either transforming him back OR freeing him by killing Malack would have been acceptable outcomes, as in both cases what one is doing is restoring/granting agency to a free-willed being, and it would depend on which of the two was the more feasible in the specific situation at the time.

But once Vampire Durkon got his free will, then destroying him solely to get Durkon back becomes acceptable only if Vampire Durkon says "I am still Durkon, and I want to be the way I used to be. Stake me now, please".

[Kish]

I would add that you cannot have it both ways. If the vampire currently on the Mechane is not Durkon, then Durkon is dead and doesn't get a vote. If the vampire is Durkon, then there is no need to speculate about what he wants: Ask him. If you're saying that the hypothetical vote you assume Durkon would cast if he was still alive to cast it should override any desires Durkon has, then you're making an assertion extreme enough that simply changing it to "Vampires should be destroyed because they should and that's all there is to it" would not be significantly more extreme.

[orrion]

If the method by which you do the reversing is the same as the method of the atrocity, it is. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

"An eye for an eye is the principle that a person who has injured another person is penalized to a similar degree, or according to other interpretations, the victim receives the value of the injury in compensation."

That doesn't seem to apply to the scenario in question.



Either transforming him back OR freeing him by killing Malack would have been acceptable outcomes, as in both cases what one is doing is restoring/granting agency to a free-willed being, and it would depend on which of the two was the more feasible in the specific situation at the time.

But once Vampire Durkon got his free will, then destroying him solely to get Durkon back becomes acceptable only if Vampire Durkon says "I am still Durkon, and I want to be the way I used to be. Stake me now, please".

So in other words it's completely arbitrary. That's great.

[Amphiox]

The logic is that Durkula is a sophont worthy of respect, and Durkon is no longer a sophont, so his wishes and desires are secondary.

I don't agree, but that's the logic.

It is not that Durkon is secondary to Durkula, it is that they are equal. But one can only justify active action that harms one party IF that party is in fact secondary. In the event of equality active action cannot be justified, and thus the status quo should be maintained until other circumstances arise to break the deadlock.

Durkula is so far being helpful, and has promised to "behave" (in acquiescing to a deal in which he basically agrees not to kill anyone to satisfy his blood needs). Perhaps he plans to betray you in the future. Perhaps his nature is such that he will inevitably betray you in the future. But you cannot see the future. You do not know that for sure, or even if for certain, you would not know when. Other events could well intervene. For example, Durkula could be planning to betray you at some point, but he gets destroyed by one of your enemies in a battle BEFORE he gets the chance. Then you can resurrect Durkon from Durkula's remains, you will have fulfilled all your obligations to both Durkon and Durkula, you will have benefited from Durkula's assistance (sincerely given or not) up to that point, and you will get Durkon back without having to commit any morally dubious actions.

Basically its "trust but verify". Accept Durkula at his word. Be wary, take the necessary precautions, but give him, a sentient, self-willed being, the chance to prove himself, one way or another.

[Amphiox]

So in other words it's completely arbitrary. That's great.

No, it is not arbitrary. It is dependent of specific situational details which were not provided in the hypothetical.

For example, if Malack commanded his thrall Durkula to attack the Order, and the Order got the upper hand and had the chance destroy Durkula (and then get back Durkon), but Malack had already mist-formed out of reach or something, then the Order should destroy Durkula and get Durkon back. It would be wrong of them to hold back from destroying Durkula on the pretence that there is a potential free-willed Vampire trapped inside the thrall, so you should let Durkula go now, and try to find another way of killing Malack later, to free the thrall.

Alternately, if the Order successfully corners Malack, with Durkula safely excluded from the battle site, and have the chance to kill him, they should kill him, and allow thrall Durkula to gain free will. They should not let Malack go on the justification that they want to get Durkon back first, and therefore must destroy Durkula first before destroying Malack.

If the situation is one where either option was equally available, and equally "safe" in terms of consequences to collateral bystanders (but such a perfectly balanced situation is rather unlikely to arise), then they could choose whichever they preferred, and I would not criticize or praise them, either way.

In other words, the basic principle is not to trade an immediate, realizable good for a potential future good. The actual trumps the potential every time. And the second principle is that they must consider factors beyond simply the question of Durkon vs Durkula. They cannot allow favoring one over the other lead them to a decision that puts others at risk, relative to the alternative. Malack and Enthralled Durkula are a danger to innocent bystanders, since Malack is proven evil by action and Durkula as his thrall is his tool. So whichever the Order gets the chance to destroy first, they should destroy, and accept the consequence that follows (either free willed Durkula, or the chance to resurrect regular Durkon).

[137beth]

So, for the people advocating killing vampire durkon against his will (before he does anything really evil), would you be okay with being killed in order to save another (equally important) person?

[Skorj]

Durk playing the long con leading up to the big reveal? Could be good.

I would dearly love to see that. I'm really hoping that will be the theme of the next book, or at least that it's the "Durkon's arc book" as much as this was Elan's.

One thing the OOTS has lacked IMO is intra-party scheming. Parties where all the players get along make for fun games, of course, but parties where they don't can sometimes be the best. (Not that Belkar plays nice, but subtle he ain't.)

If nothing else, I'd really like to see the Giant's take on the "subtle, scheming vampire with the long view" that's been so overdone in WoD-related fiction. I have yet to be disappointed with his take on a cliché storyline, and if he's got some original twist in mind here, I'm sure it will be equally entertaining.

[oppyu]

I would add that you cannot have it both ways. If the vampire currently on the Mechane is not Durkon, then Durkon is dead and doesn't get a vote. If the vampire is Durkon, then there is no need to speculate about what he wants: Ask him. If you're saying that the hypothetical vote you assume Durkon would cast if he was still alive to cast it should override any desires Durkon has, then you're making an assertion extreme enough that simply changing it to "Vampires should be destroyed because they should and that's all there is to it" would not be significantly more extreme.
Regarding the 'not-Durkon is actually Durkon' possibility, do you ask your schizophrenic friend who thinks they're Jesus if they really want help? If the police see a woman standing at the top of a building and think she's going to jump, do they ask "Is this what you really want? If so, we won't stop you. Try to land head first, as you may not die on impact otherwise from that height." I think having one's mindset severely and forcibly altered by negative energy qualifies as a mental ailment severe enough that not-Durkon doesn't get a vote.

[Kish]

Regarding the 'not-Durkon is actually Durkon' possibility, do you ask your schizophrenic friend who thinks they're Jesus if they really want help? If the police see a woman standing at the top of a building and think she's going to jump, do they ask "Is this what you really want? If so, we won't stop you. Try to land head first, as you may not die on impact otherwise from that height." I think having one's mindset severely and forcibly altered by negative energy qualifies as a mental ailment severe enough that not-Durkon doesn't get a vote.
And you're trying to have it both ways in the same post: In every way that justifies killing him he's a mind-addled Durkon, not a true separate entity, but he's still "not-Durkon."

[oppyu]

And you're trying to have it both ways in the same post: In every way that justifies killing him he's a mind-addled Durkon, not a true separate entity, but he's still "not-Durkon."
Hmph, semantics. not-Durkon is what I call 'Durkon' now, regardless of the point I'm trying to make. Calling not-Durkon Durkon is like calling non-fat milk milk, or calling 'I can't believe it's not butter!' butter.

[Kish]

Hmph, semantics. not-Durkon is what I call 'Durkon' now, regardless of the point I'm trying to make. Calling not-Durkon Durkon is like calling non-fat milk milk, or calling 'I can't believe it's not butter!' butter.
I am saying that you should not step outside of your comfort zone to burn funny-looking strawmen on the altar of "Durkon must die." It's a mental effort that is completely wasted. If you are not interested in allowing for the possibility that Durkon is still actually Durkon, just don't; allowing for the possibility that Durkon is still Durkon but only as long as you can add an addled to the point of being a schizophrenic who thinks he's Jesus rider serves no one.

[oppyu]

I am saying that you should not step outside of your comfort zone to burn funny-looking strawmen on the altar of "Durkon must die." It's a mental effort that is completely wasted. If you are not interested in allowing for the possibility that Durkon is still actually Durkon, just don't; allowing for the possibility that Durkon is still Durkon but only as long as you can add an addled to the point of being a schizophrenic who thinks he's Jesus rider serves no one.
Durkon did die :smallcool:. Plus, it's really more of a shrine.

Also, point taken. I still want not-Durkon to be destroyed though.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I sure wouldn't want to be in an adventuring party with any of you people who are saying that if I got turned into a vampire you wouldn't be cool with bringing me back to life unless the horrible vampire gave you permission to do so!

[Rakoa]

For what it's worth, I'm with oppyu. Durkon has been changed by this affliction that has been forced upon him, and it should be cured as quickly as possible. Then, if after he has been ressurected, he decides he still wants to be a vampire, they can go and find someone else to bite him. :smallwink:

[Kish]

If you're not saying Durkon is dead and the entity on the Mechane that looks like Durkon is a different entity, I don't think that quite qualifies as "with oppyu."

[Rakoa]

If you're not saying Durkon is dead and the entity on the Mechane that looks like Durkon is a different entity, I don't think that quite qualifies as "with oppyu."

Err, I am with oppyu as far as destroying Durkon ASAP goes. My apologies. :smallredface: (Even if oppyu is referring to Durkon as not-Durkon)

[Warren Dew]

I would add that you cannot have it both ways. If the vampire currently on the Mechane is not Durkon, then Durkon is dead and doesn't get a vote.
In a world where the afterlife is known to be real and resurrection is routine, and assuming that Durkon exists in the afterlife separately from Durkula - an assumption I consider questionable based what Malack has said about his history - I think a strong argument can be made that Durkon still gets a vote. In fact, I think a good argument can be made that Durkon's claim on Durkon's body has priority over Durkula's claim, in the same way that the original owner of a vehicle that is stolen has priority over a bystander who innocently purchases the stolen vehicle for a fair price.

[ShaneWegner]

Moving past the questions of "If?" and "Why?" if Durkula's possible betrayals, let's move on to the "how?"

I think his strongest move would be Dominating the party members not likely to resist- Belkar and Haley, probable Elan. Fighters don't always come to mind as winning Will saves, but I feel like Roy has been keeping pretty balanced stats. V I can see resisting pretty well, but suffers from the low hit dice, easily grappled, easily drained weakness.

If D turns and could get people alone individually, Dominate them and keep them in reserve. Grapple and blood drain V, energy drain Roy down a few levels and win.

^ Even better if you can do all the above anywhere the sun isn't, to avoid being Dispelled and vulnerable. V is probably going to be stocking up on more Dispels (Greater Dispels) now just on principle.

Think of how much stronger each member of the OOTS would be with all the vampire's upgraded stats, automatic regeneration, gas form, spider climb, energy drain, dominate. shapeshift.... plus the skills they currently have they get to keep!

[Jay R]

As long as he's helping. Durkon as a vampire adds a lot of abilities to the party.

The only thing lost is his ability to convert any spell into a healing spell.

If they could only find a source for lots of healing potions, there's be no downside at all.

[Talya]

I really think you're all overthinking this. I rather like the casual way Evil Vampire-Durkon easily replaces Good Living-Durkon.

Think of it another way - as the PCs in a campaign (which they are.) When your PC gets turned into a vampire, you generally don't suddenly turn on your party or even change your goals. You move along just like before, only a little more... well... bloodthirsty.

[Amphiox]

As long as he's helping. Durkon as a vampire adds a lot of abilities to the party.

The only thing lost is his ability to convert any spell into a healing spell.

If they could only find a source for lots of healing potions, there's be no downside at all.

When one considers the widely held consensus that being a heal-bot is not the best way to play a cleric, tactically, being denied the ability to convert to healing spells might actually force Durkon to fight in a more optimized way!

[Ghost Nappa]

I really think you're all overthinking this. I rather like the casual way Evil Vampire-Durkon easily replaces Good Living-Durkon.

Think of it another way - as the PCs in a campaign (which they are.) When your PC gets turned into a vampire, you generally don't suddenly turn on your party or even change your goals. You move along just like before, only a little more... well... bloodthirsty.

Don't forget that Durkon still has a deep-emotional friendship with Roy, having been friends with him for years and the first non-dwarf friend he's ever had. I don't think he's going to betray that trust simply for the sake of being evil, but I do think he's far more likely to push the limits of both their friendship and Roy's authority over him if he has an opportunity where he can can away with it. Expect a lot of "I guess it's fine this one time, but you really shouldn't do this again in the future."

Also, I still say that this is a really good time to bring back Hilgya. She's the only member of the original Linear Guild that we haven't seen since Dorukan's Dungeon, and given Durkon and Hilgya's history together, it would serve to highlight a lot of changes in how Durkon interacts with people as a Vampire.

[orrion]

Don't forget that Durkon still has a deep-emotional friendship with Roy, having been friends with him for years and the first non-dwarf friend he's ever had. I don't think he's going to betray that trust simply for the sake of being evil, but I do think he's far more likely to push the limits of both their friendship and Roy's authority over him if he has an opportunity where he can can away with it. Expect a lot of "I guess it's fine this one time, but you really shouldn't do this again in the future."

The thing is that Roy really doesn't have any authority over Durkon as undead, except what Durkon lets him have. He uses numerical and intellectual superiority over Belkar to keep him in line, but that's questionable at best on Durkon. Durkon with a full set of spells and the element of surprise has the potential to take down the entire Order.

[maxi]

Incidentally, am I the only one finding Roy's behaviour just a little bit too far on the naive side? Maybe there is a bit more to Roy's behaviour than just supporting a friend?

A decent way to chain a sentient Evil to yourself is to provide it a source of nourishment while imposing a limitation. That's exactly what Roy did there.

Sometimes being Good is the best politics :D

[mightycleric]

When one considers the widely held consensus that being a heal-bot is not the best way to play a cleric, tactically, being denied the ability to convert to healing spells might actually force Durkon to fight in a more optimized way!

Actually, if you are going based on that assumption, then it is far better to play as a Good cleric. As a Good cleric, you can prepare all the non-healing spells you want, and use them in battle whenever you choose. Then, if you happen to need to heal somebody because that is the, tactically, best option, you can choose the prepared spell least likely to be helpful, and turn it into a healing spell. As an evil aligned character, he'd need to prepare a few healing spells in order to be able to cast them in case of an emergency, which would take away spell slots that could be used for non-healing spells.

Whether that assumption is actually true depends on your play style, your companions' play style, the character make-up of the group, and several other things.

[Amphiox]

Actually, if you are going based on that assumption, then it is far better to play as a Good cleric. As a Good cleric, you can prepare all the non-healing spells you want, and use them in battle whenever you choose. Then, if you happen to need to heal somebody because that is the, tactically, best option, you can choose the prepared spell least likely to be helpful, and turn it into a healing spell. As an evil aligned character, he'd need to prepare a few healing spells in order to be able to cast them in case of an emergency, which would take away spell slots that could be used for non-healing spells.

Whether that assumption is actually true depends on your play style, your companions' play style, the character make-up of the group, and several other things.

Sure, for us, who can read the rule books, play test, and consult with others on the internet. But Durkon is already inclined to going healbot. Being forced to do less healing would compel him to use those spells for something else, and thus he could end up becoming more optimal purely by accident and for all the wrong reasons, but the effect on the battlefield would end up the same!

[endoperez]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0931.html

Angry face and "GIVE ME MY STAFF!" instead of his usual accent.

Granted, his usual access might make that "give me me staff", and that have been too confusing... But still, seems like there might be something up with Durkula.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0305.html

[Tom Lehmann]

The actual trumps the potential every time.
What about the past?

Consider the case where A has something stolen from him by B who then sells it to C (who has no idea that the item was stolen). When A confronts C, who should get the item? They both have an "equal claim" to it.

The common law answer is that A (if they can prove their original ownership) gets the item. C -- if B cannot be found -- is out of luck. Prior ownership trumps actual possession. (If A can't prove prior ownership, A is out of luck. Actual possession trumps an unverifiable claim.)

The underlying reason for this common law principle is to *not reward evil/unlawful acts* (in this case, theft).

(Separately and pragmatically, if this wasn't the rule, it would be all too easy to use complicit intermediaries to dispose of stolen goods.)

So, in the case of a new entity displacing the old entity in a body as a result of an evil/unlawful act (forcibly draining the victim's life essence against their will), the extension of common law would be that old entity -- with sufficient proof -- gets priority over new entity (presumably, with the safeguards of using Speak with Dead to verify that old entity wants to return and having a cleric on hand to do his civic duty to resurrect old entity before terminating new entity).

And the reasoning for why new entity loses their life and old entity regains their life is the same as in the first case, *to not reward evil/unlawful acts* (in this case, draining life).

I fail to see why your proposed "the actual trumps the potential" is superior to extending common law principles in this case. I agree with other posters that it seems arbitrary and not self-evident at all.

[Taelas]

As stated above, we even know that the Giant has stated that vampires aren't automatically Evil in the OOtS-verse.
That is not even remotely related to what he actually said. The context was, if Durkon was attacking Malack solely because Malack was a vampire, he would racist. The Giant insisted that this was not what Durkon was doing.

Based on other comments I've read, he considers supernatural entities, such as undead and fiends, different from near-humans. But that doesn't mean that they are not sentient or don't have free will. Even they are not always irredeemably evil, and destroying them based on their race is wrong.


His behavior offers no evidence whatsoever that he has become evil, either. The closest one gets is that he was vindictive against Z and Nale. We have seen far worse from Haley (when she killed Cristal - although only Belkar among the OOtS knows of that), Vaarsuvius and even Elan, to say nothing of Belkar himself, yet no one is considering slaying them.

It would not even make tactical sense at this point. As Durkon himself pointed out quite properly in #908, he has as legitimate an interest at avoiding the end of the world as anyone else, and he is a powerful caster willing to work with the Order.

Be wary of his vampiric nature, sure. Attempt to find out how much of him is still Durkon, no doubt. Seek the opportunity to ressurrect him, of course. But to simply assume that Vampires Are Always Evil against all the evidence is just unwise.

On the contrary, we know for a fact that he is evil now. He needs a catalyst in order to change back, and it hasn't happened yet.

That doesn't mean that Roy knows he's evil now, though he has at least voiced the concern.

[johnbragg]

I really think you're all overthinking this. I rather like the casual way Evil Vampire-Durkon easily replaces Good Living-Durkon.

Think of it another way - as the PCs in a campaign (which they are.) When your PC gets turned into a vampire, you generally don't suddenly turn on your party or even change your goals. You move along just like before, only a little more... well... bloodthirsty.

Um, maybe my groups have been full of roleplaying pansies, or backstabbing weasels, but when something like that happens, there is more debate among the PCs as to how to handle it than there has been here. Out of a party of six, you'd have 2-3 being very skeptical of Durkon 2.0.

[Sloanzilla]

I kind of hope the OP isn't right, as I think it would be awesome if Durkon just sort of "out gooded" the natural pull of vampirism toward evil.

1. That's a recurring theme of this series. Being a goblin does not make you evil, etc. To date, undead have been outside of that theme, but there is no reason why a major character could not be used to heighten the point that we all make our own choices.

2. Being a vampire means you need blood. Problem solved by Roy. It means you run on negative energy, not positive, but that's a mechanical issue. It also means, apparently, that you remain a sentient being, but somehow have your attitudes distorted greatly in the direction of evil. (I used to like rainbows and puppies, but these evil colored classes are causing me not to like rainbows and puppies."

3. Roy is not being stupid or not good for basically saying "look, he's done nothing wrong- I can't go kill him just because of his Monster Manual alignment classification."

I guess I would find it interesting to see a character exert some force of will on the forces that are distorting his perceptions. Picture the guy from a Beautiful Mind- HE sees other people, but he's ultimately smart enough to know that they are not real, despite what his own mind is telling him. I'd find such a challenge to be more interesting than "muahhahaha- traitor"

[Koo Rehtorb]

I really think you're all overthinking this. I rather like the casual way Evil Vampire-Durkon easily replaces Good Living-Durkon.

Think of it another way - as the PCs in a campaign (which they are.) When your PC gets turned into a vampire, you generally don't suddenly turn on your party or even change your goals. You move along just like before, only a little more... well... bloodthirsty.

In my experience, typically the vampire PC immediately becomes an NPC.

[Amphiox]

What about the past?

Consider the case where A has something stolen from him by B who then sells it to C (who has no idea that the item was stolen). When A confronts C, who should get the item? They both have an "equal claim" to it.

The common law answer is that A (if they can prove their original ownership) gets the item. C -- if B cannot be found -- is out of luck. Prior ownership trumps actual possession. (If A can't prove prior ownership, A is out of luck. Actual possession trumps an unverifiable claim.)

The underlying reason for this common law principle is to *not reward evil/unlawful acts*

This common law practice applies to property, but it does not extend to, and is trumped by, bodily autonomy. If the stolen object was not a possession, but an organ. If B is an organ theft ring and steals A's kidney, which then gets transplanted into C, A is not entitled to have that kidney forcibly extracted from C and reimplanted back into his own body. Even something less drastic -if B stole a quart of blood from A and transfused it into C, A is not entitled to extract a quart of blood from C. If a woman tricks a man into impregnating her he is not entitled to force her to have an abortion because it was his sperm that she "stole." And in this we are talking about not just an organ, but an entire body.

[Jay R]

Um, maybe my groups have been full of roleplaying pansies, or backstabbing weasels, but when something like that happens, there is more debate among the PCs as to how to handle it than there has been here. Out of a party of six, you'd have 2-3 being very skeptical of Durkon 2.0.

I think a large part of the debate was concluded when Roy and Belkar would have been killed, and Haley and Elan captured, by Tarquin and his army, if Durkon hadn't been dominating the enemy and defending Roy and Belkar.

[johnbragg]

I think a large part of the debate was concluded when Roy and Belkar would have been killed, and Haley and Elan captured, by Tarquin and his army, if Durkon hadn't been dominating the enemy and defending Roy and Belkar.

that happened during combat time. After combat was over, the issue of Durkon's vampirism would have been on the table and Roleplaying would have happened.

[Komatik]

Huh, I wasn't aware of that quote. I assumed from Durkon's immediate turn towards a darker personality that the Giant considered vampires to be along the lines of, say, demons.

Although, really, that just strengthens my objection to this theory.

The vampirization process turns the base creature Evil. Apart from that, there's nothing. Vampires aren't demons: they're not made of pure, solid Evil. They just turn evil during the transformation from a one-shot administration of black magic, and are from then on (provided the master frees them or is slain) free-willed individuals, almost as capable of changing their outlook as any living man is. The "almost" there because usually undeath brings with it some issues with feeling empathy, but it's not the only way to Good. Just the easiest one.


His behavior offers no evidence whatsoever that he has become evil, either. The closest one gets is that he was vindictive against Z and Nale. We have seen far worse from Haley (when she killed Cristal - although only Belkar among the OOtS knows of that), Vaarsuvius and even Elan, to say nothing of Belkar himself, yet no one is considering slaying them.

Be wary of his vampiric nature, sure. Attempt to find out how much of him is still Durkon, no doubt. Seek the opportunity to ressurrect him, of course. But to simply assume that Vampires Are Always Evil against all the evidence is just unwise.

He's Lawful Evil. A nontheistic Cleric can call a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally only if he's Lawful Evil. The depths of that evil are anyone's guess though.

Being wary of a newly risen vampire is very much a sound practice given the Evilizing template and bloodthirst.


For what it's worth, I'm with oppyu. Durkon has been changed by this affliction that has been forced upon him, and it should be cured as quickly as possible. Then, if after he has been ressurected, he decides he still wants to be a vampire, they can go and find someone else to bite him. :smallwink:

The hilarity when Vampire Durkon was Durkon, just turned Evil by the vampirization process, and stake&resurrect doesn't restore his alignment. Would be funny. I kinda want that to happen, just to shut people up.

[mightycleric]

Sure, for us, who can read the rule books, play test, and consult with others on the internet. But Durkon is already inclined to going healbot. Being forced to do less healing would compel him to use those spells for something else, and thus he could end up becoming more optimal purely by accident and for all the wrong reasons, but the effect on the battlefield would end up the same!

My point is that, if he is playing a healbot already, that he is even more likely to go down that route, because he will want to prepare the healing spells he thinks he'll have to use. If the mindset is healbot, that means a lot of healing spells, which automatically takes away spell slots from other areas. Before, even if you saw him as a healbot, he was still preparing a lot of other spells, and sometimes switching them out for healing spells. (For these purposes I am going with what appears to be your assumption that Durkon is still Durkon, just with the vampire template added, and thus no major change to his personality. If he is a different entity, or a Durkon with a huge personality shift, that would be enough to have him potentially not preparing that many healing spells.)

The event more likely to make him less of a healbot is the fact that they just got access to a ton of healing potions, so we could see him drastically cut down on how much healing he dishes out, since they can carry potions themselves.

[Tom Lehmann]

If B is an organ theft ring and steals A's kidney, which then gets transplanted into C, A is not entitled to have that kidney forcibly extracted from C and reimplanted back into his own body.
Wow! I would be very leery of any reasoning that encourages organ theft.

I certainly agree that personal autonomy is a "good" (in the sense of a social good that needs protecting), but the notion that it is the "greatest good" that automatically trumps every other social good (such as *not rewarding evil acts*) seems both dangerous and wrong-headed to me.

I will note that you have not presented an argument; instead, you have repeatedly stated a belief (present personal autonomy trumps all other considerations) and have not stated *why* holding this belief is correct.

However, we are verging far afield from OOTS and getting close to real-world politics, so I think we need to stop and simply agree to disagree.

[Warren Dew]

However, we are verging far afield from OOTS and getting close to real-world politics, so I think we need to stop and simply agree to disagree.
Yeah, I think this subthread hit "morally justified" back on page 1.

[jere7my]

Wow! I would be very leery of any reasoning that encourages organ theft.

I certainly agree that personal autonomy is a "good" (in the sense of a social good that needs protecting), but the notion that it is the "greatest good" that automatically trumps every other social good (such as *not rewarding evil acts*) seems both dangerous and wrong-headed to me.

I will note that you have not presented an argument; instead, you have repeatedly stated a belief (present personal autonomy trumps all other considerations) and have not stated *why* holding this belief is correct.

However, we are verging far afield from OOTS and getting close to real-world politics, so I think we need to stop and simply agree to disagree.

I agree with Tom on all counts, including the last.

[BeerMug Paladin]

It seems to me that Durkon only poses a true danger to people if/when he's apart from the rest of the Order. Durkon is still friends with them, and they are willing to help him with the impulses that could lead to evil behavior. Until there's a situation where he's going to be acting by his own, he's probably not going to be engaging in evil acts.

Killing a helpless Z was one of those 'alone' acts. The order also didn't witness it directly, they just know Z is not a threat now. V could have seen the murder, but I'm willing to bet that V wouldn't think it crucial to share that information, considering V would probably think that was a suitable (and justified) way to deal with a bothersome opponent.

Plus Durkon isn't duplicitous. So there's that.

OtOotPCs spoiler:
He might be more inclined now to act on any latent anger/frustration towards the dwarves that kicked him out of his home way, way back at the start of his character arc, though.

[Drew's Alias]

The symbolism of Durkon's death scene is just too strong. Look at it. More than 5 amazingly tense panels of his battle with Malack. His final words.
The symbolic dropping of the hammer. I mean, if he follows Thor, why did he drop his hammer? Now, this is just a theory, but I'm thinking he probably dropped his hammer because he was dead? :smallconfused:

[BeerMug Paladin]

Now, this is just a theory, but I'm thinking he probably dropped his hammer because he was dead? :smallconfused:
You're reading too much into things. Besides, he dropped the hammer because he was grappled (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0876.html). This obviously means being grappled by a vampire caused him to lose faith in Thor.

Also note that Durkon dropped the shield a moment later, indicating that he was lowering his guard to the vampire's control. This was a clue to Malack that Durkon would be willing to be sired as a vampire, and thus, the reason why Malack decided to turn Durkon instead of Belkar.

I mean, what is the alternative? That Durkon dropped those things because they wouldn't help him get out of the grapple or be useful to attack Malack? That's silly.

[Jay R]

that happened during combat time. After combat was over, the issue of Durkon's vampirism would have been on the table and Roleplaying would have happened.

"Hey! This guy just saved our lives and helped us escape, and we will need his help on our quest to save the world. We finally have time to do something about all that. Let's kill him!"

[johnbragg]

"Hey! This guy just saved our lives and helped us escape, and we will need his help on our quest to save the world. We finally have time to do something about all that. Let's kill him!"

Well, unless we had a Paladin in the party, I can't see "kill him now" getting any votes in a situation like this. (If there were a Paladin in the party, he's probably playing Lawful Stupid and attacks without asking questions, and it's "roll initiative for the free-for-all". Very possibly splitting the party and ending the campaign, but hey, Lawful Stupid.) But there would have been some in-character questioning of the newly-vamped character, and thoughts taken for precautions. "Kill him now" would be listed on the options menu, evaluated and discarded. But we'd have gotten some clarity on what Durkon 2.0's long-term plans were.

Of course, we weren't trying to maintain suspense for an audience.

[Komatik]

Well, unless we had a Paladin in the party, I can't see "kill him now" getting any votes in a situation like this. (If there were a Paladin in the party, he's probably playing Lawful Stupid and attacks without asking questions, and it's "roll initiative for the free-for-all". Very possibly splitting the party and ending the campaign, but hey, Lawful Stupid.) But there would have been some in-character questioning of the newly-vamped character, and thoughts taken for precautions. "Kill him now" would be listed on the options menu, evaluated and discarded. But we'd have gotten some clarity on what Durkon 2.0's long-term plans were.

Of course, we weren't trying to maintain suspense for an audience.

A good chunk of the forum is advocating a strict stake ASAP policy.

[johnbragg]

A good chunk of the forum is advocating a strict stake ASAP policy.

Well, internet arguments tend to devolve into shouting matches between the two purest, least nuanced possible approaches, i.e. "Stake him now" vs "It is both morally wrong and practically foolish to consider past instances of vampires as having any relation to the current case, because that would be racist, and racism is both morally wrong and practically foolish."

[Ellye]

@OP

In your listing of meta-trickeries and illusions, you forgot one of the most significants:

Belkar is under a very clear prophecy: he's not long for this world. We know, from in-comic evidence, that he only has a few weeks left at most.

We all thought Malack would kill Belkar. We all thought he would become a Vampire. Then Durkon appears and dies in his place, shocking everyone (including the halfling).

Then Belkar gets drained and becomes really weak and vulnerable. We all considered that this would be his death, being throw in the middle of large fights while having 1 CON doesn't seem good at all. But he survived, and now he's restored.

Now we feel a bit safer about Belkar. Looks like he won't be dying in this book, after all...

:smalleek:

[Jay R]

Of course, we weren't trying to maintain suspense for an audience.

And thank you for bringing up the most relevant issue.

[orrion]

Well, unless we had a Paladin in the party, I can't see "kill him now" getting any votes in a situation like this. (If there were a Paladin in the party, he's probably playing Lawful Stupid and attacks without asking questions, and it's "roll initiative for the free-for-all". Very possibly splitting the party and ending the campaign, but hey, Lawful Stupid.) But there would have been some in-character questioning of the newly-vamped character, and thoughts taken for precautions. "Kill him now" would be listed on the options menu, evaluated and discarded. But we'd have gotten some clarity on what Durkon 2.0's long-term plans were.

Of course, we weren't trying to maintain suspense for an audience.

Well, the Paladin would be in a pressing situation. He'd have to ask Durkon to demonstrate Neutrality or Goodness pretty quickly because he's explicitly forbidden from associating with Evil creatures. If Durkon were demonstrably Evil then the Paladin would need to kill him or leave the party. There's no other choice.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Well, the Paladin would be in a pressing situation. He'd have to ask Durkon to demonstrate Neutrality or Goodness pretty quickly because he's explicitly forbidden from associating with Evil creatures. If Durkon were demonstrably Evil then the Paladin would need to kill him or leave the party. There's no other choice.

Wait, so Paladins explode when they associate with evil creatures?

Okay, so if I just hide a bunch of paladins within the supports of a bridge, and then lure my enemies to the bridge, and then explode the paladins....

it's BRILLINAT!

[Rakoa]

Wait, so Paladins explode when they associate with evil creatures?

Okay, so if I just hide a bunch of paladins within the supports of a bridge, and then lure my enemies to the bridge, and then explode the paladins....

it's BRILLINAT!

The typo there made that all the more hilarious.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Well, the Paladin would be in a pressing situation. He'd have to ask Durkon to demonstrate Neutrality or Goodness pretty quickly because he's explicitly forbidden from associating with Evil creatures. If Durkon were demonstrably Evil then the Paladin would need to kill him or leave the party. There's no other choice.

Or get Durkon kicked out of the party, but yeah.

[johnbragg]

Paladin words paladin words.
There's no other choice.

Ehh, the only Paladin PC I remember fondly was one who chose to break an oath and Fall rather than betray a friend. (The oath was poorly advised--my PC promised an unstated favor to the mysterious spellcaster in return for curing my Int drain from the mind-flayer attack. I responded "Durr, hokay." This was high school, and we took a few years to get the idea of "roleplaying.")

There is always another choice.

[Amphiox]

Well, the Paladin would be in a pressing situation. He'd have to ask Durkon to demonstrate Neutrality or Goodness pretty quickly because he's explicitly forbidden from associating with Evil creatures. If Durkon were demonstrably Evil then the Paladin would need to kill him or leave the party. There's no other choice.

The Paladin can choose to fall.

In both life and role-playing the times when there is NO other choice are exceedingly rare.

Far more common are simply the times when the consequences of all the other choices are simply ones you do not wish to accept.

[orrion]

The Paladin can choose to fall.

In both life and role-playing the times when there is NO other choice are exceedingly rare.

Far more common are simply the times when the consequences of all the other choices are simply ones you do not wish to accept.

Perhaps it was wrong of me, but I did assume our hypothetical Paladin would want to remain a Paladin.

[Kish]

Perhaps it was wrong of me, but I did assume our hypothetical Paladin would want to remain a Paladin.
You're also assuming the hypothetical DM would prioritize, "You associated with a vampire without making sure he wasn't evil = Fall!" over, "You attacked a friendly sapient who had recently saved your life based solely on him being a vampire, that's an evil act = Fall!"

Not a bet I'd want to take in the case of DM Rich Burlew.

[Ridureyu]

A proper DM does not rest until every paladin falls.

The easiest way is for one of the in-town merchants to be a tax-cheater. BAM! You associated with an evil man!

Another way is to have one of the random monsters be pregnant. BAM! MURDER!!!!!

Of course, if you didn't pay the merchant, then his children would starve (BAM! fall!), and if you didn't kill the monster, she and her spawn would slaughter more people (FALL!).

[Amphiox]

Perhaps it was wrong of me, but I did assume our hypothetical Paladin would want to remain a Paladin.

No, you did more than that. You assumed that him wanting to remain a Paladin would take precedence over any and all other wants, such as wanting to do what he might have felt was the right thing, in continuing to associate with a vampire in this specific circumstance.

That is implicit when you said NO other choice. Because if it were even in the remotest way possible that a paladin might want something else more than staying a paladin, then the choice to fall is there, and you can no longer legitimately say "no choice" anymore.

And of course, a Paladin wanting to remain a Paladin is EXACTLY AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I SAID IN MY POST. It is not a question of "no choice" it is a question of not wanting to accept the consequences of some of the choices, and therefore refusing the consider them.

[orrion]

You're also assuming the hypothetical DM would prioritize, "You associated with a vampire without making sure he wasn't evil = Fall!" over, "You attacked a friendly sapient who had recently saved your life based solely on him being a vampire, that's an evil act = Fall!"

Not a bet I'd want to take in the case of DM Rich Burlew.

I had the Paladin check whether he was Evil first, so that's not "solely on him being a vampire." That's "he's an Evil vampire." Paladin faced with an Evil vampire in his party can Fall, kill it, or leave the party.

I suppose the DM could say he's going to leave out the part in the Paladin oath about associating with evil creatures.



And of course, a Paladin wanting to remain a Paladin is EXACTLY AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I SAID IN MY POST. It is not a question of "no choice" it is a question of not wanting to accept the consequences of some of the choices, and therefore refusing the consider them.

Or it's a case of "considered and rejected."

And as long as we're considering thoroughness, the Paladin could ask the vampire to leave the party, as well.

I believe the original hypothetical was about a Paladin in this party, anyway, and not just some random situation where a Paladin has a vampire in the party. I would argue that the Paladin of the party choosing to Fall would not be an option. Come to think of it, neither would the Paladin leaving.

[Amphiox]

Or it's a case of "considered and rejected."

Then it is not a case of "he has no other choice" then, is it? It is a case of he had multiple other choices, he considered them, and then made the choice he wanted.


I would argue that the Paladin of the party choosing to Fall would not be an option. Come to think of it, neither would the Paladin leaving.

I would argue that this would be a case where the Paladin choosing to fall would be a very viable option. The existence of the universe is at state (or so they think). If the Vampire leaves the party, the party is down what might be the second highest level cleric in the world (and their enemy team has the highest level cleric in the world). If they try to kill the Vampire, then at BEST they lose their cleric, at worst their cleric TPK's them, and inbetween they lose their cleric AND any other casualties of the fight, which they can't resurrect easily anymore because they just dusted their vampire cleric. If the Paladin leaves the party, the party loses all of the help the Paladin could have provided them. If the Paladin allows himself to fall, the party keeps the Paladin's fighting skill, and only loses his Paladin abilities.

Which is the least costly option of all.

I would say this is a very strong case where a Paladin's best choice is to fall, save the world, and then atone after, or even try to convince his gods that saving the world is atonement enough, afterwards.

[hamishspence]

Well, the Paladin would be in a pressing situation. He'd have to ask Durkon to demonstrate Neutrality or Goodness pretty quickly because he's explicitly forbidden from associating with Evil creatures. If Durkon were demonstrably Evil then the Paladin would need to kill him or leave the party. There's no other choice.

Defenders of the Faith says paladins can sometimes get an exception, when it comes to short-term associating in a crisis situation.

If nothing else, he can say:

"I cease to be a member of this party - now, I'm a member of a new party, consisting of Just Me, that happens to be heading the same direction as you."

[Koo Rehtorb]

And as long as we're considering thoroughness, the Paladin could ask the vampire to leave the party, as well.

Well if we're being thorough and pedantic a paladin doesn't necessarily fall for grouping with evil because grouping with evil isn't an evil act (or else the Order would all be evil by now).

Grouping with evil is just a violation of the paladin code, which makes it a chaotic act. A paladin can commit a chaotic act every so often without dropping to NG, so conceivably if the fate of the world is at stake a short term alliance with evil might not cause enough of a chaos hit to fall.

[ti'esar]

Speaking personally, if I hadn't treated associating with Belkar as a fallworthy offense, I certainly wouldn't do so for associating with vampire Durkon.

[Kish]

I had the Paladin check whether he was Evil first, so that's not "solely on him being a vampire."

Irrelevant to anything in the comic; no one has cast Detect Evil at Durkon.


That's "he's an Evil vampire." Paladin faced with an Evil vampire in his party can Fall, kill it, or leave the party.

I suppose the DM could say he's going to leave out the part in the Paladin oath about associating with evil creatures.

You're ignoring half of what I said.

Again, I would consider "the DM will ignore the part of the paladin class description about associating with evil creatures" far more likely than "DM Rich Burlew will either ignore the part of the paladin class description about not committing an evil act, or say that killing a nonhostile, helpful vampire for being a vampire is not an evil act." (The DM could also say, "So, after you decide whether you're going to fall for committing an evil act or for associating with an evil creature, record that your paladin has fallen and we'll continue." But I'm pretty confident Rich wouldn't do that either.)

Btw, did Thanh fall for associating with Belkar? I can't remember.

[With a box]

"We all change. When you think about it, we're all different people all through our lives, and that's okay, that's good, you gotta keep moving, so long as you remember all people that you used to be. I will not forget one line of this. Not one day. I swear. I will always remember when the Doctor was me."
Doctor Who - Matt Smith, The Time of the Doctor.
I think that would work on Durkon, too.

[oppyu]

Hinjo was loosely allied with Belkar during the War of Azure City, in that he managed to be in the same room and work together with the dude to try and escape without getting his Smite Evil on. Plus he knew that Belkar was most likely Evil, having seen his depravity first hand (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0265.html). So it's established that there is some wiggle room in the 'must not associate with Evil beings' clause of the Paladin class description.

Furthermore, Ho Thanh actually worked with the halfling in combat on a mission. Belkar's "Watch where you're swinging that Smite Evil" would certainly imply that the halfling was in fact Evil, yet Thanh kept his Paladin mojo right up until his tragic demise. (First Thanh then Durkon. This book has not been kind to Lawful Good dudes with facial hair). So even if O-Chul and Lien recognise not-Durkon as evil at the next gate, I doubt they'll be forced to attack the guy on sight.

[JennTora]

It is both morally wrong and practically foolish to consider past instance of vampire
FTFY.

We know of exactly one other vampire in oots, (not counting a Non-evil vamp featured as a joke). Unless there were more vampires in OtOoPCs. The order has no reason to assume durkon is evil because of malack, especially since they have no idea just how evil malack really was. For all we know they're mostly living in caves and only feast on the vampire hunters who come in and try to kill them for being vampires.

That's not to say that the order shouldn't be wary, even if it's only based on prejudice, but killing someone who has done nothing to hurt anyone (except someone who has murdered in the past and will in the future.) Is an Evil act. Good creatures show concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Vampires are in fact sentient beings.

[Thrillhouse]

Something that may be worth noting: MALACK didn't seem to think that Vampire-Durkon is the same person as the living Durkon.

We have the much cited instance where Malack says he was a different person before (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html) becoming a vampire. On its own, of course, this doesn't suggest much of anything. Even if vampirism didn't cause anything at all to change about you, he seemed to have been indicating that reviving him would cause him to forget or otherwise disassociate with everything that had happened in the last 200 years. It doesn't necessarily mean that he changed immediately into a whole different person.

But the way he describes the newly vamped Durkon suggests something else. He spares Belkar as a "token to the Durkon that was" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html), and also notes in the same comic that "I do not wish to linger where tragedy visited a friend." This is not how you talk about someone that you think of as still existing. The only difficulty here is that Malack is very philosophical, so this may only reflect his own understanding of vampirism--he might mean this in the sense that a child is not the same person as his grown-up self. (He also thinks of his vampirized spawns as his "children" and vamp-Durkon as his "brother" so he may think of any vampirization as the "birth" of a new person)

[Keltest]

Something that may be worth noting: MALACK didn't seem to think that Vampire-Durkon is the same person as the living Durkon.

We have the much cited instance where Malack says he was a different person before (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html) becoming a vampire. On its own, of course, this doesn't suggest much of anything. Even if vampirism didn't cause anything at all to change about you, he seemed to have been indicating that reviving him would cause him to forget or otherwise disassociate with everything that had happened in the last 200 years. It doesn't necessarily mean that he changed immediately into a whole different person.

But the way he describes the newly vamped Durkon suggests something else. He spares Belkar as a "token to the Durkon that was" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html), and also notes in the same comic that "I do not wish to linger where tragedy visited a friend." This is not how you talk about someone that you think of as still existing. The only difficulty here is that Malack is very philosophical, so this may only reflect his own understanding of vampirism--he might mean this in the sense that a child is not the same person as his grown-up self. (He also thinks of his vampirized spawns as his "children" and vamp-Durkon as his "brother" so he may think of any vampirization as the "birth" of a new person)

Malack may have been operation under the assumption that he WOULDNT die in the next few hours, and that Durkon would spend significantly longer as his evil thrall. He did indicate he would release him at some point, but he was not specific as to when that would be. If it were more than a week, and/or he was forced to commit very evil acts in that time, it may have been enough to "break" him and turn him evil/psychotic/insert other unpleasant fate here.

[JennTora]

Malack may have been operation under the assumption that he WOULDNT die in the next few hours, and that Durkon would spend significantly longer as his evil thrall. He did indicate he would release him at some point, but he was not specific as to when that would be. If it were more than a week, and/or he was forced to commit very evil acts in that time, it may have been enough to "break" him and turn him evil/psychotic/insert other unpleasant fate here.

And malack knew Durkon enjoyed his company while it lasted. I'd call realizing that your new best friend was something you had always thought an abomination and having him drink up all your blood, even if you would be back on your feet in five minutes, pretty tragic.

[mightycleric]

Something that may be worth noting: MALACK didn't seem to think that Vampire-Durkon is the same person as the living Durkon.

We have the much cited instance where Malack says he was a different person before (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html) becoming a vampire. On its own, of course, this doesn't suggest much of anything. Even if vampirism didn't cause anything at all to change about you, he seemed to have been indicating that reviving him would cause him to forget or otherwise disassociate with everything that had happened in the last 200 years. It doesn't necessarily mean that he changed immediately into a whole different person.

But the way he describes the newly vamped Durkon suggests something else. He spares Belkar as a "token to the Durkon that was" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html), and also notes in the same comic that "I do not wish to linger where tragedy visited a friend." This is not how you talk about someone that you think of as still existing. The only difficulty here is that Malack is very philosophical, so this may only reflect his own understanding of vampirism--he might mean this in the sense that a child is not the same person as his grown-up self. (He also thinks of his vampirized spawns as his "children" and vamp-Durkon as his "brother" so he may think of any vampirization as the "birth" of a new person)

A couple things about this. If Malack actually thought that he would revert back to the "ignorant barbarian shaman" that he was 200 years ago, before becoming a vampire, this clearly should indicate that he views himself as a different entity, now. For him to not keep the memories of his time on earth (which Roy, while dead, did), to not keep his levels as a cleric, and to not keep his experience during that time would mean that it wasn't his "character" doing those things. If he is still the same individual, the only thing he should lose is the vampire template.

If that's the case, then all he needs to do is locate one run-of-the-mill, CR 7 vampire (and the odds of there not being any that they could find is quite low). His cleric levels would be enough for him to easily use rebuke/command undead to gain control of it, then bring it back to the palace. He could then order it to fail a will save to the 7th level necromancy spell "Control Undead" that Miron could cast (we've seen him cast an 8th level necromancy spell, after all). At that point, Miron could order the vampire to drain Malack's blood, turning Malack into a vampire, then they simply tell the vampire to lay down and close its eyes. They then stake the vampire, cut off its head, and for good measure, put it out in the sun (or in a place where the sun will shine, if it is dark).

Malack rises 1-4 days later as a free willed vampire. For somebody who was a vampire for 200 years, and plans to be one for centuries to come, a process that should take less than a week seems more of an inconvenience than it is a "complicated way of annihilating the person I am today". (And, based on Laurin's reaction to him being dead, and that Tarquin wants to be immortalized by Malack's eventual control of the continent, and that parties normally appreciate healers keeping them up, and so like to help their healers, too, it seems quite likely that their group would have helped him, especially since it could be accomplished within a few days.)

If it erases everything, though, that seems to indicate that those things were gained by an individual that is not the shaman Malack was, which would result in Malack being a different entity. So it seems clear that Malack believed that vampire Malack was a different individual than the non-vampire that Malack used to be. Whether this is actually the case is more open-ended, but Malack seems the most knowledgeable about vampires that we've seen, so just dismissing that outright, without entertaining the idea it might be correct seems illogical.

Also, he not only mentions it as a "token", but a "final token to the Durkon that was", which indicates that, while Durkon would be more like his former self (stated before the "final token" sentence), that Malack still did not believe he would be his former self. After all, he planned to have Durkon be his peer, and that they would spend centuries together, so the idea that he would grant no more "tokens" is unbelievable. Without much time passing between the death and when he would be given free will again, the only difference is Durkon being a vampire, but that was enough to make Malack consider the "Durkon that was" to be no more, and to not exist in the future. Again, whether Malack's interpretation is right is very much up for debate (perhaps it was easier for him to think of himself as a different entity to excuse his feeding on his kin, for example), but Malack's stance seems fairly clear from his words.

[Kish]

I think basing anything on "Malack must have been speaking literally because if he was speaking metaphorically, he could get back to himself through an elaborate, baroque process that begins with 'all he needs to do'" is as big a mistake as simply ignoring the possibility that he was speaking metaphorically and declaring "Malack said it, I believe it, that settles it." Maybe Malack didn't think about "well, I could have my friends help me mug a random vampire"...? Maybe Rich Burlew didn't think about, "Malack could always have his friends help him mug a random vampire, so I better scrap this dramatic dialogue for a bathetic lecture on how being resurrected would moderately inconvenience Malack, yeah, this is the place for that!"

[Jay R]

He spares Belkar as a "token to the Durkon that was" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html), and also notes in the same comic that "I do not wish to linger where tragedy visited a friend."

The "Durkon that was" had free will, and was not Malack's thrall.

The "Durkon that is" has free will, and is not Malack's thrall.

[BobTheDog]

I think basing anything on "Malack must have been speaking literally because if he was speaking metaphorically, he could get back to himself through an elaborate, baroque process that begins with 'all he needs to do'" is as big a mistake as simply ignoring the possibility that he was speaking metaphorically and declaring "Malack said it, I believe it, that settles it." Maybe Malack didn't think about "well, I could have my friends help me mug a random vampire"...? Maybe Rich Burlew didn't think about, "Malack could always have his friends help him mug a random vampire, so I better scrap this dramatic dialogue for a bathetic lecture on how being resurrected would moderately inconvenience Malack, yeah, this is the place for that!"

Oh come on! Now you expect people to believe that their reading of Malack could be wrong? Preposterous!

[mightycleric]

I think basing anything on "Malack must have been speaking literally because if he was speaking metaphorically, he could get back to himself through an elaborate, baroque process that begins with 'all he needs to do'" is as big a mistake as simply ignoring the possibility that he was speaking metaphorically and declaring "Malack said it, I believe it, that settles it." Maybe Malack didn't think about "well, I could have my friends help me mug a random vampire"...? Maybe Rich Burlew didn't think about, "Malack could always have his friends help him mug a random vampire, so I better scrap this dramatic dialogue for a bathetic lecture on how being resurrected would moderately inconvenience Malack, yeah, this is the place for that!"

You also think there is no way that Malack could have disagreed with your opinion or meant anything besides what you want it to mean, so of course you will discount the possibility. If he was only speaking "metaphorically", and the only thing he would lose was the vampire template, then why mention being an "ignorant, barbarian shaman", since he wouldn't be turning back to that (just being a living, high level cleric of Nergal? If he didn't think he would turn back that far, then mentioning that would just be Malack being overly dramatic. Maybe Malack meant the "dramatic dialogue" and was being honest with Durkon, instead of stating "dramatic dialogue" just to say "dramatic dialogue" (since that's more Tarquin's thing, not Malack's).

Also, seeing as he is working on an elaborate, baroque process to turn an entire continent into a land of sacrifice to Nergal, and his team uses an elaborate, baroque process to rule most of the continent now, and he's got Tarquin on his team, who loves the elaborate, baroque process, why wouldn't this be the exact type of thing they would do? It would actually be a much easier task than, you know, manipulating 3 empires and constantly keeping up a shell game with the people.

You also refuse to address the fact that Malack refers to a "final token for the Durkon that was", even though he was already planning to give vampiric Durkon his free will back within a short time period, and that he was planning to interact with him for hundreds of years, and thus would not rule out granting vampiric Durkon "tokens" in the future. This shows he views "the Durkon that was" as a different entity than vampiric Durkon (with or without free will).

Even if you think that Durkon is still the same, that doesn't mean that Malack had to think that, too. As I stated, he might believe that because it made it easier for him to explain to himself what he did to his brothers. He might have other reasons for believing it, but the most logical way to understand his multiple statements, is that he does believe vampires are a different entity than the person they were before they were turned.

Also, on this same topic, you earlier mocked my statement by saying: "Yeah. Malack said that he was a different person than he was 200 years ago, when he had a different name and was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists.

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

Now, after I prove that if he was the "same character" as before, but with 200 years, a new class, several levels, and a bunch of xp, that he would only lose the vampire template, you state that he was "metaphorically" saying that it was losing the vampire template that made him state that Durkon would be "annihilating the person I am today". That seems like, before, that you thought him being a vampire wasn't the main thing, but now, you are arguing that it was enough for him to consider his being "annihilated" if he lost it.

[Kish]

You also think there is no way that Malack could have disagreed with your opinion or meant anything besides what you want it to mean, so of course you will discount the possibility.

Wow. I have never felt so much like a kettle.

For the sake of anyone else who might be reading this, let me stress that a metaphor is not a lie, and that the options are not "poof, instant new unrelated entity" and "any claim that the person has changed is babbling nonsense for the sake of babbling nonsense."

[Keltest]

You also think there is no way that Malack could have disagreed with your opinion or meant anything besides what you want it to mean, so of course you will discount the possibility. If he was only speaking "metaphorically", and the only thing he would lose was the vampire template, then why mention being an "ignorant, barbarian shaman", since he wouldn't be turning back to that (just being a living, high level cleric of Nergal? If he didn't think he would turn back that far, then mentioning that would just be Malack being overly dramatic. Maybe Malack meant the "dramatic dialogue" and was being honest with Durkon, instead of stating "dramatic dialogue" just to say "dramatic dialogue" (since that's more Tarquin's thing, not Malack's).

He was making a point. He could have said "being a vampire was the best thing that ever happened to me." and gotten the same effect.

[mightycleric]

He was making a point. He could have said "being a vampire was the best thing that ever happened to me." and gotten the same effect.

Except that, before, Kish stated that it was about the years of growth, and not about being a vampire, and that stating that he saw himself as a different person because of being a vampire, even stating: "Point to the strip and panel where Malack said 'I fundamentally changed when I became a vampire'".

Now that I have shown that the only thing he could have lost, if he is the same character, is "becoming a vampire", and that he still thinks it enough of a "fundamental change" that the person he is would be "annihilated", he still is completely dismissing any validity of what I wrote. In order to try to keep disagreeing with me about Malack's views, because they don't fit with his interpretation, he has gone from stating that Malack's vampirism had nothing to do with his statement (and that suggesting it was the influence of it was the same as saying that Xykon fell off his dragon and died), to stating that Malack was "metaphorically" talking about his vampirism.

As a side note to Kish, that's why you shouldn't be referring to yourself as the kettle. I've been consistent in my approach that Malack thinks being a vampire makes you a different person. You've gone from saying vampirism had nothing to do with it (and mocking me for suggesting that it was that, not the 200 year gap), to everything to do with it (when I show that, if he was the same person, he wouldn't lose anything from that 200 years, except being a vampire).

[BobTheDog]

Except that, before, Kish stated that it was about the years of growth, and not about being a vampire, and that stating that he saw himself as a different person because of being a vampire, even stating: "Point to the strip and panel where Malack said 'I fundamentally changed when I became a vampire'".

Now that I have shown that the only thing he could have lost, if he is the same character, is "becoming a vampire", and that he still thinks it enough of a "fundamental change" that the person he is would be "annihilated", he still is completely dismissing any validity of what I wrote. In order to try to keep disagreeing with me about Malack's views, because they don't fit with his interpretation, he has gone from stating that Malack's vampirism had nothing to do with his statement (and that suggesting it was the influence of it was the same as saying that Xykon fell off his dragon and died), to stating that Malack was "metaphorically" talking about his vampirism.

As a side note to Kish, that's why you shouldn't be referring to yourself as the kettle. I've been consistent in my approach that Malack thinks being a vampire makes you a different person. You've gone from saying vampirism had nothing to do with it (and mocking me for suggesting that it was that, not the 200 year gap), to everything to do with it (when I show that, if he was the same person, he wouldn't lose anything from that 200 years, except being a vampire).

I think the point Kish is trying to make (and feel free to correct me if I got it wrong, Kish) is that what Malack says and how the OotSverse actually works are not necessarily the same thing.

We know for a fact that the OotSverse follows DnD rules, most of the time. In DnD rules, a vampire who is resurrected (after the undead is destroyed) follows the same rules as any other creature that is resurrected i.e. loss of a level. And the vampire template, in this case.

Malack claims that bringing his "old self" back to life would annihilate him. Therefore, there are three possible scenarios:

a) This is one instance where Rich is "houseruling" (AKA Plot > Rules) or following some splatbook rationalization for souls and sentient undead.
b) Malack was wrong about the resurrection process (or maybe afraid of becoming mortal again?).
c) Malack was being overly dramatic. He did hang out with Tarquin after all.

As for me, until proven otherwise, I'll go with "DnD rules, Durkon is now Durkon with a template" until proven otherwise.

[Kish]

As a side note to Kish, that's why you shouldn't be referring to yourself as the kettle. I've been consistent in my approach that Malack thinks being a vampire makes you a different person.

You sure have!

You've gone from saying vampirism had nothing to do with it

See, unlike Malack, I'm actually here to protest when you tell the board what I think. Point to anywhere where I said "vampirism had nothing to do with it." Not words you chose to interpret as that, that.

My position, again for the benefit of third parties not the proudly unwavering mightycleric, is:

Durkon is almost certainly Durkon, because there would be no possibility for Durkon to have character development from this if Durkon's not around.
Malack's phrasing sounds like a metaphor to me. But if you think it sounds literal, that's okay too. What's not okay is if you decide one of these is absolute and unambiguous truth and try to use it as a club. (Either one, though everyone who's been using it as a club so far has been on the "literal" side.)

[Komatik]

You sure have!

See, unlike Malack, I'm actually here to protest when you tell the board what I think. Point to anywhere where I said "vampirism had nothing to do with it." Not words you chose to interpret as that, that.

My position, again for the benefit of third parties not the proudly unwavering mightycleric, is:

Durkon is almost certainly Durkon, because there would be no possibility for Durkon to have character development from this if Durkon's not around.
Malack's phrasing sounds like a metaphor to me. But if you think it sounds literal, that's okay too. What's not okay is if you decide one of these is absolute and unambiguous truth and try to use it as a club. (Either one, though everyone who's been using it as a club so far has been on the "literal" side.)

Objection: I've been actively clubbing people with the "Malack's been a vampire for 200 years, it's pretty damn integral to his perception of who he is" interpretation :smallfrown:

[Kish]

I stand corrected.

But yeah. What's throwing me is that some people don't seem to grasp that "Malack was speaking metaphorically" is not the same as "Malack just felt like babbling nonsense, and nothing he said meant anything."

[Komatik]

I stand corrected.

But yeah. What's throwing me is that some people don't seem to grasp that "Malack was speaking metaphorically" is not the same as "Malack just felt like babbling nonsense, and nothing he said meant anything."

Well, considering things like "Before we can resurrect, I'm not even considering it" gets translated into "Roy intends to stake Durkon", people think Durkon's viewpoint can change away from a natural-feeling LE outlook in a couple of hours and so on with proof pretty much "he didn't prove he wasn't Evil two seconds ago" and so on, color me unsurprised. People read a frankly awful amount of stuff into simple things here.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Yeah, the person you were twenty years ago isn't the person you are today; and you most likely wouldn't want to go back to being the twenty-years-younger you and lose all you've experienced and learned since. Now, two hundred years, that would be a really long time, enough for personalities to develop far away from what they originally were.

The Durkon of the early strips probably would have preferred being a dwarf, and wouldn't want to be a vampire. The Durkon of the latest strip probably prefers being a vampire, and wouldn't want to be a living dwarf (okay, he's still kind of alive, but you know what I mean).

Just like how the you of when-you-were-five-years-old probably thought kissing was icky and that playing with blocks was fun; but the you of when-you-are-thirty-five probably thinks kissing is okay, and playing with blocks isn't all that great.

Roy doesn't want to have Restoration cast on his poor barren head to bring back his long-lost hair.

[Keltest]

Yeah, the person you were twenty years ago isn't the person you are today; and you most likely wouldn't want to go back to being the twenty-years-younger you and lose all you've experienced and learned since. Now, two hundred years, that would be a really long time, enough for personalities to develop far away from what they originally were.

The Durkon of the early strips probably would have preferred being a dwarf, and wouldn't want to be a vampire. The Durkon of the latest strip probably prefers being a vampire, and wouldn't want to be a living dwarf (okay, he's still kind of alive, but you know what I mean).

Just like how the you of when-you-were-five-years-old probably thought kissing was icky and that playing with blocks was fun; but the you of when-you-are-thirty-five probably thinks kissing is okay, and playing with blocks isn't all that great.

Roy doesn't want to have Restoration cast on his poor barren head to bring back his long-lost hair.

Why is it assumed Durkon would resist being resurrected? Even if hes gotten over the whole "antithesis of life" thing, theres still the rather large weaknesses he has as a vampire. During the day, a dispel magic to eliminate his resistance to sun is enough to kill him, and a cleric (say, redcloak) could turn/rebuke or command him, which at the very least takes away a MAJOR asset when fighting Xykon. Not to mention the inability to go into any civilized area.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Why is it assumed Durkon would resist being resurrected? Even if hes gotten over the whole "antithesis of life" thing, theres still the rather large weaknesses he has as a vampire. During the day, a dispel magic to eliminate his resistance to sun is enough to kill him, and a cleric (say, redcloak) could turn/rebuke or command him, which at the very least takes away a MAJOR asset when fighting Xykon. Not to mention the inability to go into any civilized area.

Also, he lost his spontaneous healing (now he spontaneously harms, I guess); and he has lost Holy Word (which was amazingly effective), and, I guess, Planar Ally, and Turn Undead (he can rebuke undead, but I think that that bolsters undead).

Spontaneous harm isn't going to be useful against Xykon, it would help Xykon. Heal would be better (okay, Xykon would kill Durkon; but heal would at least do damage to Xykon; where Harm would do the opposite). And Holy Word and Planar Ally would be better in a fight against Xykon than whatever the evil versions are.

Also, I'm not sure he can do resurrection anymore.

(I mean, Holy Word can effect any number of enemies, so long as they're within forty feet of Durkon. Say a very crowded place, with all the enemies five levels below Durkon, they're all paralyzed, blinded, and deafened. If they're all one level below Durkon, they're blinded and deafened. If they're Durkon's level, they're all deafened. If they're ten levels below Durkon, they're killed, paralyzed, blinded, and deafened. Shame this only lasts a few rounds, because it could be awesome. Imagine the uses at, say, the battle of Azure City.)

(does that count as a forty foot sphere or a forty foot circle? If sphere, assume maximum density of enemies with Durkon at the center.

(speaking of level 7 spells, Mass Cure Serious Wounds is awesome. Imagine the uses at, say, the battle of Azure City.)

What spells have Durkon lost?

[Shale]

Durkon/ula can still cast all his spells. The difference is in what he can spontaneously cast. As a Good cleric, he could decide at a moment's notice to use a spell slot where he prepared some random non-healing spell to instead cast a Cure X Wounds (or Mass Cure X Wounds) spell. Now, as an Evil cleric, he can only cast Cure spells that he prepared like other spells. Instead, he can turn random prepared spells into Inflict X Wounds.

Heal and Harm cannot be spontaneously cast no matter what, because they don't have "Cure" or "Inflict" in their names.

[BobTheDog]

What can Current Durkon do that can match that?

Unholy word? :smallconfused:

[Edit: oops, spell name is actually blasphemy.]

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Durkon/ula can still cast all his spells. The difference is in what he can spontaneously cast. As a Good cleric, he could decide at a moment's notice to use a spell slot where he prepared some random non-healing spell to instead cast a Cure X Wounds (or Mass Cure X Wounds) spell. Now, as an Evil cleric, he can only cast Cure spells that he prepared like other spells. Instead, he can turn random prepared spells into Inflict X Wounds.

Heal and Harm cannot be spontaneously cast no matter what, because they don't have "Cure" or "Inflict" in their names.

Oh, I didn't know that. Sorry.

So, current Durkon could cast Holy Word, but not spontaneously? Or am I barking up the wrong tree.

(Yeesh, Redcloack has level nine spells? Those must be extremely powerful!)

[Kish]

An evil cleric cannot cast Good spells.

Implosion and Gate are ninth level.

[Shale]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Because it's tagged as a Good spell, Durkon can't cast Holy Word anymore, even if he was willing to be deafened by it.

[orrion]

Oh, I didn't know that. Sorry.

So, current Durkon could cast Holy Word, but not spontaneously? Or am I barking up the wrong tree.

(Yeesh, Redcloack has level nine spells? Those must be extremely powerful!)

No, he can't cast anything tagged as a "Good" spell.

Instead of Holy Word, he'd be casting Blasphemy, which is the Evil equivalent.

Far as spontaneous casting goes, a positive energy cleric can convert any spell slot (except Domain) into an equivalent or lower Cure spell. So, for instance, living Durkon could take a spell slot where he had Raise Dead prepared (5th level spell) and turn it into Cure Light/Moderate/Serious/Critical Wounds.

As a vampire, he can now take a slot where he has Raise Dead prepared and turn it into an Inflict Light/Moderate/Serious/Critical Wounds.

Nothing outside Cure or Inflict spells can be spontaneously cast this way.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

So, it's not as though he lost a bunch of really neat spells; he just got the evil versions? Okay.

(and here I thought I was clever for thinking that I'd figured it all out that Rich had nerfed Durkon to make the final fight against Xykon harder.)

[Amphiox]

How long is the lifespan of a typical lizardfolk?

Malack has likely lived considerably longer as a vampire than as a lizardfolk.

It would boggle the mind if he DIDN'T consider his vampirism an integral part of his personal identity by now.

[JennTora]

Also, he lost his spontaneous healing (now he spontaneously harms, I guess); and he has lost Holy Word (which was amazingly effective), and, I guess, Planar Ally, and Turn Undead (he can rebuke undead, but I think that that bolsters undead).

Spontaneous harm isn't going to be useful against Xykon, it would help Xykon. Heal would be better (okay, Xykon would kill Durkon; but heal would at least do damage to Xykon; where Harm would do the opposite). And Holy Word and Planar Ally would be better in a fight against Xykon than whatever the evil versions are.

Also, I'm not sure he can do resurrection anymore.

(I mean, Holy Word can effect any number of enemies, so long as they're within forty feet of Durkon. Say a very crowded place, with all the enemies five levels below Durkon, they're all paralyzed, blinded, and deafened. If they're all one level below Durkon, they're blinded and deafened. If they're Durkon's level, they're all deafened. If they're ten levels below Durkon, they're killed, paralyzed, blinded, and deafened. Shame this only lasts a few rounds, because it could be awesome. Imagine the uses at, say, the battle of Azure City.)

(does that count as a forty foot sphere or a forty foot circle? If sphere, assume maximum density of enemies with Durkon at the center.

(speaking of level 7 spells, Mass Cure Serious Wounds is awesome. Imagine the uses at, say, the battle of Azure City.)

What spells have Durkon lost?

It's worth noting that xykon's energy drain and paralyzing touch will no longer hurt durkon.

[Kish]

I am dubious about there being a "final fight" between the Order and Xykon. When the Order confronts Xykon for the last time, in whatever form that takes, two books away from now, I will be astounded if Durkon is still a vampire.

[orrion]

So, it's not as though he lost a bunch of really neat spells; he just got the evil versions? Okay.

(and here I thought I was clever for thinking that I'd figured it all out that Rich had nerfed Durkon to make the final fight against Xykon harder.)

He did, sort of, at least as far as Durkon being a heal-bot goes. Most (or perhaps all) "Good" spells have an Evil equivalent though. There's some Lawful/Chaotic things too. For example, Holy Word and Blasphemy are Good/Evil, but there's also Word of Chaos and Dictum for Chaotic/Lawful, and Magic Circle of Protection has all 4 variants as well.

Living Durkon basically didn't need to prepare any Cure spells. Instead, he could prepare whatever he wanted in 1st-through-4th level slots and then convert those to Cure spells as the situation and his judgment called for.

Now he has to choose how many spell slots of those levels he devotes to Cure spells, and he loses the option of creating additional Cure Critical Wound spells from 5th and higher level spell slots.

On the other hand, the Order just got access to a few crates of healing potions and Durkon's preparation of spells like Heal and Regenerate probably won't change too much.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

I am dubious about there being a "final fight" between the Order and Xykon. When the Order confronts Xykon for the last time, in whatever form that takes, two books away from now, I will be astounded if Durkon is still a vampire.

I personally would like to see that fight, but to each his or her own.

Wait, if Discern Location is an 8th level spell, why couldn't Redcloak use Discern Location?

Also, daaaang, that would be a story breaking power right there, being able to know exactly where the next gate is.

Also, apparently Regeneration grows back limbs. So, even if tarquin had chopped off Elan's hand, Durkon could have grown it back?

[orrion]

I personally would like to see that fight, but to each his or her own.

Wait, if Discern Location is an 8th level spell, why couldn't Redcloak use Discern Location?

Also, daaaang, that would be a story breaking power right there, being able to know exactly where the next gate is.

Also, apparently Regeneration grows back limbs. So, even if tarquin had chopped off Elan's hand, Durkon could have grown it back?

Redcloak using Discern Location to do what? Locate the gates? The gatekeepers had an epic wizard and a near-epic sorcerer.

Yes, Regenerate would have restored Elan's hand. But if Tarquin had his way then Durkon wouldn't be around to cast it.

[Keltest]

Redcloak using Discern Location to do what? Locate the gates? The gatekeepers had an epic wizard and a near-epic sorcerer.

Yes, Regenerate would have restored Elan's hand. But if Tarquin had his way then Durkon wouldn't be around to cast it.

Locate Xykon's phylactery probably. but that had powerful anti-detection spells on it.

[Thrillhouse]

Since I sort of started this track, maybe I should say something about it.

I had suggested this in my earlier post, but there appears to be a bit of confusion as to how Malack thinks. Malack basically thinks in metaphors. Metaphors, again, are not lies, but I think this undersells it--to Malack, as to many others, metaphors often communicate MORE TRUTH than literal description.

The best example of this is the way Malack describes his vampire spawn as his "children". This is obviously a metaphor, and I don't think Malack would dispute that it's a metaphor. But that doesn't change the fact that Malack believes the statement to be true--so true, in fact, that he discusses children with living people (V, Durkon, Tarquin) and apparently doesn't view his situation as different. He REALLY BELIEVES that his spawn are his children. This is basically the same kind of metaphorical thinking employed when God is called a "Father"--no one claims this isn't a metaphor, but it is still thought of as true by those who use it.

With that in mind, looking at everything Malack says, it is indisputable that Malack would agree with both of the following statements:

"Malack was a different person before he became a vampire."
"Durkon was a different person before he became a vampire."

The question at dispute isn't whether Malack thinks these things. It's HOW PRECISELY HE UNDERSTANDS these things. For example, let's say Malack would also agree with this statement:

"Durkon was a different person 15 years ago."

So the question is whether Malack thinks this because of his intimate knowledge of how vampirism works, or simply because of the way he looks at the world.

And in the hopes of getting people on both sides of this to maybe be slightly more openminded, I should probably point out that WE HAVE DELIBERATELY BEEN GIVEN A STORY THAT COULD SUPPORT EITHER INTERPRETATION. That's kind of how good literature works--it's why we never get confirmation as to whether Hamlet is insane, for example. This is just what good literature does.* So, do continue discussing it, but the attitude that "it's already been established that Durkon is X, Rich has been TOTALLY clear on this" isn't a helpful one.

*(Of course, I don't mean to suggest that this question needs to be or will be kept open for the entirety of the comic. I'm just pointing out that the only reason the current tension between Belkar and Roy on this issue is even interesting is because we HAVEN'T already been given clear solid evidence that supports the one interpretation.)

[Kish]

I personally would like to see that fight, but to each his or her own.
What I would like to see has little to do with what I expect to see.

(For example, I would like to see Roy say to Durkon, "So, uh, do you want to rejoin the living?" and Durkon say "Aye, lad, tha sooner tha better," and then Haley using Use Magic Device to cast Resurrection using a scroll Durkon made in the next strip. I expect to see Vampire Durkon wreaking bloody havoc on some dwarves before he gets resurrected.)

[Komatik]

So, it's not as though he lost a bunch of really neat spells; he just got the evil versions? Okay.

(and here I thought I was clever for thinking that I'd figured it all out that Rich had nerfed Durkon to make the final fight against Xykon harder.)

Rich also severely nerf Durkon - +8LA basically means no more levels anymore ever, and Durkon's new spell preparation time is about as suboptimal as you can get for someone who will presumably be operating in broad daylight.

This in addition to the feeding-dedicated Restoration slot.

[mightycleric]

You sure have!

See, unlike Malack, I'm actually here to protest when you tell the board what I think. Point to anywhere where I said "vampirism had nothing to do with it." Not words you chose to interpret as that, that.

My position, again for the benefit of third parties not the proudly unwavering mightycleric, is:

Durkon is almost certainly Durkon, because there would be no possibility for Durkon to have character development from this if Durkon's not around.
Malack's phrasing sounds like a metaphor to me. But if you think it sounds literal, that's okay too. What's not okay is if you decide one of these is absolute and unambiguous truth and try to use it as a club. (Either one, though everyone who's been using it as a club so far has been on the "literal" side.)

Well, you alluded to the 200 years spent, then mocked my stance that he considered himself a different person because he was a vampire, using a phrase I hadn't typed, as it turns out. I also showed that he stated that a free willed vampiric Durkon was separate from the "Durkon that was." The thing that changed is that Durkon became a vampire. As such, the idea that Malack thinks Durkon is not the same person is correct. That is my stance, and that is what you objected to, and said was as incorrect as saying Xykon fell off the dragon and died at Azure City.

I've also stated before that I don't think that vampiric Durkon is unrelated to present Durkon (and pointed out that Malack didn't think they were unrelated, since he considered vampiric Durkon to be able to "feel more like yourself", but still different from the "Durkon that was"), and I have even stated that Malack's interpretation might be wrong (I'm still waiting to see how the situation with Durkon resolves). Thus, while trying to say I am misrepresenting your statements, you are acting like I said Durkon is an "instant new unrelated entity". For somebody who seems so focused on making sure somebody properly interprets your statements, shouldn't you make sure you are properly interpreting theirs?

You again don't even give a response to the "Durkon that was" part of my post, and you have yet to give a response to that part of it. I've used multiple quotes from Malack to support my position on Malack's stance. I've also used D&D rules, showing that, unless he was a different character as a vampire, that he wouldn't lose anything other than vampirism, which he could regain easier than their next regime change. He would only need to lose 1 week. "Annihilation" being a metaphor for a lost week by the guy who has existed for 200+ years? Maybe "kill" would work as a metaphor for that, since in D&D "killing" can be reversed, but "annihilation" seems too strong.


Aside to BobTheDog: I actually stated (more than once) that Malack's stance may not be how things work in OOTS. That is not what Kish objected to, though. He objected to me stating that Malack's stance is that a person is not the same person after becoming a vampire.


Also, a quick question for Komatik. If you are running a campaign with a person playing a character that, at level 13, becomes a vampire, and has enough xp now to be a level 25 character, that gets staked and resurrected, do you reduce their xp by 9 levels (1 for resurrection, 8 for vampire template being gone), or do you say they earned the xp and they only lose 1 level (because that's all resurrection costs a character), but get to add 8 class levels of their choice to make up for the missing vampire levels (or, if going by the "can't level up more than once" mindset and saying that would be "leveling up", get to add 1 level and are 1 xp away from the next), or do you say that they only lose the vampire template and no other levels (because that's more of a penalty, already, without adding another level lost)? You would obviously keep their alignment as evil, even if it wasn't before (based on your comments about Durkon), but would you allow a Wish or Miracle to restore the previous alignment, like a Helm of Opposite Alignment does? I'm curious, as I've never seen that situation happen, and I don't remember seeing anything specifically about it in the rules.

[Keltest]

Also, a quick question for Komatik. If you are running a campaign with a person playing a character that, at level 13, becomes a vampire, and has enough xp now to be a level 25 character, that gets staked and resurrected, do you reduce their xp by 9 levels (1 for resurrection, 8 for vampire template being gone), or do you say they earned the xp and they only lose 1 level (because that's all resurrection costs a character), but get to add 8 class levels of their choice to make up for the missing vampire levels (or, if going by the "can't level up more than once" mindset and saying that would be "leveling up", get to add 1 level and are 1 xp away from the next), or do you say that they only lose the vampire template and no other levels (because that's more of a penalty, already, without adding another level lost)? You would obviously keep their alignment as evil, even if it wasn't before (based on your comments about Durkon), but would you allow a Wish or Miracle to restore the previous alignment, like a Helm of Opposite Alignment does? I'm curious, as I've never seen that situation happen, and I don't remember seeing anything specifically about it in the rules.

Well, I cant answer for Komatic, but if if I was running it and it ever got anywhere near that drastic, I would have the monsters (who are presumably picked for the level 25 content of the party) recognize that the vampire is by far the weakest target around (unless its a party of level capped people for some reason) and eat it.

[Seward]

Unholy word? :smallconfused:

[Edit: oops, spell name is actually blasphemy.]

I'd say Dictum is more likely. That's a spell both LG and LE can live with, although there's problems with either spell if you include other party members (Roy, Haley and Elan are good, and Belkar, Haley and Elan are chaotic)

[Shale]

Before long he won't have to worry about friendly fire on those spells anyway, because they don't affect anyone higher than the caster's level and Durkon is not likely to gain a level unless he's resurrected.

[Komatik]

Also, a quick question for Komatik. If you are running a campaign with a person playing a character that, at level 13, becomes a vampire, and has enough xp now to be a level 25 character, that gets staked and resurrected, do you reduce their xp by 9 levels (1 for resurrection, 8 for vampire template being gone), or do you say they earned the xp and they only lose 1 level (because that's all resurrection costs a character), but get to add 8 class levels of their choice to make up for the missing vampire levels (or, if going by the "can't level up more than once" mindset and saying that would be "leveling up", get to add 1 level and are 1 xp away from the next), or do you say that they only lose the vampire template and no other levels (because that's more of a penalty, already, without adding another level lost)? You would obviously keep their alignment as evil, even if it wasn't before (based on your comments about Durkon), but would you allow a Wish or Miracle to restore the previous alignment, like a Helm of Opposite Alignment does? I'm curious, as I've never seen that situation happen, and I don't remember seeing anything specifically about it in the rules.

I'd not run the template with LA to begin with, because I find the mechanic horrible from every standpoint. I'd probably cut some of the absurd numbers down a bit and ritualize spawn creation some instead.

The Vampire template, for example, is hilariously over LA-ed for most of it's capabilities. Even the dreaded spawn creation can be accomplished by different means. If on a melee, it's welcome versatility, on a caster, who the hell cares, they're a caster in 3.5.

As far as a vampire that dies, he's the level he has XP for. If the difference is many levels due to template removal, I guess the smoothest solution is to not penalize for Resurrection and then let him level up two levels at a time as long until the extra pool is burnt up.

I'd allow a Wish or Miracle to do that, maybe. The thing is that I don't think the newly unvampirised person would really want to. Some more complicated, revelatory thing - maybe as a result of the Wish/Miracle, say, allowing him to re-experience how he felt or something and then choose where he wants to go - could do if he's willing. Better than a Wish-based switch flick.

[JennTora]

These are the possibilities I see right now.

Durkula is Durkon who suddenly got a lot smarter and more charismatic and apparently turned evil(if that's the case I don't think it will be just because the template said so.)

Durkula is Durkon and the vampirization process also adds some other wraith-like entity which merges with the original soul to form a new hybrid.

Durkon is trapped inside a body being controlled by some wraithlike entity.

Durkon is in the afterlife and the only thing in there is some wraithlike entity.

Durkon soul was severely maimed to create some wraithlike entity that is now controlling the body.

The first, second, and last explain malack's statement while also allowing DurkiOn to still fundamentally be durkon.

If malack indeed felt there was no returning from a resurrection, the second, third, and fourth might all explain that, though if the third and fourth were true, one wonders why malack would not continue to exist as some form of incorporeal undead(incidentally wasn't there a splatbook that had an incorporeal undead that formed at a vampire's destruction?)

3 and 4 don't provide any character development at all for durkon, at least until he gets rezzed or we see him in the afterlife, but if we're going to see him in the afterlife, then why does he need to be a vampire? Why wouldn't he just have gotten killed?

[mightycleric]

I'd allow a Wish or Miracle to do that, maybe. The thing is that I don't think the newly unvampirised person would really want to. Some more complicated, revelatory thing - maybe as a result of the Wish/Miracle, say, allowing him to re-experience how he felt or something and then choose where he wants to go - could do if he's willing. Better than a Wish-based switch flick.

Thanks for the answer. I'm not sure the situation will ever come up, but it certainly was something that, with the discussion at hand, made me curious.

As pertains to the quoted part, it wouldn't be the person in question casting the spell. The Helm of Opposite Alignment states that going back to the alignment they had is something they would find utterly repulsive, so I imagine it would be somebody else casting the Wish or Miracle spell in that case.

In this instance, it would have to be another member of the party (maybe a Wizard or Cleric) casting it, to restore the person's natural alignment. Having it work so that the character in question can evaluate old and new philosophies and pick the one they prefer (essentially letting the player repick alignment) seems like a good interpretation of how it could work.

[konradknox]

Basic idea:

Durkon's putting on an act, and we're gonna have a cutaway scene for when he is alone and is definitely up to something involving either Xykon, or Gates, or Nergal, or Hel.

Supporting arguments:

1. Giant's Trickery.

Subjective nature of the comic lately, rather than objective nature of narration. We hear what we like to hear from the mouths of characters, only to be shown that this was just their opinion. The Giant has been heavy on such tricks in this book. Turning our attention in one direction, introducing a sudden surprise, and then saying "the hints were all there, the character lied, and it's on you that you believed his lie". The whole book, from Girard's illusion nature, to the final moments, had been themed around deceit and deception. Building facades, and then revealing to us that things were not as they seem.

I mean really, this book is like a book of trickery and surprises.

Examples range from trivial to plot-critical:

A. Vaarsuvius being served a divorce notice by a lawyer under guise of random mage in the shop.

B. Haley's lying potion and the strips dedicated to it.

C. Girard's pyramid trick and gate illusion.

D. The whole Draketooth meta-illusion. Big anticipation build up of their faction, to reveal they all been wiped by Familicide.

E. Tarquin's entire thing. Huge build up of character, to reveal a rather narrow-sighted man.

F. Kilkil. Big build up, because we believed a random harmless kobold with an ominous name would off Belkar, and nope. Just a kobold accountant.

G. Malack being offed by Nale in a sudden surge of surprising competence.

H. Return of Zzdtri, whom we thought long gone.

I. Redcloak's deception of Xykon with the philactery and a sudden reveal of his assertive mastermind when he offs Tsukiko. For the first time in the main online content, it is in this book we see the tables turned and learn what Redcloak really is.

The list goes on, but in this chain of deception, it would be rather fitting to suddenly reveal that Durkon has his own agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Straight Foreshadowing

The symbolism of Durkon's death scene is just too strong. Look at it. More than 5 amazingly tense panels of his battle with Malack. His final words.
The symbolic dropping of the hammer. I mean, if he follows Thor, why did he drop his hammer? I don't know if it was Durkon's ancestral hammer, or if it was a hammer to pay homeage to symbolism of Mjolnir, I just don't know.

What I do know is the strong metaphor of that hammer hitting the ground and being buried in that ruined pyramid. You don't just throw away a move like that.

Look at vampire Durkon's development on the other hand. Compared to his glorious 5-strip heroic death scene, his return to consciousness is rather sudden and takes place all within one strip. He is released from Thralldom, and immediately resumes functioning.

The Giant distracts us with the Zzdtri kill and makes us look that way. A clever move. He could have brought in any new spellcaster as a replacement into Linear Guild. There were only two viable reasons it had to be Zzdtri and only two characters who could have killed him.
First would be Vaarsuvius, to illustrate his growth and finally learning proper use of magic in defeating his evil opposite. Initially I thought Vaarsuvius would be the one killing the drow, and when that did not happen despite V's stellar and clever duel performance, I realized that this is not why Zzdtri returned.

He returned to be killed by Durkon. And why? To draw our attention away from the fact that Durkon does not seem to experience any angst or adaptation trauma. Where is the comparable lamentation to something like what Vaarsuvius is feeling? Durkon just got murdered dramatically, and he just gets up and goes. "It's okay, I'll still be able to heal you, lad, I just prepare my spells differently from now on."

Tarquin and company were keeping us so busy, we only thought Durkon as a combat asset. Don't you think something is up, and we're in for some serious character drama? We're definitely due for something special to pop.

3. Not the end of the book yet.

You would think that "THIS IS A TERRIBLE ENDING" would have been it, if there wasn't something major coming.

I think it's gonna be Durkon.



*does a dance*
Whooo caaalled iiit? Ooooh ooooh oooh.
Feels so gooooood.

[Kish]

You definitely called it, indeed. Buffy-style vampirism it is.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Okay, wow, that was a pretty much perfect call.

[The Oni]

Shingeki no Kyojin fans: Anybody notice that trapped-Durkon looks suspiciously like a Titan Shifter does inside a Titan?

I'm sure this has no bearing on the storyline to come, but it's pretty funny, and I'd never have pegged Rich for an AoT fan.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Hmm, looks like I was wrong. Ah, well you win some, you lose some. You definitely called it, though.

[Komatik]

I guess I need to admit defeat :/

Somehow disappointed that it wasn't Durkon, but it was too nonchalant to be left at just that.

[tomaO2]

Huh. I didn't see this coming, good call!

So... what was going through Vamp Durkan's head when he was released. He doesn't seem to regard his former friends as actual friends. Nale was also after the gate. What made the vampire immediately choose the Order over Nale's team? Why did he immediately start faking that accent?

Maybe it was because they killed his sire? I had assumed that he was glad the snake was dead and he had been released from a thrall but maybe that wasn't the case? That he was acting under his own free will the entire time and just decided to pretend that he was Durkan instead?

[Ornithologist]

My opinion is that V. Durkon has been working under Her orders since he was freed, and that included a need to get up to the dwarven lands by any means necessary. So, tricking the Order was easy enough to do, and probably the only good way to survive out in the middle of nowhere.

[Keltest]

Huh. I didn't see this coming, good call!

So... what was going through Vamp Durkan's head when he was released. He doesn't seem to regard his former friends as actual friends. Nale was also after the gate. What made the vampire immediately choose the Order over Nale's team? Why did he immediately start faking that accent?

Maybe it was because they killed his sire? I had assumed that he was glad the snake was dead and he had been released from a thrall but maybe that wasn't the case? That he was acting under his own free will the entire time and just decided to pretend that he was Durkan instead?

well, the order being marginally more competent than the Linear Guild might have something to do with it.

[allenw]

You definitely called it, indeed. Buffy-style vampirism it is.

In regular Buffy-style vampirism, Durkon's spirit wouldn't still be trapped inside.
In Buffy terms, this is more of a reverse-Angel scenario (soul being supressed by vampire demon, rather than the other way around).

[Jay R]

I was wrong; you were right. Good call.

[SavageWombat]

You know, people win whole internets for insight less dramatic than this post. What reward would be appropriate for this level of authorial mind-reading?

[Ninja]

You know, people win whole internets for insight less dramatic than this post. What reward would be appropriate for this level of authorial mind-reading?

A cake.If it weren't a lie.This post brought to you by the year 2007.

[konradknox]

A cake.If it weren't a lie.This post brought to you by the year 2007.

I like where this cake idea is going. :smallbiggrin:

And now we have to be tortured by the mega cliffhanger until March 31. So April 1 will probably be the first strip.

Let the suffering begin.

[Big Hungry Joe]

That call was impressive enough I actually had to stop lurking to say so. Well played.

[Warren Dew]

In a world where the afterlife is known to be real and resurrection is routine, and assuming that Durkon exists in the afterlife separately from Durkula - an assumption I consider questionable based what Malack has said about his history - I think a strong argument can be made that Durkon still gets a vote. In fact, I think a good argument can be made that Durkon's claim on Durkon's body has priority over Durkula's claim, in the same way that the original owner of a vehicle that is stolen has priority over a bystander who innocently purchases the stolen vehicle for a fair price.
I am curious as to whether any of those who argued that vampire Durkon should get priority over former live Durkon on the body are sticking to that position given that we now know the details?

[Clistenes]

I am curious as to whether any of those who argued that vampire Durkon should get priority over former live Durkon on the body are sticking to that position given that we now know the details?

There is at least one guy who says that the demonic entity currently possessing Durkon's body has the same rights over it as the original Durkon, and that they should share it:




But, if vampires keep the souls of their mortals vessel as prisioners within them, being held powerless while they have to watch the vampire pass for them and do evil things in their name...wouldn't the sistematic killing of vampires be wholly justified? :smallconfused:
The vampires have rights too. It's not obvious the rights of the original owner of the body outweigh them. The best argument is probably an extrinsic one, the need to stop the vampires committing evil.

This is pretty much the moral dilemma faced by Fletcher Christian (and eventually society as a whole) in Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy.