This isn't Durkon

[rs2excelsior]

Right now, Durkula seems very amicable. He's even still got his accent, at least for the most part. But not even counting Durkula's pleasure from killing Z, it's clear Durkula isn't just the Durkon we all know and love.

Look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0939.html), panel 3; then look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html), panel 8. Old Durkon would never have been "right as Thor's rain" had he been turned into the very thing he fights.

:smallfrown:

[Keltest]

I suppose the possibility that he just got over himself for the sake of the team hasn't even crossed your mind, has it. Hes not much use to anyone if he sits in the hold rocking back and forth all day, or goes into a heroic BSOD. He considers his duty to be THE most important thing, and right now his duty is to stop Xykon.

[oppyu]

Right now, Durkula seems very amicable. He's even still got his accent, at least for the most part. But not even counting Durkula's pleasure from killing Z, it's clear Durkula isn't just the Durkon we all know and love.

Look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0939.html), panel 3; then look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html), panel 8. Old Durkon would never have been "right as Thor's rain" had he been turned into the very thing he fights.

:smallfrown:
Seconded. Hopefully at some point in the next book the Order gets a Stake-And-Resurrect on Durkula.

[johnbragg]

I suppose the possibility that he just got over himself for the sake of the team hasn't even crossed your mind, has it. Hes not much use to anyone if he sits in the hold rocking back and forth all day, or goes into a heroic BSOD. He considers his duty to be THE most important thing, and right now his duty is to stop Xykon.

Pre-vampirisim Durkon expressed very definite sentiments about being a vampire, cited by OP.

Post-vampirism Durkula feels "Right as Thor's rain about being a vampire.

That doesn't indicate that Durkula is at all conflicted about being a vampire. It indicates the opposite, in fact.

See also:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0907.html

:nale: You're not the same old Durkon. Why not make the most of it?
:durkon: Aye...mebbe I haf changed.....

(Note: Wanting to murder Nale and/or Z <> is a trait shared with Team Tarquin. So does not resolve the "is he Evil or evil?" question.)

Now, it's only a few lines of dialogue. But we shouldn't regard the question of Durkula as settled at all.

And Durkula hasn't really made any promises to the Order.
:Durkon: World's still at stake, ain't it?

Is about the extent of it.

[Kish]

Apparently even him invoking Thor is evidence that he's not Durkon.

[oppyu]

I wonder, is there anything that would not constitute evidence that "[Godawful Name] isn't Durkon," in your view?
Hey, it turns out there is a secret message in the runes of Vaarsuvius' robe. If I translated it correctly, it says "The Vampire is not Durkon" three times in a row. :smallcool:

Incidentally, I was reading some old strips and I've decided to switch to not-Durkon. Any better? ie: That's not Durkon, it's not-Durkon. not-Durkon's not Durkon, not-Durkon is not-Durkon, not Durkon.

[johnbragg]

I wonder, is there anything that would not constitute evidence that "[Godawful Name] isn't Durkon," in your view?

A pledge that, after Xykon and the Gates are taken care of, that Durkula will abandon his unlife, either to be resurrected as Durkon or to move on to the afterlife.

SEcondarily, expressions of discomfort and conflict about being a vampire.

[Kish]

Hey, it turns out there is a secret message in the runes of Vaarsuvius' robe. If I translated it correctly, it says "The Vampire is not Durkon" three times in a row. :smallcool:

Psst: That rune translates as "so," not "not." :smalltongue:


Incidentally, I was reading some old strips and I've decided to switch to not-Durkon. Any better? ie: That's not Durkon, it's not-Durkon. not-Durkon's not Durkon, not-Durkon is not-Durkon, not Durkon.
Well, Nale did say he was his own evil opposite.

(How well that belief served Nale is left as an exercise for the reader.)

[King of Nowhere]

Durkon is certainly different, but that do not mean that he's not durkon anymore. And even less it means that durkon would be an enemy of oots now.
That couple of panels only show that durkon enjoied killing nale and Z. Old durkon wouldn't have. But that's the only extent of that "proof", that durkon is changed. It don't even proof that Durkon is evil: given the kind of stuff Z and nale used to do, I'd say even a good person is perfectly justified in being happy to kill them.
And even if vampirization somehow magicallly changed durkon's mind to make him evil, why would he ally with Xykon - an utterly evil lich who is trying to dominate the world and has no allies, only servants? Why people expect durkula to become stupid evil all of a sudden?

[SiuiS]

Right now, Durkula seems very amicable. He's even still got his accent, at least for the most part. But not even counting Durkula's pleasure from killing Z, it's clear Durkula isn't just the Durkon we all know and love.

Look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0939.html), panel 3; then look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html), panel 8. Old Durkon would never have been "right as Thor's rain" had he been turned into the very thing he fights.

:smallfrown:

Is Durkon a person who has the traits of being lawful and good, or are those traits required for the total sum to equal Durkon?

The panel 8 depiction is "I am good, you are evil, there is no bones about this". The panel 3 depiction is the same personality without the "I am good" because he's not, now. He's a vampire. That means he's evil. But precluding the possibility of an evil person being that person is silly. It's understandable, but is no more accurate than saying they are a literal different, separate and distinct entity after a massive head wound, PTSD or near death experience.

[SavageWombat]

Kish - would you at least agree that it seems strange that Durkon appears content with his lot, considering his prior stance? That doesn't seem like an unreasonable interpretation.

[Kish]

I see blurring between literal and metaphor here. I am not saying Durkon hasn't changed at all. I am saying that Durkon is still Durkon: alignment-changed Durkon, Durkon without a pulse, Durkon who mysteriously hangs back from battle if he can't use his spells, Durkon who channels negative energy, and, because of the prophecy, probably Durkon who is going to do horrible things pretty soon...but Durkon. Durkon's soul is not in Celestia or any afterlife, there is no entity in Durkon's body that hasn't always been there, Durkon is not something like the bone golem made from Roy's body, and you do not "honor" Durkon by calling him "it" and ridiculous words that aren't his name.

[Mando Knight]

Seconded. Hopefully at some point in the next book the Order gets a Stake-And-Resurrect on Durkula.

Major problem that everyone seems to be missing:

Where are they going to get the "and resurrect" part of the plan? All of the 13th level and up clerics we know of are Redcloak, Durkon, or dead. None of those are really persons that could be relied upon to resurrect Durkon for the Order.

[Scow2]

Durkon IS "Right as Thor's Rain" - Sure, he has a little bit more internal angst now that he's a vampire, but "I have problems because I'm a Vampire now" are buried in the deepest, darkest part of his soul right now, and Durkon-as-we-know-him would never speak of them to anyone again. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html)

Also, he said he was "Right as Thor's Rain" - ironically passing judgement on something that can't have judgement passed on it. He's as "Right as Thor's Rain" - Does it matter how "Right" that is? No. It's rain, the weather. Most people can't do anything about it - it is what it is. In this case, Durkon is a vampire, he may or may not want to do anything about it... but it doesn't matter what he wants to do, only what he needs to do, which is Save The World.

Also... why the heck would Durkon want to accept a Resurrect? It's likely only going to come after the job is done... and once the world is secured, Durkon has no reason not to want to stay with his pappy and pappy's pappy and pappy's pappy's pappy, and pappy's pappy's pappy's pappy...

[Keltest]

Major problem that everyone seems to be missing:

Where are they going to get the "and resurrect" part of the plan? All of the 13th level and up clerics we know of are Redcloak, Durkon, or dead. None of those are really persons that could be relied upon to resurrect Durkon for the Order.

I highly doubt that Durkon was the most powerful cleric in the entire dwarven realm. At the very least the High priest of Thor would qualify.

[Necris Omega]

I'd probably contend that even if this vampire Durkon isn't 100% original Durkon, I have to think that he has more motivation to remain as close to the original as possible simply out of spite for Malack.

Malack made it a point to excuse himself based off the fact that he wasn't the "original" Malack. Whether or not this is true and whether or not this ties into the state of Durkon himself is debatable, but the point remains - it was the outlook of the thing that enslaved and murdered him.

Yes, Durkon was more willing to indulge in the joy of killing the deserving than usual, but I for one am willing to give that a pass. Z really needed killing one way or another, and Durkon's been under a lethal amount of stress lately. Watching Nale squirm may not be classic Durkon, but I'm not willing to shelve the idea of character development over character substitution over just that.

[Socksy]

I highly doubt that Durkon was the most powerful cleric in the entire dwarven realm. At the very least the High priest of Thor would qualify.

What does the Class and Level Geekery thread peg Haley as? Level 15? 16? With a decent INT score, she's gonna get about 10 skill points when she levels up.

Use Magic Device is a rogue class skill.

All she needs is for V to briefly teach her how to properly handle a scroll, and she'll be able to raise Drukon herself.

[The Grim Author]

What does the Class and Level Geekery thread peg Haley as? Level 15? 16? With a decent INT score, she's gonna get about 10 skill points when she levels up.

Use Magic Device is a rogue class skill.

All she needs is for V to briefly teach her how to properly handle a scroll, and she'll be able to raise Drukon herself.

Assuming she has enough Wis to use it properly, and assuming they can find one.

[Keltest]

Assuming she has enough Wis to use it properly, and assuming they can find one.

Even so, its not a problem. V can cast Owl's Wisdom on her, and if she still doesn't have enough, they can probably find some magic items to help her the rest of the way.

[Mando Knight]

I highly doubt that Durkon was the most powerful cleric in the entire dwarven realm. At the very least the High priest of Thor would qualify.

He wasn't... when he was thrown out. Adventuring has a known stimulating effect in one's experience gain.

The other difficulty of Resurrection is time constraint. Redcloak and Xykon teleported straight to the last gate's location, so the Order of the Stick doesn't have time to find a 12000+ gp scroll or a friendly cleric who happened to prepare Resurrection that day.

[Socksy]

He wasn't... when he was thrown out. Adventuring has a known stimulating effect in one's experience gain.

The other difficulty of Resurrection is time constraint. Redcloak and Xykon teleported straight to the last gate's location, so the Order of the Stick doesn't have time to find a 12000+ gp scroll or a friendly cleric who happened to prepare Resurrection that day.

Did you forget which ship they were on board? :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

Haley's demonstrated Use Magic Device before. If Durkon has the ability and the desire to create a scroll of Resurrection, they can get Durkon resurrected ten minutes after that--an hour, should Haley's Use Magic Device be too low to cast Resurrection reliably so that they need to seek out any temple where a first-level acolyte can use the scroll.

Therefore I conclude that Durkon will lack either the ability or the desire, or both. I don't think he's going to change back that quickly. I would love to be wrong, but I don't think he'll be changing back until the prophecy about him has come true in an untwisted, depressing way.

[Tiiba]

A pledge that, after Xykon and the Gates are taken care of, that Durkula will abandon his unlife, either to be resurrected as Durkon or to move on to the afterlife.

SEcondarily, expressions of discomfort and conflict about being a vampire.

So to convince you that Durkon hasn't changed, he needs to say that he has.

[Keltest]

He wasn't... when he was thrown out. Adventuring has a known stimulating effect in one's experience gain.

The other difficulty of Resurrection is time constraint. Redcloak and Xykon teleported straight to the last gate's location, so the Order of the Stick doesn't have time to find a 12000+ gp scroll or a friendly cleric who happened to prepare Resurrection that day.

Besides the monsters guarding the gate, the ritual itself takes a long time to cast. And of course if they want to take a detour, the Machine will speed up so they can get there in the nick of time.

[Seto]

Honestly, I'm not sure that whether it's Durkon or not is the question. The thing is that, clearly, he's now Evil (summons a devil, spontaneously channels negative energy). He probably is loyal to the Order. But one thing we learned from this arc is that, no matter how nice and friendly an evil person is, Evil is Evil. It would very much surprise me if the Giant didn't remind us of that.

It's highly unlikely that Durkon will turn against the Order (bar Belkar maybe). But I think that, in some other way, his friends who pretend that nothing has changed at all, and we readers, are in for a shocking surprise.

[Kish]

Honestly, I'm not sure that whether it's Durkon or not is the question. The thing is that, clearly, he's now Evil (summons a devil, spontaneously channels negative energy). He probably is loyal to the Order. But one thing we learned from this arc is that, no matter how nice and friendly an evil person is, Evil is Evil. It would very much surprise me if the Giant didn't remind us of that.

It's highly unlikely that Durkon will turn against the Order (bar Belkar maybe). But I think that, in some other way, his friends who pretend that nothing has changed at all, and we readers, are in for a shocking surprise.
I think Belkar would have better luck if he pushed the, "But he's evil!" angle...Scratch that, I just realized what I'd written. There's nothing Belkar could possibly say here that would work to make Roy treat Vampire Durkon as an enemy outright; his best bet would be to push the "We owe it to Durkon to get to a cleric and get him resurrected immediately, before Redcloak rebukes him into next week!" angle.

[Socksy]

Honestly, I'm not sure that whether it's Durkon or not is the question. The thing is that, clearly, he's now Evil (summons a devil, spontaneously channels negative energy). He probably is loyal to the Order. But one thing we learned from this arc is that, no matter how nice and friendly an evil person is, Evil is Evil. It would very much surprise me if the Giant didn't remind us of that.

It's highly unlikely that Durkon will turn against the Order (bar Belkar maybe). But I think that, in some other way, his friends who pretend that nothing has changed at all, and we readers, are in for a shocking surprise.

Well, he values(valued?) doing his duty above his own happiness, so I reckon he'll stay loyal, force himself to act Good, and maybe even allow himself to be Raised or Resurrected.

[Seto]

I think Belkar would have better luck if he pushed the, "But he's evil!" angle...Scratch that, I just realized what I'd written. There's nothing Belkar could possibly say here that would work to make Roy treat Vampire Durkon as an enemy outright; his best bet would be to push the "We owe it to Durkon to get to a cleric and get him resurrected immediately, before Redcloak rebukes him into next week!" angle.

No, I don't think Belkar will convince the others. My "bar Belkar, maybe" meant "if Durkon hurts anyone within the Order, it will be Belkar". Because now he's LE, he's far less likely to cope with his teammate's chaotic side ; and because, since Belkar's the one trying to get the others to kill Durkon, he's a liability.
[conjecturing now]Actually, IMO as I expressed it in the "Why is Belkar so mad at Durkula ?" thread yesterday, Belkar being killed by Durkon would be a dramatically fitting death.[/end of conjecture]


Well, he values(valued?) doing his duty above his own happiness, so I reckon he'll stay loyal, force himself to act Good, and maybe even allow himself to be Raised or Resurrected.

Not sure at all about that. He may stick to his duty, but his duty is "stop Xykon and save the world". His duty is an end, not a means. There're plenty of Neutral and Evil ways to "act" in order to fulfill this duty.
And his duty sure as hell doesn't include being killed to be Resurrected.

[Kish]

No, I don't think Belkar will convince the others. My "bar Belkar, maybe" meant "if Durkon hurts anyone within the Order, it will be Belkar".

Yes, I got that. Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought you thought Belkar would be able to sway the Order.

(He's not even going to get close, since he's apparently going to keep hitting the "Not Durkon!" and "Why are we not killing the vampire!" buttons as hard as he can without variety.)

I could see Durkon very easily deciding that the dangerous loose cannon who actually tried to defect to Xykon's side once already is an unacceptable risk to have along on a vital mission to save the world, and that this is something that he, with his Newfound Clarity Of Vision, must take care of.

[Shadowdweller]

I've got say, I personally think that Durkon is very much still Durkon. I think the whole narrative POINT of the vampirism thing here is that Durkon is fundamentally still Durkon despite magic of alignment change (aka vampirism).

[VanIsleKnight]

Durkon becoming a vampire was a big change that was planned extremely early on by the Giant as part of the story. The Giant is generally not one to make such big changes without there being a very good storytelling reason to do so.

Durkon in life vs Durkon in unlife is a big deal, and I'm assuming is meant to be debated over by the community. Seeing as Roy and Belkar are already doing so, anyway.

I do not accept that vampire Durkon is the same as living Durkon, the one who turned him said as much to living Durkon while they were fighting. There are differences, big ones, and those differences are going to have a significant impact on the story.

[Solara]

I'm expecting him to turn out to be legitimately evil just from a story-telling standpoint, because the 'blood-drinking vampire is actually a good guy/just misunderstood' is such a tired and overdone cliché, and the Giant is usually above that kind of thing. (And it seems even more like something's up now that Belkar's the only one in the party that isn't perfectly happy with this...I imagine we're going to see more opportunity for development for him and it's gonna be interesting seeing our favorite homicidal little Halfling take a stance against something for moral reasons for once in his life...)

I can't even remember the last time I read a book or saw a movie where the vampire was just a good evil old-fashioned unholy abomination.

[Seto]

I've got say, I personally think that Durkon is very much still Durkon. I think the whole narrative POINT of the vampirism thing here is that Durkon is fundamentally still Durkon despite magic of alignment change (aka vampirism).

Gotta agree with that. As someone said in another thread, OotS isn't Buffy (and Buffy makes, like, the very top of my personal Pantheon). Durkon is still Durkon. He's just not "the same old Durkon", because his way of seeing the world brutally and radically changed. Even being still me, I definitely wouldn't be the same man if that happened to me. And being Durkon will not stop him from doing Evil things.
(Though knowing to what extent your moral stance AND your body and its needs define you, is an awfully tricky philosophical problem.)

[Kish]

I think this comic is entirely the wrong place to look for any sort of "good old-fashioned" The Monster Is Just A Monster story, whether The Monster in question is a vampire, a dragon, or a goblin.

Rich is deliberately setting out to push against the idea that orcs and dragons can legitimately be killed on sight. I suspect that if he saw that he'd written something that would have the effect of pushing against the idea that vampires cannot legitimately be killed on sight--he'd rewrite it before it went online.

[rs2excelsior]

Is there anything that would not constitute evidence that "[Godawful Name] isn't Durkon," in your view? Apparently even him invoking Thor is evidence that he's not Durkon.

Yes. There's quite a few things I wouldn't take as evidence that Durkon had changed. Saying something that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of his viewpoint before his vampirism isn't one of those things.

You seemed to have missed my point. It wasn't invoking Thor. It was going from "vampires are dangerous and must be destroyed" to "meh, not that bad." Even being cheerful about his condition.

I don't think this is a different soul inhabiting Durkon's body or anything. But he has, in addition to his alignment change, experienced a fundamental, radical shift in personality. At least it looks to me like he has. Because I don't think a writer of the Giant's calibre would have a major character "get over" being turned into the very thing he's hated from the beginning of the story (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0016.html) this quickly or easily.

And there's nothing wrong with "Durkula." It's certainly more convenient than "Durkon, but dead now, though not really because he's still up and around and drinking blood and evil, so basically a totally different person." But if that suits you better, go for it.

[Kish]

Sorry, that was unfair of me. I was still blinking from the tide of incomprehensible-to-me forum support Belkar had received.

[Slide]

A little while back, I tried playing a nice-guy neutral character right after I'd gotten back from a year in a combat zone, somewhere hot and dusty.

My DM should have changed my alignment to evil within the first few sessions. Highlights include:


Bad guy's not-so-high priestess of evil is now our prisoner. She knows the next link in the chain. We *could* have tracked down a scroll of detect thoughts, cast it a dozen times until it beat her will save, interrogated her and gotten that info. But that could take weeks! We picked a different method. Use Rope, Intimidate, and let's see how we can create some circumstance modifiers! Hint: It's called "torture". The DM gawked. We shrugged. "We've got a cleric and we're healing her up when we're done. Besides, it's for a good cause. What's the problem?"
We find a tiny kobold village, home base of some raiding parties that had been plaguing nearby human towns. I have Kelgore's Grave Mist memorized twice, and it's juuust big enough to blanket all the huts with two castings. The DM took particular care to describe the tiny infant kobold corpses. "Eh, nits breed lice. Problem *solved*."
Ever seen the Something's Cooking adventure? We damn near got wiped when the mage came home. After dealing with the golem, the imp and half of the house itself trying to kill us, we were seriously unamused when the old man didn't start with the explanations, immediately. She came home to find several strangers surrounding her tied-up, bleeding husband and we were suddenly teleported to the middle of nowhere.


I'd intended to play a character who was right on the CN/CG line. Instead, I was really playing a smart CE character. I called it "chaotic practical", but it boiled down to the same thing.

Durkon can still do good things. That doesn't necessarily mean he's not evil. Evil doesn't have to be maniacal cackling and random mayhem. Evil can be gleefully snapping the neck of a pain in the butt wizard. Evil can be turning your friend's evil twin into a thrall puppet to help out your party, because it's hilariously ironic. Evil can be dealing with a halfling who won't stop trying to kill you by shoving him off a 1000' foot high airship.

[ReaderAt2046]

Also, remember that the Giant already has done the "Monster is just a Monster" plot with Malak, whom almost nobody is disputing is evil.

[Kish]

Also, remember that the Giant already has done the "Monster is just a Monster" plot with Malak, whom almost nobody is disputing is evil.
I'm not sure if you're addressing me or someone else.

Either way, I don't think it fits. Malack was evil--the same way Tarquin is: because he chose to be. "Malack is a vampire" was never a necessary and sufficient condition to conclude that Malack was evil: for the audience it should not have been necessary when we already had the information that he was part of brutalizing the continent, for Durkon it, by Word of the Author, should not have been and indeed wasn't sufficient.

[SavageWombat]

Durkon becoming a vampire was a big change that was planned extremely early on by the Giant as part of the story. The Giant is generally not one to make such big changes without there being a very good storytelling reason to do so.


Actually, if you re-read what he said, Rich made the idea because it would be a funny joke. But almost the totality of the strip was written with it in mind, so it's definitely plot-centric.

[Cerussite]

Just as being good doesn't mean you have to hug every puppy you see, being evil doesn't mean you can't be nice to your friends when the situation is calm. I thought Tarquin's whole arc had made that apparent.

[Jay R]

I don't think this is a different soul inhabiting Durkon's body or anything. But he has, in addition to his alignment change, experienced a fundamental, radical shift in personality. At least it looks to me like he has.

I'm not convinced that it's a radical shift in personality as much as that a previous theory has been proven false, since he now knows, beyond any possibility of error, that his original assumption that a vampire is automatically "an undead monster tha drinks tha blood o' tha innocent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html)" and "a danger to everyone livin' on this continent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html)" is simply untrue. That's a change in his knowledge set, which can affect his approach without (necessarily) involving a personality change.

[WindStruck]

Suppose the order asks Durkon if he wants to be staked and resurrected.

A: Durkon says no. Aha, obvious confirmation that it's not really Durkon and he's a heartless, evil abomination!

B: Durkon says yes. It's just a lie, and he'll turn on the order as soon as he gets the chance because he's a heartless, evil abomination!

There's literally nothing he could do in the strip to make people come around. Given what I've read and thought of the Giant on morality, bigotry, and intelligent monsters, I'm pretty sure Belkar is just laying down loads schmuck bait. Lots of people are going to be set up for a massive guilt trip, but I hope that teaches them something.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Right now, Durkula seems very amicable. He's even still got his accent, at least for the most part. But not even counting Durkula's pleasure from killing Z, it's clear Durkula isn't just the Durkon we all know and love.

Look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0939.html), panel 3; then look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html), panel 8. Old Durkon would never have been "right as Thor's rain" had he been turned into the very thing he fights.

:smallfrown:Agreed. The real Durkon would have cast resurrection on himself as soon as possible.

[johnbragg]

There's literally nothing he could do in the strip to make people come around. Given what I've read and thought of the Giant on morality, bigotry, and intelligent monsters, I'm pretty sure Belkar is just laying down loads schmuck bait. Lots of people are going to be set up for a massive guilt trip, but I hope that teaches them something.

It's not that there's nothing he could do. It's that he hasn't done, or been asked to do, much of anything to distinguish "Old pal Durkon who is now a vampire" from "Unnatural mockery of Durkon who nonetheless wants Xykon stopped."

Speaking to Nale and Z, he says "Aye, mebbe I haf changed." To the Order, he feels "Right as Thor's rain." There is grounds for suspicion here. Now, there are pragmatic reasons as well as moral reasons to not stake Durkula right now. But Roy and the Order don't seem to be dwelling much on that.

Of course, it doesn't help that one side of the discussion is represented through Belkar, who is bad at logic and arguing and such and has a long history of being wrong about most everything. (Except for Nale != Elan.)

There are three different threads with at least 8 pages of posts combined, plus about half of the comic discussion thread, that indicate this isn't an open-and-shut issue.

To use a comic book analogy, if the Hulk existed, there would be a significant body of opinion in favor of killing Bruce Banner to stop the Hulk. Now, Durkula hasn't "Hulked out" yet, and the OOTS has a plan to contain his bloodlust. But Durkula bears watching with a skeptical eye.

[ReaderAt2046]

I'm not sure if you're addressing me or someone else.

Either way, I don't think it fits. Malack was evil--the same way Tarquin is: because he chose to be. "Malack is a vampire" was never a necessary and sufficient condition to conclude that Malack was evil: for the audience it should not have been necessary when we already had the information that he was part of brutalizing the continent, for Durkon it, by Word of the Author, should not have been and indeed wasn't sufficient.

That's my exact point. Malak is a vampire and he is evil. Durkon is a vampire and he may or may not be evil (assuming the Giant follows his previously established rules in the case of undead).

Also, the "almost" wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, it's just that being on this forum has taught me that there's always the occasional "Belkar is CG" person around, and my logic training taught me to be careful of absolute statements.

[Amphiox]

I was still blinking from the tide of incomprehensible-to-me forum support Belkar had received.

This may be an untestable hypothesis. But to my eye the forum in general (and really, all human beings in general) are far more likely to voice support for a specific moral stance if a character that is currently being portrayed as sympathetic within the narrative voices it first.

And Belkar certainly has been portrayed as sympathetic recently.

[137beth]

Yes, I got that. Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought you thought Belkar would be able to sway the Order.

(He's not even going to get close, since he's apparently going to keep hitting the "Not Durkon!" and "Why are we not killing the vampire!" buttons as hard as he can without variety.)

I could see Durkon very easily deciding that the dangerous loose cannon who actually tried to defect to Xykon's side once already is an unacceptable risk to have along on a vital mission to save the world, and that this is something that he, with his Newfound Clarity Of Vision, must take care of.

Well, to be fair, Durkon wasn't there when Belkar considered defecting to Xykon's side--
unless Haley told him about it, the only reason he'd have to kill Belkar would be the huge number of other Evil acts Belkar committed in the presence of the entire order.

[rbetieh]

The first thing Durkon did when released is attempt to smash evil in the face with a hammer, as thor commands. I bet he would have tried the same thing if he had been released voluntarily by malack in the castle (and I have no doubt that malack would have released him)...

He still believes what he always did, it just appears that he takes things a little further now.

[cheesecake]

If Durkon is still Durkon inside, even if he is an evil vampire Durkon that doesn't mean that the "Durkon" part won't help OOTs till the quest is done. Durkon is dedicated to the quest and wants to see it finished.

After the quest is finished? I doubt he will turn on them and go all crazy vampire and kill them all. He will probably go off on his own and do whatever a vampire does when they are alone.

[137beth]

The first thing Durkon did when released is attempt to smash evil in the face with a hammer, as thor commands. I bet he would have tried the same thing if he had been released voluntarily by malack in the castle (and I have no doubt that malack would have released him)...

He still believes what he always did, it just appears that he takes things a little further now.

Pretty much (although he used a staff instead of a hammer). I have absolutely no idea where people are getting this "he's nothing like the old Durkon!" idea from:smallsigh:

[Jay R]

He answers to "Durkon".
He remembers how Z'zdtri and Nale acted.
He remembers the quest.
He is committed to the quest.
He is healing the Order "jus' like always (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html)".
He keeps defending the Order.
He remembers the Order and treats them as he always did.
He seems genuinely emotional about Roy's offer of his own blood.

Gosh - I guess you're right. This must not be Durkon.

[Talya]

Vampires are never conflicted about becoming vampires. This is because they're no longer completely the same person they were. They're now evil undead versions of their former selves. They may think like their old selves, act like their old selves, and have the same goals and tastes as their old selves, but they now have entirely different value and moral systems.

I don't really see how this is a problem.

[Warren Dew]

I'm expecting him to turn out to be legitimately evil just from a story-telling standpoint, because the 'blood-drinking vampire is actually a good guy/just misunderstood' is such a tired and overdone cliché, and the Giant is usually above that kind of thing.
To be far, this would be more a "blood drinking vampire is actually a good guy and is actually not misunderstood" thing, which hasn't been done so much.


Sorry, that was unfair of me. I was still blinking from the tide of incomprehensible-to-me forum support Belkar had received.
You didn't get used to it back in the "Belkar is actually lawful good, just misunderstood" days?

[rs2excelsior]

A fundamental change to Durkon's nature doesn't mean he'll stop helping the Order. Tarquin was going to help the Order. He was even offering to help (for certain values of help) while hanging from the side of the Mechane.

But the fact remains that, to me, the old Durkon would never have been perfectly okay with becoming a vampire, which is how it seems here.

[Mando Knight]

Also, remember that the Giant already has done the "Monster is just a Monster" plot with Malak, whom almost nobody is disputing is evil.
Malack wasn't just a monster. He was a monster who was a functioning member of (Evil) society, and quite capable of making friends with even Good folk... so long as he obscured his monstrosity.

I'm not convinced that it's a radical shift in personality as much as that a previous theory has been proven false, since he now knows, beyond any possibility of error, that his original assumption that a vampire is automatically "an undead monster tha drinks tha blood o' tha innocent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html)" and "a danger to everyone livin' on this continent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html)" is simply untrue. That's a change in his knowledge set, which can affect his approach without (necessarily) involving a personality change.
Both were (probably) true in Malack's case, though. "Blood o' tha innocent" generally comes with drawing one's food supply from the veins of prisoners of an oppressive tyranny (which, though condemned as guilty, does not mean they aren't innocent). "A danger to everyone livin' on this continent" is from knowing Tarquin's shell game and realizing its benefits to the vampiric Malack. The extent of it is later confirmed in 875 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html), where he essentially wishes to bathe the continent in the blood of its citizens.

[DaggerPen]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/220a9489311edf5dc86216df0557832d/tumblr_mzmylkW7qR1ql5qwmo1_500.jpg

I'll show myself out.

[maxi]

I don't believe we have any evidence whatsoever in the comic to either confirm or deny the notion of vampire being a monster saddling a dead body and copying the personality (as best as he is able given alignment differences, at least).

We do, however, have Redcloak's spiel on how every undead is basically a biorobot to be used as a tool. He then proceeds to effectively illustrate his point with feeding wights to themselves. Whether it is the truth of the OOTS world, or just Redcloak's way of coping with Xykon, also remains to be seen.

At the very least, mad props to the Giant for the masterstroke in the controversy department :). OOTS always was good about metaphysical connotations, but this really kicks the whole thing out of the field.

[Talya]

Sorry, that was unfair of me. I was still blinking from the tide of incomprehensible-to-me forum support Belkar had received.

Belkar's the best character in the comic. Why are you surprised?

[Scow2]

There's another point to Durkon still being Durkon - His magic aura is the same color!

[Rosstin]

1. Malack states that being resurrected would destroy who he currently is.
2. Durkon accepts his death and dies.
3. Malack believes that Durkon will retain something of himself post-vampire.
4. Durkola voices statements contradictory to Durkon's philosophies.
5. Durkola has Durkon's memories.
6. Xykon has the same mind and soul as he did post-lich.

Personally, looking at the evidence, I think that signs point to Durkola as a being with Durkon's memories, but a different being. Although, this doesn't jive with Xykon's existence, but maybe Xykon is just different, being another kind of undead. The wights were semi-sentient but retained nothing of their old selves.

I just don't think Durkola is the same person as Durkon. He's just too suspicious, too calm, too reasonable.

[Domino Quartz]

Who's "Durkola"?
EDIT:

1. Malack states that being resurrected would destroy who he currently is.
A character from the comic saying something doesn't necessarily make it so.

[Rosstin]

Eh, you know what I mean. >_>

[DaggerPen]

Who's "Durkola"?

*clears throat*

Duuuuuurrrkolaaaaaaaaaa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q5IA2Epk9Y)

I will actually contribute something substantive to this argument eventually, I promise.

[Scow2]

I just don't think Durkola is the same person as Durkon. He's just too suspicious, too calm, too reasonable.Too calm and too reasonable? Like Durkon was?

[Rosstin]

Don't get me wrong, I can see how it could go either way.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0877.html

But my gut tells me that even stoic Durkon would have shown stronger emotions upon regaining his free will, if it was the "real" Durkon returning to the body. I don't think it's the same "soul" in that body.

Just my two cents. It's a mystery. We have so many pieces of puzzle but we still don't really know. The Giant is a real expert in this.

[WindStruck]

Maybe, you think.... after Durkon realizes he is a vampire himself, and that he actually has his free will and is under no compunction to hurt the innocent... that he would at least be "Okay" with it for now?

Do you think maybe his views on vampires as a whole might change simply from the way he perceives himself? If he doesn't feel he is such a horrible, evil being at the moment, then maybe he could be wrong about the whole "undead abomination must kill on sight" attitude.

Although now that I think about it, Real Durkon probably wouldn't have seemed so grateful that Roy offered him his blood. Real Durkon probably would have been disgusted with the idea and started talking about undoing the process....

[Snufkin]

Who's "Durkola"?

Seeing Durkon's name spelt that way just gave me an image of him doing some full on video marketing: "Introducing Count DurCola - A dark and edgey refreshment to get you through the evils of your day"

That being said, I think people are making a little too big a deal over his vampirism. Just like Belkar, Durkon is still one of the heros of the story - regardless of alignment or personal designs. Durkon getting vamped is mostly just character development; not plot development. It will have an effect on the plot i think, but he's not going to become one of the villians.

[Rodin]

*clears throat*

Duuuuuurrrkolaaaaaaaaaa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q5IA2Epk9Y)

I will actually contribute something substantive to this argument eventually, I promise.

My first thought was actually "New Durkola" and "Durkola Classic".

Edit: Swordsaged!

[Socksy]

I reckon, at some point, Durkula will
Get covered in flour and glitter and wind up tangled in a romance with Hannah Shattersmith

[oppyu]

I reckon, at some point, Durkula will
Get covered in flour and glitter and wind up tangled in a romance with Hannah Shattersmith
She is the most shipped character ever who has never appeared on-panel.

[johnbragg]

Personally, looking at the evidence, I think that signs point to Durkola as a being with Durkon's memories, but a different being. Although, this doesn't jive with Xykon's existence, but maybe Xykon is just different, being another kind of undead. The wights were semi-sentient but retained nothing of their old selves.


Perhaps we should consider the philosophical question of Theseus' ship, modernized as GEorge Washington's Axe.

"You see before you the very axe with which George Washington chopped down the cherry tree. It has remained in active use, and has had the handle replaced three times and the head replaced four times."

Durkon 2.0 has the memories and loyalties of Durkon 1.0. But he also has vampire-ness, very likely in place of some major component of Durkon 1.0.

[137beth]

Don't get me wrong, I can see how it could go either way.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0877.html

But my gut tells me that even stoic Durkon would have shown stronger emotions upon regaining his free will, if it was the "real" Durkon returning to the body. I don't think it's the same "soul" in that body.

Just my two cents. It's a mystery. We have so many pieces of puzzle but we still don't really know. The Giant is a real expert in this.
Uh, literally the first thing he does is smash evil in tha face (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0861.html), just like living Durkon.
Sounds like the same person:smallsigh:

[SowZ]

So to convince you that Durkon hasn't changed, he needs to say that he has.

That isn't nearly as contradictory as you are presenting it to be.

[LuisDantas]

Regarding the OP, I just don't see why you rule out that Durkon might have changed his mind after getting first-hand experience with the subject matter.

People become "not themselves" all the time; the idea of a fixed, constant personality is misleading at best, and we have too little to go on to decide how similar post-vampirization, post-freedom from Malack Durkon is to living Durkon.

I won't discuss whether there are souls in the OOtS universe, nor what happened to them if they do. But certainly changing one's opinion on a particular matter is not quite enough to prove that a soul has been switched, corrupted or expelled from a body.

Is Durkon demanded to be in perpetual shame and sorrow for being a vampire and express it before people can acknowledge any possibility of he still being fundamentally the same person?

Going by those parameters, I must assume hardly any of the Order characters are still the same people we met back in #1.

[Scow2]

Do you think maybe his views on vampires as a whole might change simply from the way he perceives himself? If he doesn't feel he is such a horrible, evil being at the moment, then maybe he could be wrong about the whole "undead abomination must kill on sight" attitude.Durkon doesn't have a "Kill on Sight" policy toward mere Vampires. He only has a "Berate On Sight and get Morally Offended" policy toward "Frikkin' Vampires" - You know, the ones draining the blood of people they don't know aren't innocent right in front of you, and admitting to draining the blood of the wrongly-condemned?

[CaDzilla]

vampDurkon now draws power from evil and/or negative energy. He is no longer a Thor worshiper. Why should we trust him when he talks about Thor's rain?

[rs2excelsior]

There's another point to Durkon still being Durkon - His magic aura is the same color!

Actually (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html) it's not (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html).


Do you think maybe his views on vampires as a whole might change simply from the way he perceives himself? If he doesn't feel he is such a horrible, evil being at the moment, then maybe he could be wrong about the whole "undead abomination must kill on sight" attitude.

Although now that I think about it, Real Durkon probably wouldn't have seemed so grateful that Roy offered him his blood. Real Durkon probably would have been disgusted with the idea and started talking about undoing the process....

This. Had Durkon retained not only his memories but also his personality, I would have expected something along the lines of "I guess this is necessary, but I want you to stake me as soon as Xykon is destroyed. A resurrection might me nice, too." as opposed to "Yeah, I'm a vampire now, no big deal."


Regarding the OP, I just don't see why you rule out that Durkon might have changed his mind after getting first-hand experience with the subject matter.

People become "not themselves" all the time; the idea of a fixed, constant personality is misleading at best, and we have too little to go on to decide how similar post-vampirization, post-freedom from Malack Durkon is to living Durkon.

I won't discuss whether there are souls in the OOtS universe, nor what happened to them if they do. But certainly changing one's opinion on a particular matter is not quite enough to prove that a soul has been switched, corrupted or expelled from a body.

Is Durkon demanded to be in perpetual shame and sorrow for being a vampire and express it before people can acknowledge any possibility of he still being fundamentally the same person?

Going by those parameters, I must assume hardly any of the Order characters are still the same people we met back in #1.

No, they aren't, but it's taken a gradual process over 938 strips. Durkon has been a free-willed vampire for a matter of hours, and he's been off-panel for most of that time. Given the Giant's talent for characterization thus far, I'd expect something more about a radical shift in Durkon's outlook on (un)life than what we've been given.

And, even if this is just a natural consequence of "hey, being a vampire isn't so bad after all," you've still just changed one of the fundamental underpinnings of Durkon's personality.

[Clistenes]

I reckon, at some point, Durkula will
Get covered in flour and glitter and wind up tangled in a romance with Hannah Shattersmith

Julia Greenhilt already has a crush of sorts on Durkon, and she can make the sparkles with her magic.


I think this comic is entirely the wrong place to look for any sort of "good old-fashioned" The Monster Is Just A Monster story, whether The Monster in question is a vampire, a dragon, or a goblin.

Rich is deliberately setting out to push against the idea that orcs and dragons can legitimately be killed on sight. I suspect that if he saw that he'd written something that would have the effect of pushing against the idea that vampires cannot legitimately be killed on sight--he'd rewrite it before it went online.

Yup, but that doesn't mean that all the monsters are nice people: Xykon was a monster as a human and became an even worse one after becoming a lich. Malack, who looked so reasonable, polite and civilized drank the blood of his siblings and planned to turn the continent into a massive butchery to please his god. The wights eat humans, even their former friends, even when not directly controlled by a cleric or wizard. That Green Hag in the forest attacked them without provocation. All the ogres shown were evil, or at least hostile towards humans.

Rich sometimes subverts our expectations and sometimes not.

[Komatik]

Right now, Durkula seems very amicable. He's even still got his accent, at least for the most part. But not even counting Durkula's pleasure from killing Z, it's clear Durkula isn't just the Durkon we all know and love.

Look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0939.html), panel 3; then look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html), panel 8. Old Durkon would never have been "right as Thor's rain" had he been turned into the very thing he fights.

:smallfrown:

He's changed, for sure. But he can still perfectly be himself, Durkon-soul in charge and all, be somewhere in the deep end of the alignment pool (how deep, we don't know), and be content. The same way someone who discovered a new philosophy and way to look at the world is still himself, a very much different person and still probably considers himself to be a-ok.


Seconded. Hopefully at some point in the next book the Order gets a Stake-And-Resurrect on Durkula.

Why so? What has he done to warrant it? Stopped breathing?


Apparently even him invoking Thor is evidence that he's not Durkon.

Yeah, strange, ain't it?


Durkon is certainly different, but that do not mean that he's not durkon anymore. And even less it means that durkon would be an enemy of oots now.
That couple of panels only show that durkon enjoied killing nale and Z. Old durkon wouldn't have. But that's the only extent of that "proof", that durkon is changed. It don't even proof that Durkon is evil: given the kind of stuff Z and nale used to do, I'd say even a good person is perfectly justified in being happy to kill them.
And even if vampirization somehow magicallly changed durkon's mind to make him evil, why would he ally with Xykon - an utterly evil lich who is trying to dominate the world and has no allies, only servants? Why people expect durkula to become stupid evil all of a sudden?

We actually have proof that Durkon is Evil. See my signature. The "nontheistic Cleric called a Devil with Planar Ally" in particular is pretty ironclad.


I see blurring between literal and metaphor here. I am not saying Durkon hasn't changed at all. I am saying that Durkon is still Durkon: alignment-changed Durkon, Durkon without a pulse, Durkon who mysteriously hangs back from battle if he can't use his spells, Durkon who channels negative energy, and, because of the prophecy, probably Durkon who is going to do horrible things pretty soon...but Durkon. Durkon's soul is not in Celestia or any afterlife, there is no entity in Durkon's body that hasn't always been there, Durkon is not something like the bone golem made from Roy's body, and you do not "honor" Durkon by calling him "it" and ridiculous words that aren't his name.

This needed to be QFTed.


I've got say, I personally think that Durkon is very much still Durkon. I think the whole narrative POINT of the vampirism thing here is that Durkon is fundamentally still Durkon despite magic of alignment change (aka vampirism).

Exactly this.


Durkon is certainly different, but that do not mean that he's not durkon anymore. And even less it means that durkon would be an enemy of oots now.
That couple of panels only show that durkon enjoied killing nale and Z. Old durkon wouldn't have. But that's the only extent of that "proof", that durkon is changed. It don't even proof that Durkon is evil: given the kind of stuff Z and nale used to do, I'd say even a good person is perfectly justified in being happy to kill them.
And even if vampirization somehow magicallly changed durkon's mind to make him evil, why would he ally with Xykon - an utterly evil lich who is trying to dominate the world and has no allies, only servants? Why people expect durkula to become stupid evil all of a sudden?

We have ironclad proof that Durkon is Lawful Evil - it's the only way a nontheistic cleric can call a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally, as Durkon did.

People just have this weird idea in their heads that anything Evil is a cackling omnicidal maniac and totally part of one single unified Team Evil. And that being Evil means that you totally stop considering your friends your friends and who knows what else. It's mind-boggling, really.



I see blurring between literal and metaphor here. I am not saying Durkon hasn't changed at all. I am saying that Durkon is still Durkon: alignment-changed Durkon, Durkon without a pulse, Durkon who mysteriously hangs back from battle if he can't use his spells, Durkon who channels negative energy, and, because of the prophecy, probably Durkon who is going to do horrible things pretty soon...but Durkon. Durkon's soul is not in Celestia or any afterlife, there is no entity in Durkon's body that hasn't always been there, Durkon is not something like the bone golem made from Roy's body, and you do not "honor" Durkon by calling him "it" and ridiculous words that aren't his name.

Sssh. Those thoughts are not allowed here, it's Buffyland. Got it?


I've got say, I personally think that Durkon is very much still Durkon. I think the whole narrative POINT of the vampirism thing here is that Durkon is fundamentally still Durkon despite magic of alignment change (aka vampirism).

More necessary QFT.


I'm expecting him to turn out to be legitimately evil just from a story-telling standpoint, because the 'blood-drinking vampire is actually a good guy/just misunderstood' is such a tired and overdone cliché, and the Giant is usually above that kind of thing. (And it seems even more like something's up now that Belkar's the only one in the party that isn't perfectly happy with this...I imagine we're going to see more opportunity for development for him and it's gonna be interesting seeing our favorite homicidal little Halfling take a stance against something for moral reasons for once in his life...)

I can't even remember the last time I read a book or saw a movie where the vampire was just a good evil old-fashioned unholy abomination.

Warhammer is pretty good about that. Though most vampires there are pretty nasty sorts to begin with. I'm dying (lol the puns) to see what the Giant does with Durkon - he's excellent at writing interesting, deep Evil characters and there's a ton of interesting angles that can be worked on with our dear dwarf.


A little while back, I tried playing a nice-guy neutral character right after I'd gotten back from a year in a combat zone, somewhere hot and dusty.

My DM should have changed my alignment to evil within the first few sessions. Highlights include:


Bad guy's not-so-high priestess of evil is now our prisoner. She knows the next link in the chain. We *could* have tracked down a scroll of detect thoughts, cast it a dozen times until it beat her will save, interrogated her and gotten that info. But that could take weeks! We picked a different method. Use Rope, Intimidate, and let's see how we can create some circumstance modifiers! Hint: It's called "torture". The DM gawked. We shrugged. "We've got a cleric and we're healing her up when we're done. Besides, it's for a good cause. What's the problem?"
We find a tiny kobold village, home base of some raiding parties that had been plaguing nearby human towns. I have Kelgore's Grave Mist memorized twice, and it's juuust big enough to blanket all the huts with two castings. The DM took particular care to describe the tiny infant kobold corpses. "Eh, nits breed lice. Problem *solved*."
Ever seen the Something's Cooking adventure? We damn near got wiped when the mage came home. After dealing with the golem, the imp and half of the house itself trying to kill us, we were seriously unamused when the old man didn't start with the explanations, immediately. She came home to find several strangers surrounding her tied-up, bleeding husband and we were suddenly teleported to the middle of nowhere.


I'd intended to play a character who was right on the CN/CG line. Instead, I was really playing a smart CE character. I called it "chaotic practical", but it boiled down to the same thing.

:eek:


Durkon can still do good things. That doesn't necessarily mean he's not evil. Evil doesn't have to be maniacal cackling and random mayhem. Evil can be gleefully snapping the neck of a pain in the butt wizard. Evil can be turning your friend's evil twin into a thrall puppet to help out your party, because it's hilariously ironic. Evil can be dealing with a halfling who won't stop trying to kill you by shoving him off a 1000' foot high airship.

Nah, the only way to be Evil is to be a cackling omnicidal maniac that hates the very notion of anything being Good, abandons his longtime friends immediately and allies with his longstanding foes because that's how it should be done.


Suppose the order asks Durkon if he wants to be staked and resurrected.

A: Durkon says no. Aha, obvious confirmation that it's not really Durkon and he's a heartless, evil abomination!

B: Durkon says yes. It's just a lie, and he'll turn on the order as soon as he gets the chance because he's a heartless, evil abomination!

There's literally nothing he could do in the strip to make people come around. Given what I've read and thought of the Giant on morality, bigotry, and intelligent monsters, I'm pretty sure Belkar is just laying down loads schmuck bait. Lots of people are going to be set up for a massive guilt trip, but I hope that teaches them something.

Yeah, I'm coming to that conclusion too. People literally go against Word of Giant put in their faces if it fits their pre-existing biases.


It's not that there's nothing he could do. It's that he hasn't done, or been asked to do, much of anything to distinguish "Old pal Durkon who is now a vampire" from "Unnatural mockery of Durkon who nonetheless wants Xykon stopped."

Speaking to Nale and Z, he says "Aye, mebbe I haf changed." To the Order, he feels "Right as Thor's rain." There is grounds for suspicion here. Now, there are pragmatic reasons as well as moral reasons to not stake Durkula right now. But Roy and the Order don't seem to be dwelling much on that.

Or he recognized that he's changed. You know, he just became undead. He may still feel like himself, no problem. A new way of looking at the world doesn't suddenly make you feel not-yourself at every turn. As an example, my opinions on politics/justice changing at the same time changes me deeply, but also I mostly stay myself. You'd be hard-pressed to tell a change at the MTG table, for example. Yet the new outlook can produce surprising, sometimes uncomfortable opinions that I didn't know I held previously, or make some old stances that were assumed subconsciously and not known about until they came up feel really uncomfortable through the new lens.

It doesn't really have to mean he became some sort of Machiavellian backstabber or something. He's probably same old, loyal Durkon, just a bit "challenged" as far as empathy for strangers goes.


That's my exact point. Malak is a vampire and he is evil. Durkon is a vampire and he may or may not be evil (assuming the Giant follows his previously established rules in the case of undead).

Also, the "almost" wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, it's just that being on this forum has taught me that there's always the occasional "Belkar is CG" person around, and my logic training taught me to be careful of absolute statements.

Durkon is Evil. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0883.html)


He answers to "Durkon".
He remembers how Z'zdtri and Nale acted.
He remembers the quest.
He is committed to the quest.
He is healing the Order "jus' like always (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html)".
He keeps defending the Order.
He remembers the Order and treats them as he always did.
He seems genuinely emotional about Roy's offer of his own blood.

Gosh - I guess you're right. This must not be Durkon.

Yup, it's clearly a Buffyverse demon or something. Here's your diploma for successfully completing the "Forum Logic 101" course.


Vampires are never conflicted about becoming vampires. This is because they're no longer completely the same person they were. They're now evil undead versions of their former selves. They may think like their old selves, act like their old selves, and have the same goals and tastes as their old selves, but they now have entirely different value and moral systems.

I don't really see how this is a problem.

Because it's a forum where people seriously thought Belkar was good or neutral once upon a time. Or how a ruling high priest of a comically evil empire and a high priest of a death god for good measure totally wasn't that evil folks. Lawful Neutral, trust me. Just please ignore the gas chambers.


1. Malack states that being resurrected would destroy who he currently is.
2. Durkon accepts his death and dies.
3. Malack believes that Durkon will retain something of himself post-vampire.
4. Durkola voices statements contradictory to Durkon's philosophies.
5. Durkola has Durkon's memories.
6. Xykon has the same mind and soul as he did post-lich.

Personally, looking at the evidence, I think that signs point to Durkola as a being with Durkon's memories, but a different being. Although, this doesn't jive with Xykon's existence, but maybe Xykon is just different, being another kind of undead. The wights were semi-sentient but retained nothing of their old selves.

I just don't think Durkola is the same person as Durkon. He's just too suspicious, too calm, too reasonable.

1. Malack had been a vampire for two hundred freaking years. Being a vampire was pretty core to his identity. At that point, turning him into a living lizardfolk is, indeed, tantamount to destroying the person Malack is at the moment. Imagine, if you will, being turned into a chimpanzee while retaining your mind all the same. The change would be enormous, and you certainly wouldn't be the same as you were today. That you're human, how you look, what you can do are all a really big part of your identity, whether you constantly think of them as such.

3. Or he can just be a Durkon with a different outlook on the world altered by a powerful one-shot dose of black magic. Undead retaining their souls in unlife is the state we've seen in the comic thus far. A LG dwarf cleric of Thor is pretty different from a LE nontheistic dwarf cleric, all told, vampirism or no.


Don't get me wrong, I can see how it could go either way.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0877.html

But my gut tells me that even stoic Durkon would have shown stronger emotions upon regaining his free will, if it was the "real" Durkon returning to the body. I don't think it's the same "soul" in that body.

Just my two cents. It's a mystery. We have so many pieces of puzzle but we still don't really know. The Giant is a real expert in this.

How do you jump from being more reserved to having a different soul entirely, when the sapient undead thus far in the comic have seemed to retain theirs?


vampDurkon now draws power from evil and/or negative energy. He is no longer a Thor worshiper. Why should we trust him when he talks about Thor's rain?

It's a turn of phrase that's just natural to him being himself? Also, Thor may no longer grant him spells but we don't really know his attitude towards his old deity yet. Durkon's outlook on things is different now, for sure, but that different outlook doesn't just erase your way of expressing yourself and so on. It's not how real-world character changes like this happen, really. He can really be changed, yet feel totally himself right now, which is pretty much expected after being freed from one of the most crushing mind control effects in the world.

[Haar]

I thought of Durkon's "Right as Thor's rain" comment in regard's to Belkar inquiring if he had fully cleared his mind from Malack's influence under his thrallship. I imagine the topic of whether Durkon actually accepts his new condition will be brought up in-comic soon enough.

And at the "Gleefully killed Zz'Dtri" comments, Durkon's never smiled and made a little joke while killing Evil beings, has he? Actually, yes he has. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0111.html) I don't think it's so much that he's enjoying killing them, so much as he's triumphing over villains. (Particularly in situations where he has seemingly turned the tables)

[Rosstin]

I guess another reason we find it hard to accept the possibility of Durkon still being in there is how manifestly unfair it seems for a good being to become evil against its will.

Not saying it isn't possible or that there isn't precedent, but it's a terrible thought.

Assuming we accept the premise that Durkon is still in there (which is something supported by word of the Giant in a way, he referred to the transformation as "character development")...

Is Durkon's essence evil? Or does he just "ping" as evil? If he was killed now how would an archon judge him?

[CapnCoconuts]

Apparently even him invoking Thor is evidence that he's not Durkon.

That's Confirmation Bias (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConfirmationBias) for you.

[Rosstin]

I don't think it's really fair to compare the "what is Durkula" debate to the "Belkar is Lawful Good" one. I'm pretty sure that the point of the vampire Durkon storyline is to make us think about and debate this for the next 50 strips.

[BaronOfHell]

Haley's demonstrated Use Magic Device before. If Durkon has the ability and the desire to create a scroll of Resurrection, they can get Durkon resurrected ten minutes after that--an hour, should Haley's Use Magic Device be too low to cast Resurrection reliably so that they need to seek out any temple where a first-level acolyte can use the scroll.

Therefore I conclude that Durkon will lack either the ability or the desire, or both. I don't think he's going to change back that quickly. I would love to be wrong, but I don't think he'll be changing back until the prophecy about him has come true in an untwisted, depressing way.

I have been wondering about something. Except for being eaten, I believe both Tsukiko and Durkon hit the bucket due to accumulated negative levels.
I'm not very familiar with D&D, but wasn't there something about Tuskiko required a True Resurrection to be brought back, not only because she was eaten and her remains set ablaze, but also due to the negative levels she received?
Then will Durkon also require True Resurrection due to the negative levels he received?

[Keltest]

I have been wondering about something. Except for being eaten, I believe both Tsukiko and Durkon hit the bucket due to accumulated negative levels.
I'm not very familiar with D&D, but wasn't there something about Tuskiko required a True Resurrection to be brought back, not only because she was eaten and her remains set ablaze, but also due to the negative levels she received?
Then will Durkon also require True Resurrection due to the negative levels he received?

Durkon indicated that his resurrection spell would be able to return Malack to full life (ie not a vampire). Whether or not this is true, he believes it to be true, and as far as I know that's the only info we have on resurrecting vampires.

[Onyavar]

Honestly, I'm not sure that whether it's Durkon or not is the question. The thing is that, clearly, he's now Evil (summons a devil, spontaneously channels negative energy). He probably is loyal to the Order. But one thing we learned from this arc is that, no matter how nice and friendly an evil person is, Evil is Evil. It would very much surprise me if the Giant didn't remind us of that.

It's highly unlikely that Durkon will turn against the Order (bar Belkar maybe). But I think that, in some other way, his friends who pretend that nothing has changed at all, and we readers, are in for a shocking surprise.

exactly my thoughts.
If Durkon's body is now inhabited by an impersonator, then he has access to every memory real Durkon had. In this case, the impersonator has done a VERY believable job. There were a few slips where I think he didn't use [correct] accent, but in his actions he totally behaves like old Durkon with some evil traits.
If Durkon's old self is still in there, but just changed, then he has also access to every of his old memories. Regarding his actions, the same applies as above: He totally behaves like old Durkon with some evil traits.

The real question is:
a) Has vampirized Durkon (whether impersonator or original) his own secret agenda? Or is he b) completely loyal to his OotS companions, without hidden reservations?
Either way, the Order is in for a nasty surprise - case a) means inevitable betrayal; case b) means alignment incompatibilities with disastrous consequences on the long run.

Either way, Roy's Judgement Deva will be pissed...

[BaronOfHell]

If it isn't Durkon, shouldn't the real Durkon not only be a plane shift away, if he can't visit them in some kind of ghost form? Though on the other hand, I suppose V never tried to visit Roy with plane shift, so I guess it's maybe not that simple.

Secondly, I think it's Durkon, but he's a different view on things. I guess your view point is usually defined through how you reflect on your experience, and I imagine the whole reflection process is what may have altered, so Durkon may have a whole new idea of what constitutes the right action of choice for him now, and so far it just so happen to be identical to how he used to believe within the approximation that is what we've seen so far.

[DaggerPen]

If it isn't Durkon, shouldn't the real Durkon not only be a plane shift away, if he can't visit them in some kind of ghost form? Though on the other hand, I suppose V never tried to visit Roy with plane shift, so I guess it's maybe not that simple.

I believe the only one of the Order with access to Plane Shift is Durkon, which, well... yeah.

[Kish]

I'm not very familiar with D&D, but wasn't there something about Tuskiko required a True Resurrection to be brought back, not only because she was eaten and her remains set ablaze, but also due to the negative levels she received?
There was something, in that someone on this here forum randomly decided on that and insisted on it stubbornly.

It is and was insupportable. Methods of death that upgrade the required resurrection spell are called out in the text; most debuffs go away when someone dies; and "death from negative levels means you die again immediately if resurrected" was something that person made up, nothing more.

[Solara]

I feel like if we could just see who it is that's giving him his spells now, it would clear this question right up.

[Clistenes]

I feel like if we could just see who it is that's giving him his spells now, it would clear this question right up.

The Giant insisted in a post that vampire clerics kept their spellcasting powers even if their god rejected them, and reminded us that there can be godless cleric. So I think that Durkon is, for now, a godless cleric.

[Kish]

Even if we knew Durkon was still getting spells from Thor...I don't really think it would prove anything beyond that Thor might well be more than usually drunk at the moment.

[Warren Dew]

Nor would his getting his spells from Nergal, as I suspect he is, prove that he isn't the 'real' Durkon.

[SoC175]

We actually have proof that Durkon is Evil. See my signature. The "nontheistic Cleric called a Devil with Planar Ally" in particular is pretty ironclad.He also spontaneously casts inflict spells instead of cure spells.


Anyway unless someone who puts on a helm of opposite alignment shouldn't be considered the same (brainwashed) person I see no reason why an evil vampire Durkon is not the same ("brainwashed") Durkon

[Keltest]

He also spontaneously casts inflict spells instead of cure spells.


Anyway unless someone who puts on a helm of opposite alignment shouldn't be considered the same (brainwashed) person I see no reason why an evil vampire Durkon is not the same ("brainwashed") Durkon

The "cause wounds" thing is (I believe) a side effect of him becoming undead rather than being evil. Redcloak, while definitely evil, still uses "cure" spells with positive energy and "cause wounds" spells with negative energy.

[Kish]

The "cause wounds" thing is (I believe) a side effect of him becoming undead rather than being evil. Redcloak, while definitely evil, still uses "cure" spells with positive energy and "cause wounds" spells with negative energy.
Your sentences appear to be opposed to each other.

Redcloak spontaneously channels negative energy, and needs to prepare Cure spells, because he's evil.

[CN the Logos]

[...]would you at least agree that it seems strange that Durkon appears content with his lot, considering his prior stance? That doesn't seem like an unreasonable interpretation.

This isn't strange at all. All forms of compulsory alignment change in D&D 3.X that I'm aware of fundamentally alter the victim's outlook so that s/he feels his or her new alignment is the ideal. Otherwise a Helm of Opposite Alignment would have the effect of making a Lawful Good character Chaotic Evil for about ten seconds before they realize "wait, this isn't like me, why am I being such a jerk?" and shift their alignment back to LG.


I've got say, I personally think that Durkon is very much still Durkon. I think the whole narrative POINT of the vampirism thing here is that Durkon is fundamentally still Durkon despite magic of alignment change (aka vampirism).

That is the point. The Giant has stated that the point of Durkon becoming a vampire was to develop his character, and that can't happen if Durkon as a vampire isn't the same person as the living Durkon. It would be a completely new character, not a development of the previous character. Therefore, Durkon is Durkon. QED.


Malack was evil--the same way Tarquin is: because he chose to be. "Malack is a vampire" was never a necessary and sufficient condition to conclude that Malack was evil: for the audience it should not have been necessary when we already had the information that he was part of brutalizing the continent, for Durkon it, by Word of the Author, should not have been and indeed wasn't sufficient.

Yes. It's worth noting that Malack didn't need to eat possibly innocent people to survive; he could have done the same thing that Roy proposed in #939. He killed people instead of burning a fourth level spell slot because not killing people was inconvenient. Contrast with Durkon's current attitude. There's quite a difference.

[SoC175]

The "cause wounds" thing is (I believe) a side effect of him becoming undead rather than being evil. Redcloak, while definitely evil, still uses "cure" spells with positive energy and "cause wounds" spells with negative energy.Actually no. The spontaneous conversion is dependent on the alignment.

Redcloak and Durkon have to specifically prepare cure spells in advance since they can't just hotswap any prepared spell for a cure spell like good and neutral clerics are able to do.

[Keltest]

Your sentences appear to be opposed to each other.

Redcloak spontaneously channels negative energy, and needs to prepare Cure spells, because he's evil.

My spellcasting ignorance must be showing; im under the impression that cure wounds and inflict wounds spells are separate spells that a cleric would have to individually pray for.

edit: thus reinforcing my belief that later editions needlessly add complication to things just for the sake of it grumble grumble.

to clarify my stance, when I play we end up houseruling so many things in so that we don't need to use calculators to total up everything that happened that round, and other similar things. Were radicals.

[Kish]

My spellcasting ignorance must be showing; im under the impression that cure wounds and inflict wounds spells are separate spells that a cleric would have to individually pray for.

Yes. Redcloak and Durkon are both negative energy channelers, meaning they can replace any prepared spell with an Inflict Wounds spell of the same level. Living Durkon was a positive energy channeler, meaning he could replace any prepared spell with a Cure Wounds spell of the same level. As Durkon explained to Roy, he now needs to prepare his Cure Wounds spells to cast them.


to clarify my stance, when I play we end up houseruling so many things in so that we don't need to use calculators to total up everything that happened that round, and other similar things. Were radicals.
You turn into radicals when the moon is full?

[johnbragg]

My spellcasting ignorance must be showing; im under the impression that cure wounds and inflict wounds spells are separate spells that a cleric would have to individually pray for.


3E put in the provision that Good or Neutral clerics could spontaneously convert a prepared spell to a Cure X Wounds Spell, presumably to encourage Cleric players to do more than healbot.

As a corollary, Evil clerics got the ability to spontaneously cast Inflict Wounds spells, which really only helps if you're healing your undead minions.

[SaintRidley]

3E put in the provision that Good or Neutral clerics could spontaneously convert a prepared spell to a Cure X Wounds Spell, presumably to encourage Cleric players to do more than healbot.

As a corollary, Evil clerics got the ability to spontaneously cast Inflict Wounds spells, which really only helps if you're healing your undead minions.

Neutral clerics get to choose which they can spontaneously cast, but once they choose they can't choose differently. Some deities also restrict that option, regardless of whether the cleric is Neutral or not.

[WindStruck]

Even if we knew Durkon was still getting spells from Thor...I don't really think it would prove anything beyond that Thor might well be more than usually drunk at the moment.

Yeah really. If Durkon got the answering machine when praying again, there's no way they would know he was a vampire. :smallsmile:

[svankensen]

I agree. This isnt Durkon, not the Durkon we know. I think He is now an egoistical dangerous fellow, wich will show his fangs sooner or later. Nothing he has done shows any willingness to do anything but keep the apearances. I believe that he will sooner or later slay someone in the order, and i mean someone other than Belkar. Maybe he'll start with Belkar, since he would make a good vampire thrall, but i bet either V or Roy will follow (most probably V, since Elan loves Roy too much to get his hapy ending otherwise). Its End Game, fellas, dark times are comming and well see the permanent death of some of our dearest characters. One thing i am sure about, tho, and that is that, while Durkon wants to save the world, he wont mind raising his own power on the way.

Hell, i even suspect that the contract that he signed to kill Xykon is now moot (the only binding agreement left), since he died and got raised as a vampire (I bet his signature was something like Durkon, cleric of Thor). Besides, BTB (wihc i know doesnt matter) vampires have a tendency to hate or loathe that wich they loved most in life.

[Sir_Leorik]

Right now, Durkula seems very amicable.

I'm going to stop you right there, because this is something that is a continual pet peeve (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0788.html) of mine. A character's Alignment and a character's personality are not the same thing.

Let's repeat it boys and girls: A character's Alignment and a character's personality are not the same thing.

Durkon is both amiable and amicable, eager to please, loyal and dedicated to his friends. He's also a bloodsucking creature of the night, whose flesh burns under the rays of the sun, can not enter a home without being invited in, and according to the Monster Manual his Alignment has changed to Evil (any).

What does this mean for Durkon? I think it means that he won't be attacking anyone in the Order (probably not even Belkar). But that leaves no assurances for enemies (like Zz'Dtri) or total strangers (like innocent Dwarves who offend him somehow), and he may very well decide to attack them. If anything, Durkon's genuine amiability and amicability might gull the unwary into behaving in an impious or blasphemous manner around "Brother Thundershield", who might decide to teach them a lesson they'll need to learn all over again (when they regain the level they lose from failing a Fort Save against Negative levels!).

[Cerussite]

If anything, Durkon's genuine amiability and amicability might gull the unwary into behaving in an impious or blasphemous manner around "Brother Thundershield", who might decide to teach them a lesson they'll need to learn all over again (when they regain the level they lose from failing a Fort Save against Negative levels!).
Just like Malack did to Durkon.

[Sir_Leorik]

to clarify my stance, when I play we end up houseruling so many things in so that we don't need to use calculators to total up everything that happened that round, and other similar things. Were radicals.


You turn into radicals when the moon is full?

No, I think wereradicals turn into radicals when the moon is new, as well as the night before and after. They also have DR 10/truncheon, and can be dispersed by a Decanter of Endless Water set on maximum. At least that's what Van Richten's Guide to WereRadicals says. :smallbiggrin:

[Sir_Leorik]

Just like Malack did to Durkon.

There's a bit of irony there, but yes, that's how I interpret the prophecy coming to pass. Durkon comes home, doesn't like what he sees, maybe there are Dwarves who aren't as Lawful as he feels they should be, and he gets all Quentin Tarantino on their asses.

[veti]

I guess another reason we find it hard to accept the possibility of Durkon still being in there is how manifestly unfair it seems for a good being to become evil against its will.

This.

To me, personally - "forced alignment change" makes no conceptual sense. (Yes, I'm familiar with the Helm of Opposite Alignment, and I consider it the most broken item ever conceived.) If alignment really does mean anything moral - as opposed to the "team colours" idea that it started out as - then you can't just change someone else's whole way of thinking by fiat.

Not if you're trying to preserve some concept of "free will" or "justice", at least.

I'm sure the Giant is well aware of this line of thought, and I'm agog to see how he addresses it.

[ShaneWegner]

I feel like if we could just see who it is that's giving him his spells now, it would clear this question right up.

We could answer this question if we could just zoom on the holy symbol he's using and had enough ranks in Knowledge(Stick Pixel Religious Icons). I can see about three possibilities:

1) Thor is still taking his calls. He fought as hard as he could for what he believed in, and is still fighting the good fight. He hasn't done anything downright evil. (So he snapped the Drow's neck while vanquishing his long-time enemies in a 2 on 1 battle and won easily. I'm not seeing anything Thor doesn't like here.)

2) If not Thor, then probably Nerghal. Reasoning- I don't remember which cleric spells literally require a holy symbol. (All?) If that's not a Thor Holy symbol, Durkon probably didn't have a case full of all the other guys' symbols "just in case". But he spent enough time off panel that he could have rifled through the Malack's ashes and helped himself to that old holy symbol- the symbol of the person who sired him anyway with Nerghal's blessing.

3) Hel? Hel (or whoever she is) is always arguing with Thor over who gets whose soul. If Durkon is keeping it in the same pantheon, that makes a certain amount of sense. Why would he have her symbol on him? Would she accept a desecrated Thor's symbol until he can get a proper one if he prayed to her?

4) Loki??? This whole situation does seem to be the trickster sort of fate crap Loki might enjoy. Using one of his brother's former paragons as an undead mockery of everything Thor stands for, while still pantomiming his ideals? Ha! I can see Loki being willing to sponsor that with some spells. Ditto on the loaner desecrated symbol until he can get a proper one. Or maybe he had a momento one from Helga or something?

We can all see his Effect is brown now, for whatever that means.

[skim172]

In order to know whether or not this truly is Durkon, we'd need to know the specifics of how vampirism works in this universe - and we don't know that. Is Vampire Bob just Bob with kewl powers and a Vitamin D deficiency? Or is Vampire Bob a parasitic evil spirit that has killed Bob and possessed his body and brain? Or is Vampire Bob just Bob, but without free will, forced by dark forces to become and behave other than what Bob previously was?

Or is Vampire Bob just a lonely misunderstood soul looking for the right high school teenager to reach out and touch his shiny torso, and she's like what, a hundred years younger than you? What's wrong with you, Vampire Edward Bob, get your life together.

My point is, we don't know how vampirism works in the Stick-verse, so it's difficult to judge whether Durkon is essentially Durkon from before.

Strong evidence that Durkon's soul/spirit/consciousness/mind has survived intact is that he seems to acting like his old self, helping out his old buddies. And so I think the majority of readers are inclined to adopt the "vampirism as a health condition" approach in this case.


But ... are there possible suggestions that Durkon isn't quite who he was before? Perhaps. And I think most reasonable readers from both sides of the debate will admit that it's not absolutely certain that Durkon is Durkon as before.

That's what's so interesting about it. That lingering tension and doubt and uncertainty - that'll keep niggling at us readers. Is Durkon just Durkon? Or is Durkon just a biological robot, controlled by a puppetmaster of the underworld inside his brain - and Durkon is off in Valhalla already, unknowing that his body on Earth has been hijacked by an undead cypher, which is just biding ... its ... time ...

Or maybe it's just Durkon.

WE CAN'T KNOW!!!! AAAAHHHHHH I CAN'T HANDLE THE TENSION

[NihhusHuotAliro]

I'll be okay with positive portrayals of vampires once I start seeing positive portrayals of Tapeworms and Hookworms.

Stupid sympathy based in anthropocentrism. Can't empathize with anything if it doesn't have a face.

And don't say, "it's fantasy, the author can choose to have vampires be polite, sincere, and all around decent people", fantasy means that we could make anything, including saintly hookworms.

So, yeah, double standard on what parasites can be sympathetic.

[oppyu]

I'll be okay with positive portrayals of vampires once I start seeing positive portrayals of Tapeworms and Hookworms.

Stupid sympathy based in anthropocentrism. Can't empathize with anything if it doesn't have a face.

And don't say, "it's fantasy, the author can choose to have vampires be polite, sincere, and all around decent people", fantasy means that we could make anything, including saintly hookworms.

So, yeah, double standard on what parasites can be sympathetic.
Who knows, maybe Rich's next work will be centred on Cole, the sentient Lawful Good paladin influenza virus.

[sr123]

So, yeah, double standard on what parasites can be sympathetic.

Is this satire, or are you actually comparing sentient beings to faceless hookworms?

If so, why? Seeing as vampires are fantasy, from what literary background are you influenced such that this auto-evil opinion is so firmly entrenched?

I am really curious -- and this goes to all strictly-evil-vampirism (or strictly-good too, I suppose) people out there.

[WindStruck]

Ok here's a serious question for you guys:

Suppose Durkon A is living and doesn't want to be a vampire.

Now suppose there is Durkon B, who is very similar in many respects, even exactly the same personality wise in various areas. Not perfect, but still, you could still say it's definitely Durkon. Durkon B's main differences are now the physical consequences of being a vampire. And Durkon B doesn't want to be "unvamped" and made normal again.


In either case, does the Order have any right to be changing Durkon against his will? Throw out all the "oh he's definitely evil cause the monster manual says so" crap. We have yet to see that.

The question is, if either Durkon isn't hurting anyone or doing shady things against another's will, what real justification do you have to change Durkon A into Durkon B without his consent or vice versa?

[oppyu]

Ok here's a serious question for you guys:

Suppose Durkon A is living and doesn't want to be a vampire.

Now suppose there is Durkon B, who is very similar in many respects, even exactly the same personality wise in various areas. Not perfect, but still, you could still say it's definitely Durkon. Durkon B's main differences are now the physical consequences of being a vampire. And Durkon B doesn't want to be "unvamped" and made normal again.


In either case, does the Order have any right to be changing Durkon against his will? Throw out all the "oh he's definitely evil cause the monster manual says so" crap. We have yet to see that.

The question is, if either Durkon isn't hurting anyone or doing shady things against another's will, what real justification do you have to change Durkon A into Durkon B without his consent or vice versa?
In this thought experiment, Durkon B is sick with negative energy and other people's blood coursing through his veins and doesn't know what's best for him. Sometimes the retired citizen who can't take care of themself needs to be sent to the home, sometimes the stubbornly paranoid rogue needs to be rescued from prison against his will, and sometimes the vampire needs to be staked-and-baked (with positive energy, in a Resurrection spell). They can protest all they want, but it's for their own good.

[WindStruck]

In this thought experiment, Durkon B is sick with negative energy and other people's blood coursing through his veins and doesn't know what's best for him. Sometimes the retired citizen who can't take care of themself needs to be sent to the home, sometimes the stubbornly paranoid rogue needs to be rescued from prison against his will, and sometimes the vampire needs to be staked-and-baked (with positive energy, in a Resurrection spell). They can protest all they want, but it's for their own good.

But now you are comparing Durkon to people who are, quite clearly, mentally challenged, and couldn't tell their son from the delivery man. That's hardly the same thing. Durkon here essentially has full mental faculties.

The judgement that it is a "sickness" is the bias here. Supposing the world was ruled by vampires and they raised livestock (or other unfortunate sentient beings) just to feed on, the reverse might be thought true.

[oppyu]

But now you are comparing Durkon to people who are, quite clearly, mentally challenged, and couldn't tell their son from the delivery man. That's not hardly the same thing. Durkon here essentially has full mental faculties.

The judgement that it is a "sickness" is the bias here. Supposing the world was ruled by vampires and they raised livestock (or other unfortunate sentient beings) just to feed on, the reverse might be thought true.
Oh right, we're disregarding the radically altered mindset to Evil here. Hmmmm... ideally, you'd have a stake, a relatively powerful cleric and another vampire nearby to test whether or not Durkon A is also cool with this change. Without said circumstances, I'd still recommend staking now and asking questions later. If Durkon A comes back and goes "What are ye doing! I told ye I wanted to be a vampire! Roy, ye daft jerk!" and the Order is absolutely certain he intends to practice ethical bloodsucking, then he can track down some vampires when the Order has some free time.

[Forikroder]

Right now, Durkula seems very amicable. He's even still got his accent, at least for the most part. But not even counting Durkula's pleasure from killing Z, it's clear Durkula isn't just the Durkon we all know and love.

Look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0939.html), panel 3; then look here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html), panel 8. Old Durkon would never have been "right as Thor's rain" had he been turned into the very thing he fights.

:smallfrown:

Durkula is Durkon as much as post familicide V is pre-familicide V

Durkon had an extremely massive life changing experience that would force him to think about every facet of his life

i mean hes undead now, so why does he hate undead? as a living being it was easy to use the whole "unholy monstrosity" schtick but now that hes actually experiencing it he realises that it was simpyl wrong, just being an undead isnt nearly a good enough reason to hate something

he understands now that not all undead are evil incarnate and are capable of being just like any normal person

[Komatik]

I agree. This isnt Durkon, not the Durkon we know. I think He is now an egoistical dangerous fellow, wich will show his fangs sooner or later. Nothing he has done shows any willingness to do anything but keep the apearances. I believe that he will sooner or later slay someone in the order, and i mean someone other than Belkar. Maybe he'll start with Belkar, since he would make a good vampire thrall, but i bet either V or Roy will follow (most probably V, since Elan loves Roy too much to get his hapy ending otherwise). Its End Game, fellas, dark times are comming and well see the permanent death of some of our dearest characters. One thing i am sure about, tho, and that is that, while Durkon wants to save the world, he wont mind raising his own power on the way.

Hell, i even suspect that the contract that he signed to kill Xykon is now moot (the only binding agreement left), since he died and got raised as a vampire (I bet his signature was something like Durkon, cleric of Thor). Besides, BTB (wihc i know doesnt matter) vampires have a tendency to hate or loathe that wich they loved most in life.

Where do you people keep coming up with this stuff? Tons of people seem to have the idea that if you're Evil, you have to be some kind of scheming, backstabbing Machiavellian mastermind, or an omnicidal maniac that gives a fusion of Belkar and Xykon a run for it's money.

You don't. Evil can have friends, allies, loyalties, completely not-nasty goals. Evil can simply mean the person is selfish, does not care one bit about strangers - especially ones that are obstacles to his mission, is ruthless when dealing with enemies, maybe enjoying the violence a bit too much than is entirely healthy. An Evil character may more likely bolt from a lost fight than a Good one to preserve himself. That's it.
The treatment of strangers especially is the big dividing line between Good and Evil.

Durkon is Evil now, but still Durkon. There's no actual reason for him to no longer be friends and allies with the Order, let alone just backstab and vampirize them just because.


This.

To me, personally - "forced alignment change" makes no conceptual sense. (Yes, I'm familiar with the Helm of Opposite Alignment, and I consider it the most broken item ever conceived.) If alignment really does mean anything moral - as opposed to the "team colours" idea that it started out as - then you can't just change someone else's whole way of thinking by fiat.

Not if you're trying to preserve some concept of "free will" or "justice", at least.

I'm sure the Giant is well aware of this line of thought, and I'm agog to see how he addresses it.

It makes perfect sense. I mean, no, it's not fair, yes. Nobody said the universe operates on some principle of cosmic justice though, and life itself is patently unfair.
But the concept of brainwashing magic is easy enough to grasp. Nothing says the victim can't have free will after the fact, either - I mean, you could believe that killing people to reduce overpopulation, say, is totally okay. You have the free will to adopt that philosophy right now. Doesn't mean you're likely to do it. But nothing prevents you from doing so. That's how one-shot alignment change effects like the Helm and vampirization do their job.


We could answer this question if we could just zoom on the holy symbol he's using and had enough ranks in Knowledge(Stick Pixel Religious Icons).

Durkon doesn't get his spells from a deity. Clerics in 3.5e (and 4e for that matter) are not required to worship a deity to get their spells. So Durkon is now a nontheistic Cleric, by Word of Giant.


In order to know whether or not this truly is Durkon, we'd need to know the specifics of how vampirism works in this universe - *SNIP*

But ... are there possible suggestions that Durkon isn't quite who he was before? Perhaps. And I think most reasonable readers from both sides of the debate will admit that it's not absolutely certain that Durkon is Durkon as before.

That's what's so interesting about it. That lingering tension and doubt and uncertainty - that'll keep niggling at us readers. Is Durkon just Durkon? Or is Durkon just a biological robot, controlled by a puppetmaster of the underworld inside his brain - and Durkon is off in Valhalla already, unknowing that his body on Earth has been hijacked by an undead cypher, which is just biding ... its ... time ...

Or maybe it's just Durkon.

WE CAN'T KNOW!!!! AAAAHHHHHH I CAN'T HANDLE THE TENSION

We know Vampire Durkon is not the same as Living Durkon. It is probably the same soul and base personality at the wheel, yes, but the vampire template turns the base creature Evil on application - and Durkon has proven his current alignment is Lawful Evil by calling a Barbed Devil with Planar Ally (an act a nontheistic Cleric like him can only do if he's Lawful Evil), plus there's the way he offed Z. So yes, he's definitely changed, yet is also much the same as before.


Ok here's a serious question for you guys:

Suppose Durkon A is living and doesn't want to be a vampire.

Now suppose there is Durkon B, who is very similar in many respects, even exactly the same personality wise in various areas. Not perfect, but still, you could still say it's definitely Durkon. Durkon B's main differences are now the physical consequences of being a vampire. And Durkon B doesn't want to be "unvamped" and made normal again.


In either case, does the Order have any right to be changing Durkon against his will? Throw out all the "oh he's definitely evil cause the monster manual says so" crap. We have yet to see that.

The question is, if either Durkon isn't hurting anyone or doing shady things against another's will, what real justification do you have to change Durkon A into Durkon B without his consent or vice versa?

Durkon B is Durkon and doesn't want to be staked and resurrected (which wouldn't restore his alignment/moral outlook anyway, btw, he'd still be Evil) - how do you have the right to just kill Durkon who seems to be pretty okay?

Durkon B is some new sentience that was created when Malack vampirized Durkon A. In this case, it is a sentient, sapient existence of it's own that has done no evil that would justify his execution.

In both cases you're literally murdering an unwilling innocent. Do you have the right to murder an unwilling innocent, especially as you don't know whether he's just a bit selfish, but an otherwise reasonable individual or a rabid dog in the very deep end of the alignment pool a la Xykon?

In the second case, bringing Durkon A back from the afterlife would indeed be a nice thing to do. But by murdering a totally innocent new sentience that had no part in the atrocity of Durkon's vampirization - that was a crime committed by Malack who's already been burnt to ash in the desert sun.


Oh right, we're disregarding the radically altered mindset to Evil here. Hmmmm... ideally, you'd have a stake, a relatively powerful cleric and another vampire nearby to test whether or not Durkon A is also cool with this change. Without said circumstances, I'd still recommend staking now and asking questions later. If Durkon A comes back and goes "What are ye doing! I told ye I wanted to be a vampire! Roy, ye daft jerk!" and the Order is absolutely certain he intends to practice ethical bloodsucking, then he can track down some vampires when the Order has some free time.

:belkar: Woo! Let's murder people because they have fangs! It's... uh, for their own good. Yes, let's get to the staking people part now, pleaseplease?

[oppyu]

:belkar: Woo! Let's murder people because they have fangs! It's... uh, for their own good. Yes, let's get to the staking people part now, pleaseplease?
For the purposes of the thought experiment, vampirism was a disease, not the birth of a new sentience :P. By that logic, taking away the disease to see if not-sick Durkon still wants it is a valid tack even if sick Durkon is a paragon of virtue. While I'm sure the Order would love to take sick Durkon at his word that not sick Durkon would totally be on board with blood-sucking, better safe than sorry.

Mind you, I still support staking not-Durkon if we're counting the vampire as a new sentience, but any argument about that tends to reach an impasse at which point all posters end up hurling insults at each other.

[The Succubus]

:redcloak: "That's what you've never really understood about the undead, Tsukiko. You treat them like they're people when they're nothing but bits of skin and bone and dark energy, glued together in the shape of a man."

[hamishspence]

He also claims Xykon as a "complex weapon aimed at other people" and that while Xykon thinks he controls Redcloak, it's really the other way round:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html

he may, however, be deluding himself.

[Komatik]

For the purposes of the thought experiment, vampirism was a disease, not the birth of a new sentience :P. By that logic, taking away the disease to see if not-sick Durkon still wants it is a valid tack even if sick Durkon is a paragon of virtue. While I'm sure the Order would love to take sick Durkon at his word that not sick Durkon would totally be on board with blood-sucking, better safe than sorry.

Mind you, I still support staking not-Durkon if we're counting the vampire as a new sentience, but any argument about that tends to reach an impasse at which point all posters end up hurling insults at each other.

Thing is, if it's Durkon's soul at the helm and not some Buffyverse demon, his personality now is Evil. The way he is now is the way he is naturally, the change is permanent, not just some temporary magical effect. Stake and Resurrect him, and you'd have the same Lawful Evil Durkon as you do now, just with a pulse ability to gain XP and probably a bad case of "why the hell did ye stab me ye daft fools?" You're just killing a Durkon that's for the most part completely normal and of sound mind to bring him back changed just as he is now.

If it's a separate sentience, you're killing a new sentience that has done nothing wrong and is not guilty of the atrocity committed against Durkon when he was alive. That was done by Malack, who has already died a painful death.

[oppyu]

Thing is, if it's Durkon's soul at the helm and not some Buffyverse demon, his personality now is Evil. The way he is now is the way he is naturally, the change is permanent, not just some temporary magical effect. Stake and Resurrect him, and you'd have the same Lawful Evil Durkon as you do now, just with a pulse ability to gain XP and probably a bad case of "why the hell did ye stab me ye daft fools?" You're just killing a Durkon that's for the most part completely normal and of sound mind to bring him back changed just as he is now.

I don't know if D&D works that way... either way, you'd have proof that Durkon really did want what he had now, and could sleep easy.

...

Actually, I wouldn't recommending sleeping easy. Put a watch on him at least. Sure, acceptance and all that, but there's a reason why they're universally considered Evil by default.

As for the other thing, would you like to start flinging insults now? You call me a simple-minded xenophobe who just wants an excuse to exterminate a sentient species, and I'll call you a simple-minded idiot who doesn't realise that if it looks like an Evil blood-sucking abomination and feeds like an Evil blood-sucking abomination, it probably isn't the kind of guy you take home to meet your parents.

[Cerussite]

The Giant insisted in a post that vampire clerics kept their spellcasting powers even if their god rejected them, and reminded us that there can be godless cleric. So I think that Durkon is, for now, a godless cleric.

However, given that the very chaotic Thor never minded Lawful-to-the-bone Durkon's worship, there's a chance he just doesn't care for alignment at all.

[DaggerPen]

Malack thought that releasing Durkon from thralldom would be "confusing" for him, so there's at least some reason to believe that the transition is going to be hard for Durkon. And yet, we haven't really seen much sign of such from Durkon yet. It's possible that he's just totally taken it in stride, but I find that unlikely; right now, it seems to me that Durkon is just in denouement autopilot mode. I mean, ever since he was freed from Malack's thrall less than two hours ago, he's either been in almost nonstop battle or meditating for spells, the former of which doesn't leave much time for introspection and the latter of which was presumably more focused on getting the spells needed to set his allies right.

Also, on the issue of who he's getting his spells from - I imagine that he wanted to get his teammates' assorted ailments taken care of ASAP and thus, rather than shopping around for deities or appealing to Thor, tapped the existing connection to the negative energy plane. He might take some time during the ride to the Elven lands to call Thor and see if he gets an answer.

Mostly, I think that we haven't yet seen much conflict from Durkon because it would get in the way of wrapping up other loose ends, so he's just doing his duty now and thinking later. Take those feelings, bury them in a deep part of your soul, and never talk about them again and all that. If the next book starts without some serious Durkon introspection, then I'll start wondering just how badly the vampire template has warped him, or if Durkon's even the one driving anymore.

[Fishman]

As for the other thing, would you like to start flinging insults now? You call me a simple-minded xenophobe who just wants an excuse to exterminate a sentient species, and I'll call you a simple-minded idiot who doesn't realise that if it looks like an Evil blood-sucking abomination and feeds like an Evil blood-sucking abomination, it probably isn't the kind of guy you take home to meet your parents.Come now: Durkula didn't choose to be that way, any more than you chose to be the way you are. Everyone has to eat, and he's willing to go about it in a way which causes no harm. This is more than can be said for all the cows and pigs you eat. It's certainly not particularly "good" behavior to indiscriminately kill anyone simply because they are "evil", like a certain crazy scan-and-smite paladin.

[Kish]

For the purposes of the thought experiment, vampirism was a disease, not the birth of a new sentience :P. By that logic, taking away the disease to see if not-sick Durkon still wants it is a valid tack even if sick Durkon is a paragon of virtue. While I'm sure the Order would love to take sick Durkon at his word that not sick Durkon would totally be on board with blood-sucking, better safe than sorry.

Mind you, I still support staking not-Durkon if we're counting the vampire as a new sentience, but any argument about that tends to reach an impasse at which point all posters end up hurling insults at each other.
How exactly is insisting that Durkon's assumed past desire to remain breathing should trump Durkon's assumed present desire to remain a vampire supposed to be any better than insisting that the "new entity" should be slaughtered out of hand in order to "get Durkon back"? "Durkon is sick" is not something you can support any better than you can support "Durkon is not-Durkon." As long as you're picking and choosing your premises to arrive at the conclusion you want ("It can be Durkon, but only if he's sick in a way that interferes with his thought processes to the point where what he wants doesn't matter. It can be a new entity, but only if that new entity is inferior to Durkon such that his right to exist is completely trumped by Durkon's friends' right to return Durkon to existence"), the people you're arguing with will not grant them and so you will not get anywhere.

[Forikroder]

Malack thought that releasing Durkon from thralldom would be "confusing" for him, so there's at least some reason to believe that the transition is going to be hard for Durkon. And yet, we haven't really seen much sign of such from Durkon yet. It's possible that he's just totally taken it in stride, but I find that unlikely; right now, it seems to me that Durkon is just in denouement autopilot mode. I mean, ever since he was freed from Malack's thrall less than two hours ago, he's either been in almost nonstop battle or meditating for spells, the former of which doesn't leave much time for introspection and the latter of which was presumably more focused on getting the spells needed to set his allies right.

Also, on the issue of who he's getting his spells from - I imagine that he wanted to get his teammates' assorted ailments taken care of ASAP and thus, rather than shopping around for deities or appealing to Thor, tapped the existing connection to the negative energy plane. He might take some time during the ride to the Elven lands to call Thor and see if he gets an answer.

Mostly, I think that we haven't yet seen much conflict from Durkon because it would get in the way of wrapping up other loose ends, so he's just doing his duty now and thinking later. Take those feelings, bury them in a deep part of your soul, and never talk about them again and all that. If the next book starts without some serious Durkon introspection, then I'll start wondering just how badly the vampire template has warped him, or if Durkon's even the one driving anymore.

or your jsut overestimating what Malack meant by confusedand durkon managed to come to grips with reality quickly (his long pause after Malacks death enough thinking that he needed to undersand his position)

[Fnordius]

I can hear Durkon singing "Moon Over Bourbon Street" already, wondering how he can be that way when he prays to Thor above. :biggrin:

[oppyu]

How exactly is insisting that Durkon's assumed past desire to remain breathing should trump Durkon's assumed present desire to remain a vampire supposed to be any better than insisting that the "new entity" should be slaughtered out of hand in order to "get Durkon back"? "Durkon is sick" is not something you can support any better than you can support "Durkon is not-Durkon." As long as you're picking and choosing your premises to arrive at the conclusion you want ("It can be Durkon, but only if he's sick in a way that interferes with his thought processes to the point where what he wants doesn't matter. It can be a new entity, but only if that new entity is inferior to Durkon such that his right to exist is completely trumped by Durkon's friends' right to return Durkon to existence"), the people you're arguing with will not grant them and so you will not get anywhere.
How many thought experiments do you engage in with the attitude of 'I disagree with the core assumptions of this thought experiment'? -_- "There are two railway workers tied to one track, and one railway worker tied to another track. The train is currently headed towards the track with two workers on it, but you have the ability to shift it to the other track. What do you do?" "I refuse to answer this on account that I don't believe that the situation you proposed is plausible." Someone proposed a scenario which involved treating Durkon's condition as a condition, and I gave my best answer in response to that scenario.

Plus, saying that one of my beliefs is no better than another one of my prior stated beliefs would only bother me if I didn't believe in the prior belief. Since I do believe in the prior belief, I am perfectly content with the latter belief being no better than the prior belief.

Finally, if Durkon is sick in a way which doesn't affect his mental processes, then he will still be the bearded, funny, heroic dwarf we all know and love, and I probably won't be able to raise an argument for his staking without a message from the Heavens saying "Um... hey, it's Durkon here. You know, the real non blood-drinking Durkon? So about that plan you had a while ago of staking and resurrecting me? Please do that.

PS. It's creepy looking down from the Heavens and watching me/my corpse drinking your blood. Like, unbelievably super incredibly creepy."

[Kish]

How many thought experiments do you engage in with the attitude of 'I disagree with the core assumptions of this thought experiment'? -_- "There are two railway workers tied to one track, and one railway worker tied to another track. The train is currently headed towards the track with two workers on it, but you have the ability to shift it to the other track. What do you do?" "I refuse to answer this on account that I don't believe that the situation you proposed is plausible."

A better question would be, how many thought experiments do I engage in with the attitude of "I'm 'engaging' with this thought experiment, but before I read it I know it cannot possibly convince me it would ever be inappropriate to change the train's track. I will make up whatever details are necessary to make that the correct answer."

The stuff about Durkon being deranged with sickness did not come from the person you were responding to; it was all written by you.

I am not saying anything about how good your arguments are as beliefs. I am talking about how they are as arguments, where the answer is "a lot like chanting 'but black dragons are evil! but black dragons are evil!'" Imagined scenarios of the vampire on the Mechane being horrible and Durkon's spirit wanting the vampire on the Mechane killed are a lot like the great choking mass of imagined scenarios of the black dragons Familicide killed doing horrible things which I've had to read over the years.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'll be okay with positive portrayals of vampires once I start seeing positive portrayals of Tapeworms and Hookworms.

Stupid sympathy based in anthropocentrism. Can't empathize with anything if it doesn't have a face.

And don't say, "it's fantasy, the author can choose to have vampires be polite, sincere, and all around decent people", fantasy means that we could make anything, including saintly hookworms.

So, yeah, double standard on what parasites can be sympathetic.

When Tapeworms require an invitation to enter my home, can be repulsed by mirrors and garlic and need to leave my body to return to their coffins at dawn, I will entertain the idea of writing insipid Teen-Lit romance novels about Tapeworms. They may even sparkle. Until then, no dice. :smalltongue:


Thing is, if it's Durkon's soul at the helm and not some Buffyverse demon, his personality now is Evil. The way he is now is the way he is naturally, the change is permanent, not just some temporary magical effect. Stake and Resurrect him, and you'd have the same Lawful Evil Durkon as you do now, just with a pulse ability to gain XP and probably a bad case of "why the hell did ye stab me ye daft fools?" You're just killing a Durkon that's for the most part completely normal and of sound mind to bring him back changed just as he is now.

If it's a separate sentience, you're killing a new sentience that has done nothing wrong and is not guilty of the atrocity committed against Durkon when he was alive. That was done by Malack, who has already died a painful death.

But it's not a "new sentience", it is an Undead version of the old Durkon. With a different Alignment, no pulse, a hunger for blood, an aversion to sunlight and potentially an inability to taste beer (wouldn't it be interesting if that's what leads to "Death and Destruction": the fact that lager is bland next to Dwarven blood!). The new version of Durkon has the same soul as the old Durkon, albeit twisted by Negative Energy.

As for whether it's moral to stake Vampire!Durkon, or not, here are some things to take into account:


Staking Durkon won't permanently destroy him, merely destroy him until the stake is removed. So if necessary, Roy could drive the stake into Durkon and later remove it when Durkon is needed.
Durkon doesn't have a coffin yet, so it might be better to buy him one and bury him in it for three days, before anyone gets all stake-happy.
In order to use Resurrection on Durkon you need three things: 10,000 gp worth of diamond dust, a cleric able to cast Resurrection, and Durkon staked, his mouth filled with holy wafers and his lips sewn shut with silver thread.
After all that Durkon will be Resurrected, without the Vampire Template.
Here's one thing to take into account: Durkon hasn't asked to be Resurrected, but he hasn't expressed any opposition to the idea either. Maybe Roy should ask Durkon what he wants?



Malack thought that releasing Durkon from thralldom would be "confusing" for him, so there's at least some reason to believe that the transition is going to be hard for Durkon.

I'm a little leery of taking Malack's comments at face value. Like Redcloak and Tsukiko, his views on Undeath are heavily biased.


And yet, we haven't really seen much sign of such from Durkon yet. It's possible that he's just totally taken it in stride, but I find that unlikely; right now, it seems to me that Durkon is just in denouement autopilot mode. I mean, ever since he was freed from Malack's thrall less than two hours ago, he's either been in almost nonstop battle or meditating for spells, the former of which doesn't leave much time for introspection and the latter of which was presumably more focused on getting the spells needed to set his allies right.

I don't think the issue will really be addressed until the next book begins. I can't see Belkar letting this issue go, and Durkon may start to display signs that his moral Alignment is indeed Evil.


Also, on the issue of who he's getting his spells from - I imagine that he wanted to get his teammates' assorted ailments taken care of ASAP and thus, rather than shopping around for deities or appealing to Thor, tapped the existing connection to the negative energy plane. He might take some time during the ride to the Elven lands to call Thor and see if he gets an answer.

He doesn't technically need a new deity. He can continue as a non-Theistic Cleric as long as he's a Vampire.


Mostly, I think that we haven't yet seen much conflict from Durkon because it would get in the way of wrapping up other loose ends, so he's just doing his duty now and thinking later. Take those feelings, bury them in a deep part of your soul, and never talk about them again and all that.

I think that Durkon's going to be doing a lot less of that. In fact, Zz'Dtri may have been a recipient of decades of bottled emotions. :smalleek:

[Kish]

I'll be okay with positive portrayals of vampires once I start seeing positive portrayals of Tapeworms and Hookworms.
http://www.amazon.com/Parasite-Pig-William-Sleator/dp/0525469184/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390243320&sr=8-1&keywords=Parasite+Pig

(On the off chance anyone actually considers reading this based on this post, be aware that it is a sequel.)

[Komatik]

But it's not a "new sentience", it is an Undead version of the old Durkon. With a different Alignment, no pulse, a hunger for blood, an aversion to sunlight and potentially an inability to taste beer (wouldn't it be interesting if that's what leads to "Death and Destruction": the fact that lager is bland next to Dwarven blood!). The new version of Durkon has the same soul as the old Durkon, albeit twisted by Negative Energy.

I agree with all of this, the Buffyverse demon example was just included to head that possibility off, little else.


As for whether it's moral to stake Vampire!Durkon, or not, here are some things to take into account:


Staking Durkon won't permanently destroy him, merely destroy him until the stake is removed. So if necessary, Roy could drive the stake into Durkon and later remove it when Durkon is needed.
Durkon doesn't have a coffin yet, so it might be better to buy him one and bury him in it for three days, before anyone gets all stake-happy.
In order to use Resurrection on Durkon you need three things: 10,000 gp worth of diamond dust, a cleric able to cast Resurrection, and Durkon staked, his mouth filled with holy wafers and his lips sewn shut with silver thread.
After all that Durkon will be Resurrected, without the Vampire Template.
Here's one thing to take into account: Durkon hasn't asked to be Resurrected, but he hasn't expressed any opposition to the idea either. Maybe Roy should ask Durkon what he wants?


Which is what people usually say to it: Staking whichever of Durkon (evilized) or Durkula (new sentience) is in control is a-ok if that sentience agrees. People just seem to be pretty trigger happy about just plain murdering Vampire Durkon, no questions asked, even if Durkon currently wouldn't want that.

It's like trying to keep an average teenager away from the opposite sex because they once believed boys/girls had cooties.

[DaggerPen]

I'm a little leery of taking Malack's comments at face value. Like Redcloak and Tsukiko, his views on Undeath are heavily biased.

Fair point. My thought was more just that Malack would know enough about vampirism to know that Durkon would retain his own personality until sufficiently brainwashed by time as a thrall, but Malack is definitely not the most reliable of sources.


I don't think the issue will really be addressed until the next book begins. I can't see Belkar letting this issue go, and Durkon may start to display signs that his moral Alignment is indeed Evil.

My thoughts as well.


He doesn't technically need a new deity. He can continue as a non-Theistic Cleric as long as he's a Vampire.

He doesn't, certainly; he just might want to at least try for Thor, since he may still be as loyal to Thor as he is to the Order. I'm just saying that this particular meditation wasn't really the time to try to figure all that out.


I think that Durkon's going to be doing a lot less of that. In fact, Zz'Dtri may have been a recipient of decades of bottled emotions. :smalleek:

Vampirism forcing Durkon to confront his bottled up emotions and frustrations would be really interesting, actually. He already had quite a lot to deal with pre-vamping, and even more now.

[Warren Dew]

I'll be okay with positive portrayals of vampires once I start seeing positive portrayals of Tapeworms and Hookworms.
Normally I'd agree. However, this is a comic about D&D. The Order of the Stick operates essentially as a player character party. In D&D, being a player character normally trumps all ethics and morals - player characters always stick together. Why else do you think Belkar's presence has been tolerated so long? So, the fact that the party and Durkula still work together fits the background quite well.

The means - the fact that the need to drink blood is so easily circumvented by rules lawyering with restoration spells - is likewise a facet of its being a story about D&D. As usual, D&D is designed to permit sidestepping of any moral dilemmas one might prefer not to address.

[hamishspence]

In D&D, being a player character normally trumps all ethics and morals - player characters always stick together. Why else do you think Belkar's presence has been tolerated so long?
The Order stops "sticking with Belkar" on occasion- at least, once Roy's dead.

And even before that, Roy had no qualms about making bargains for Belkar to be returned to legal custody "once they were done Saving The World".

[NihhusHuotAliro]

I mostly dislike vampire Durkon because he killed Z, one of my favorite non-reptilian characters in the comic. Just like how I dislike Redcloak for killing the Booted Wight. (or how I dislike most of the order for wanton goblin-slaughering; or how I dislike many goblins for azurite-killing or azurites for goblin-killing. Sabine killed that random guard but everyone's all "go sabine" when she starts helping the order. Elan's killed a bunch of goblins, and he's still considered innocent and childlike.


Is this satire, or are you actually comparing sentient beings to faceless hookworms?

If so, why? Seeing as vampires are fantasy, from what literary background are you influenced such that this auto-evil opinion is so firmly entrenched?

I am really curious -- and this goes to all strictly-evil-vampirism (or strictly-good too, I suppose) people out there.

Dang Sentiocentrism. No respect for anything that doesn't feel or think.

And I'm just saying auto-evil because generally, parasites are treated as auto-evil.


Normally I'd agree. However, this is a comic about D&D. The Order of the Stick operates essentially as a player character party. In D&D, being a player character normally trumps all ethics and morals - player characters always stick together. Why else do you think Belkar's presence has been tolerated so long? So, the fact that the party and Durkula still work together fits the background quite well.

The means - the fact that the need to drink blood is so easily circumvented by rules lawyering with restoration spells - is likewise a facet of its being a story about D&D. As usual, D&D is designed to permit sidestepping of any moral dilemmas one might prefer not to address.

Dang player-centric morality.

What if I want to root for the goombas and not that nasty plumber!

[hamishspence]

What if I want to root for the goombas and not that nasty plumber!

TV Tropes had an interesting illustration on that subject- on the What Measure Is A Mook (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatMeasureIsAMook) page.

[veti]

It makes perfect sense. I mean, no, it's not fair, yes. Nobody said the universe operates on some principle of cosmic justice though, and life itself is patently unfair.
But the concept of brainwashing magic is easy enough to grasp. Nothing says the victim can't have free will after the fact, either - I mean, you could believe that killing people to reduce overpopulation, say, is totally okay. You have the free will to adopt that philosophy right now. Doesn't mean you're likely to do it. But nothing prevents you from doing so. That's how one-shot alignment change effects like the Helm and vampirization do their job.

If the effect were anything at all like brainwashing, you'd have a point. But it isn't. Durkon has all his old memories, at least some of his old traits and preferences; he knows his friends, he knows his quest, he knows - apparently - his old mannerisms and quirks. One thing he very clearly hasn't been, is 'brainwashed'.

How can his mind be so much the same, and simultaneously be so different? That's what I want to see resolved.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Alright, I can accept this alignment change. It's like a helm of opposite alignment; not really changing memories or personality, but changing alignment...

[rbetieh]

Since we are on the subject of what does/doesn't constitute a durkon.....

Did Durkon summon a Devil or did Thrall Durkon (now known as Thrallkon) summon a Devil or did Vampire-Durkon (now known as Vampkon) summon a Devil or did Thrall Vampire Durkon (now known as ThrallVampkon) summon a devil?

[Jay R]

I feel like if we could just see who it is that's giving him his spells now, it would clear this question right up.

This is a straightforwardly simple way to reduce dramatic tension.

The author's job is to build dramatic tension.

I therefore predict that this will not happen, and that we will have to judge Durkon by his actions, slowly, over time, just like anybody else.

[Darkhands]

My prediction: I'll bet 10 internets!

'This isn't Durkon' may literally be true...

I propose that Durkula is actually Malack!

Malack cried out to Nergal to save him when he died... I think it's possible that his consciousness was transferred into his latest spawn at the moment his body died. He may or may not have access to Durkon's memories; 'World's still at stake, innit?' is a pretty generic statement, after all. 'Right as Thor's rain' is another generic statement that someone trying to pose as Durkon would say. It would explain his glee toward killing one of Nale's lackeys, too.

[Kish]

My prediction: I'll bet 10 internets!
I'll take that bet, though I'd rather be betting with gold.

[Ninja_Grand]

I've got say, I personally think that Durkon is very much still Durkon. I think the whole narrative POINT of the vampirism thing here is that Durkon is fundamentally still Durkon despite magic of alignment change (aka vampirism).

Right on target. He is Durkon. But i think he is going to change the terms of him killing something (Like a drow wizard threatening his/his friends life). He still sees it as normal, but now its....


:durkon: Och! How dare ye threaten me friends! *Thor's might*

[The Giant]

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

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

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