Roy is soft

[Kruploy]

Roy is willing to allow an undead bloodsucker to walk around with his team and even offer up sustenance for him simply because the living version was his friend.

The fact that he does this instead of reviving Durkon shows a lapse of judgement on his part as a result of his emotional weakness and can even be considered a betrayal of Durkon himself since as Malack put it, goth Malack and breathing Malack are not one and the same.

I think this is a staggering moment of OOCness from the normally stoic, no-nonsense personality of Roy as he is putting himself and his team at grave risk of severe blood loss and the less severe death associated with it.

Remember Durkon is Lawful Evil now regardless of how helpful he appears to be at this moment.

Thoughts? Is Roy still a good leader or has he become a bit too emotional from the trauma of enduring his best friend's death?

[hamishspence]

Roy is willing to allow an undead bloodsucker to walk around with his team and even offer up sustenance for him simply because the living version was his friend.

The fact that he does this instead of reviving Durkon shows a lapse of judgement on his part as a result of his emotional weakness and can even be considered a betrayal of Durkon himself since as Malack put it, goth Malack and breathing Malack are not one and the same.

He cannot revive Durkon yet- because there are no clerics on the team besides Durkon himself.

Indeed, clerics powerful enough to cast Resurrection are going to be few and far between.

Not to mention that they are short of time- Xykon is already heading for the very last gate. Trying to fight him without a cleric will be very risky- which is what they'll have to do if they kill Durkon without having anyone around to resurrect him as a living being.

I think this is a staggering moment of OOCness from the normally stoic, no-nonsense personality of Roy as he is putting himself and his team at grave risk of severe blood loss and the less severe death associated with it.
In addition to all this, Roy has previously demonstrated a tendency to give "monsters" the benefit of the doubt (in Origin of PCs) - so, when you know about that- it's not so out of character.

[Gwynfrid]

The fact that he does this instead of reviving Durkon shows a lapse of judgement on his part.

This sentence is enough to prove your case isn't getting anywhere. As Roy himself made clear in-comic, he has no way to revive Durkon. His only alternatives are destroying Durkon, or keeping him on the team until he can find a Resurrection caster for him. The latter makes sense from his priority perspective: Let's take our best shot at saving the world, worry about the rest later.

[Morty]

Each of those threads reminds me how tremendously stupid each and every "Always <Alignment>" listing is, and the one for vampires is even dumber than most.

[oppyu]

Yeah, but you can't exactly blame the guy for not wanting to get into it right now. He's just finished a huge mission with his team, where everyone involved nearly died several times (and one did die), he has personally massacred a good number of soldiers, dude just wants to settle down with his PTSD and nap for a little while before really dealing with 'What To Expect When Your Best Friend Has Been Murdered And Replaced With An Undead Yet Still Sentient Construct That Seems Just Like Your Best Friend.' Give the man a little while to put his feet up before judging his response.

[SaintRidley]

Each of those threads reminds me how tremendously stupid each and every "Always <Alignment>" listing is, and the one for vampires is even dumber than most.

Indeed. And they always remind me to think toward how Rich treats that in comic, and how judging any creature based on the alignment (or other characteristic) depicted in its statblock is treated as racism (because it is).

[Kruploy]

This sentence is enough to prove your case isn't getting anywhere. As Roy himself made clear in-comic, he has no way to revive Durkon. His only alternatives are destroying Durkon, or keeping him on the team until he can find a Resurrection caster for him. The latter makes sense from his priority perspective: Let's take our best shot at saving the world, worry about the rest later.

Roy doesn't know that Xykon went to the final gate though, all he knows is that they just left which eliminates any sense of urgency in his team.

If Durkon was dead and not undead, do you think Roy would just stop in the nearest tavern to pick up a random cleric? No, he would do his best to revive his friend even if it is more difficult.

Also, off the top of my head, Vaarsuvius has pull with his master who is a powerful wizard, he could probably arrange for a Resurrector with some cash.

[Morty]

Indeed. And they always remind me to think toward how Rich treats that in comic, and how judging any creature based on the alignment (or other characteristic) depicted in its statblock is treated as racism (because it is).

Apparently Rich's measures to show that killing things on sight based on real or perceived alignment is wrong are still too subtle. One wonders what would he need to do for it to get through to some people.

[Gwynfrid]

Roy doesn't know that Xykon went to the final gate though, all he knows is that they just left which eliminates any sense of urgency in his team.

There isn't anywhere else that makes sense for Xykon to go to now.


If Durkon was dead and not undead, do you think Roy would just stop in the nearest tavern to pick up a random cleric? No, he would do his best to revive his friend even if it is more difficult.

No, he would march on without him. He did just that in the pyramid (after some scolding by Belkar).


Also, off the top of my head, Vaarsuvius has pull with his master who is a powerful wizard, he could probably arrange for a Resurrector with some cash.

If this were true, Roy himself would not have stayed dead anywhere as long as he has.

... And I concur with Morty here.

[zimmerwald1915]

Roy doesn't know that Xykon went to the final gate though, all he knows is that they just left which eliminates any sense of urgency in his team.
Come on. Roy knows that Xykon only cares about three things: preserving his own existence, making others suffer, and seizing the Gates. He knows that Xykon believes his phylactery secure - if he didn't, he wouldn't have left Azure City - and he knows that Xykon doesn't have to go anywhere special in order to cause pain, so that leaves only one plausible destination: Kraagor's Gate.


Also, off the top of my head, Vaarsuvius has pull with his master who is a powerful wizard, he could probably arrange for a Resurrector with some cash.
Says who? The last anybody saw of Aarindiarius, he was tossing Vaarsuvius out onto the street. I don't know about you, but if I needed a favor, the landlord who evicted me would not be among those I'd expect to grant it.

[Loreweaver15]

Just because Durkon is now an evil bloodsucker doesn't mean Roy is wrong, only that Roy is taking a calculated risk. His calculations include his love for his best friend, the tinge of denial he's already shown over the death, and an unwillingness to judge Durkula based simply on the Vampire template. He's gambling that Durkula really is his old friend, just addicted to magical evil heroin, an addiction that can be cured when the whole world isn't in immediate danger.

[Kruploy]

@Gwynfrid

Roy marched on without Durkon because he didn't have Durkon's body on hand and because he had no convenient means of leaving the dungeon if he had these things he would at least make a token attempt to revive his pal.

Haley who had Roy's corpse didn't have access to Vaarsuvius or the sending spell scroll necessary to contact V's teacher obviously this method was invalid at the time.

@zimmerwald1915

The fate of the world hangs in the balance, I don't think Sensei would refuse to help V in this case.

Also, Girard's Gate was guarded by illusions that Xykon is immune to while Kraagor's is guarded by the most vicious monsters around, it is plausible to think that Xykon would get some help from his army as even he would have trouble at this gate due to the limited number of his spells especially since the horde is two gates away.

[Gwynfrid]

Kruploy, you're just trying to reach for ever more implausible options as potential alternatives for Roy, but it just isn't going to happen, and Roy knows that. He a good leader, meaning he knows to 1) keep his priorities straight and 2) make do with the resources at hand. Anything else would be wishful thinking.

[Yakk]

It is also possible that Durkula would resist resurrection.

By making it clear within Durkula's hearing that he considers resurrection a secondary priority, he makes traveling with Durkula safer, and resurrection more likely not less.

Of course, Durkula also has a +9 sense motive over Durkon, so maybe lies are not the best policy.

[Kish]

*thread title*
Say, rather, Roy is good. Elan and Haley are good. And Belkar is evil. Was the case in strip #13, is the case now.

[Vladier]

Remember Durkon is Lawful Evil now regardless of how helpful he appears to be at this moment.


Resurrecting Durkon probably won't unmake the alignment change as there is nothing in the description of the spell or vampires that would make that happen.
The change should probably be treated as a singular powerful Negative Energy infusion that raises the body and changes the alignment by installing the hatred of all life, with the body then being powered from the Negative Energy Plane but without affecting the mind any further. At least that's the explanation I've come up with regarding why the alignment changes but the vampires don't actually have to keep it Evil after their creation and can become Neutral or even Good afterwards if they keep their bloodlust in check.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

if they keep their bloodlust in check.

Actually, I'd say that even that wouldn't be necessary for a vampire to be Good. Roy's solution is a perfectly acceptable way for a vampire to feed: volunteers who suffer no lasting damage. Also acceptable: people willing to spend a couple of minutes in pain, followed by a spell that removes it and a bag of cash.

If a Vampire want to indulge and pay large amounts & spend all spells slots to feast every day [at day end, when its clear those spells won't be needed]? Well, gluttony is hardly nice, but many Good people tend to fall into it without loosing their Good category.

----

As to Roy being "soft", that's just silly. The man is a bleeding expert in managing Evil characters towards Good ends. When this is over, he will write a thesis on it and get his PhD in the topic. Compared to managing Belkar, humoring a Legal Evil (if that is what he is) Durkon is not softness. It is business as usual.

Grey Wolf

[Smolder]

Remember Durkon is Lawful Evil now regardless of how helpful he appears to be at this moment.


Yeah, but if a Lawful Evil person makes a promise, they usually stick to it, so long as it is possible and convenient to do so. By offering to donate, the Order has effectively given Durkon an opportunity too good to turn down, much less jeopardize by betraying them randomly in the middle of the night.

[hamishspence]

The man is a bleeding expert in managing Evil characters towards Good ends.

Or at least, after Durkon's had a little snack on him, he will be. :smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

Roy is willing to allow an undead bloodsucker to walk around with his team and even offer up sustenance for him simply because the living version was his friend.

Also because he needs a high-level cleric to help save the world, and this is the only one available. Without Durkon's actions when he returned to the party,
a. The silicon elemental would have killed Haley,
b. Roy would still have almost no hit points, and
c. Roy and Belkar would have been killed by Tarquin's army.
Without Durkon's actions in this strip alone, Haley couldn't shoot and Belkar couldn't melee for the foreseeable future.

The suggestion that he is doing it "simply because" of any one reason is simply untrue.


The fact that he does this instead of reviving Durkon shows a lapse of judgement on his part as a result of his emotional weakness and can even be considered a betrayal of Durkon himself since as Malack put it, goth Malack and breathing Malack are not one and the same.

It shows that he has no way to revive Durkon, and nothing else.

Malack said that he is no longer the same person he was 200 years ago. That is not the same as saying that Durkon is no longer the same person he was a couple of hours ago. Malack's exact words were, "I was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists." Breaking it down, that's pointing out that he has since become educated (vs. "ignorant"), civilized (vs. barbarian), and has a connection to the empire and Tarquin's party (vs. "of a tribe that no longer exists". But he still refers to that ignorant barbarian as "I".


I think this is a staggering moment of OOCness from the normally stoic, no-nonsense personality of Roy as he is putting himself and his team at grave risk of severe blood loss and the less severe death associated with it.

Remember Durkon is Lawful Evil now regardless of how helpful he appears to be at this moment.

First of all, you do not execute people based on their alignments, but based on their actions. You can't justify killing the vampire Durkon based on anything he hasn't actually done.

Roy has always traveled with a Chaotic Evil murderer, since the start of the strip. How is what we've actually seen Durkon do (as opposed to your idea of what a Lawful Evil vampire must be) worse than Belkar's actions?

[Koo Rehtorb]

While the vampire does need to be staked ASAP, it's kind of hard to blame Roy for not doing it right this minute considering the world hangs in the balance and there's a notable lack of high level clerics around who could resurrect Durkon after the staking.

[Yoyoyo]

Instad of calling Roy soft, how about Roy is making lemonade out of the lemons this situation has given him. A vampire "evil" Durkon is far better than a corpse who is no help at all, especially with so little time to waste that Roy won't permit a sidequest to help Haley's dad. Is there some risk? Sure, but Roy needs to take risks at this stage.

And since when can't an evil character be helpful, particularly a lawful one who is committed to helping save the world? A properly motivated evil character has helped the Order in the past (recent example, Sabine helped V with intel on Laurin) http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0935.html Durkon is far more trustworthy and willing to help than Sabine, and her efforts were benefical for the Order.

And for that matter, a "good" character can be unhelpful. Elan screwed up many times. Miko was of good alignment and did all she could to thwart the Order. Roy isn't being soft by letting Durkon help, he is using his resources as best he can.

[Harbinger]

Roy is willing to allow an undead bloodsucker to walk around with his team and even offer up sustenance for him simply because the living version was his friend.

The fact that he does this instead of reviving Durkon shows a lapse of judgement on his part as a result of his emotional weakness and can even be considered a betrayal of Durkon himself since as Malack put it, goth Malack and breathing Malack are not one and the same.

I think this is a staggering moment of OOCness from the normally stoic, no-nonsense personality of Roy as he is putting himself and his team at grave risk of severe blood loss and the less severe death associated with it.

Remember Durkon is Lawful Evil now regardless of how helpful he appears to be at this moment.

Thoughts? Is Roy still a good leader or has he become a bit too emotional from the trauma of enduring his best friend's death?

Yeah, Roy can just call his team cleric to help revive Durkon. Who's the team cleric? Oh, right. Durkon. The "new and improved" Durkon hasn't done anything to hurt them, and has in fact saved all of their lives since being vamped. He shows no interest in harming them and no ulterior motives in helping them. He's not putting them at risk of blood loss either, that's what Restoration is for. And, I have to mention, just because Durkon is LE doesn't mean he isn't still their friend, or a useful asset. Belkar is Chaotic Evil, and much less cooperative and helpful than (the new and improved) Durkon, and they haven't killed him.

There's also the fact that at this point Durkon is possibly the most powerful member of the team, matched only by V. He could easily have Elan, Belkar, and possibly Haley dancing on his magical strings within three rounds, has full spell slots, and can match Roy and exceed the others in melee, with his +6 to STR. I'm not so sure the Order could take him down if they tried.

By the way, when did Roy become "stoic" and "no-nonsense"? :smallconfused:

[zimmerwald1915]

By the way, when did Roy become "stoic" and "no-nonsense"? :smallconfused:
Since some time before this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0885.html).

[Loreweaver15]

...Zimmerwald, that was him reacting to Durkon's death. He stops being like that shortly after.

[Snails]

Indeed. And they always remind me to think toward how Rich treats that in comic, and how judging any creature based on the alignment (or other characteristic) depicted in its statblock is treated as racism (because it is).

It is not "racism" in a universe with the metaphysics of default D&D, where Evil and Good are pervasive forces as much as gravity is in our world. That the alignment system has arguable flaws is not news.

[Kruploy]

@Loreweaver15, Kish, Grey Wolf, Smolder, Jay R

Durkula is more than Belkar ever was. As Harbinger stated, it's not even a certainty that the Order can take him on and live.

If Belkar ever decides to betray the Order, they can kick his backside and recover their pretty easily. If Durkula does the same, I don't really think the Order stand a chance with surprise on his side.

It doesn't even have to be out of malice, Durkula may decide that being a vampire is better than being and want to share this gift with his friends or perhaps he may conclude that vamping the entire Order maybe the best chance for the world to survive since they would be pretty much equivalent to low epic characters and immune to negative energy, allowing them to face Xykon on more equal grounds and having a reset button in the form of their Gaseous shapes.

Also, this talk of Durkon not being evil just because his alignment is Lawful Evil is grasping for straws. The alignments are a rough estimation of a person's character, Durkon's alignement is evil because he is evil, he doesn't have to kick a puppy to show he is evil, given time and opportunity his evil has to manifest in some shape or form, else his alignment wouldn't read evil.

Besides, all Undead are characterized by their hatred of the living, I'm pretty sure that hating the living is required to be undead.

@Gwynfrid

The reasons I offered are pretty plausible actually if you are going to dismiss my arguments explain why they are implausible.

@Yakk

Can you even resist spells when you are dead?

@Vladier

Durkon is evil because he is a vampire, getting rid of the vampirism should also be a cure for his evil.

@Grey_Wolf_c

Roy is pretty easily shaken actually. All it takes is a few quips from Xykon to get him angry and let's not forget his emotional breakdown at Durkon's death. He pretty much just gave up back there, sure the guy was his best friend but they live in a world where revival is possible and also relatively cheap so that is no excuse.

PS: Why is there a C in your name? I thought you were the only Grey Wolf around.

@Harbinger

The Order can take him if they surprise on their side. They can even ask him for buffs before the fight.

[Reverent-One]

Each of those threads reminds me how tremendously stupid each and every "Always <Alignment>" listing is, and the one for vampires is even dumber than most.

Also, that people are still giving Belkar a lot more slack, morally, than they should. Even if Durkon is Evil, the Order has been traveling with an Evil companion for the entirety of the strip, one that has actually attacked a fellow party member at one point, Belkar. If letting Durkon live unlive as a vampire is a terrible mistake regardless of the circumstances (being unable to resurrect him, being on a strict time limit to save the world), then so is letting Belkar tag around with them.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't know why there are half a dozen of those threads popping around. One would think one thread to discuss the consequences of vampirization in the party dinamics should be enough. why people want to be so vocal about it?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Also, that people are still giving Belkar a lot more slack, morally, than they should. Even if Durkon is Evil, the Order has been traveling with an Evil companion for the entirety of the strip, one that has actually attacked a fellow party member at one point, Belkar. If letting Durkon live unlive as a vampire is a terrible mistake regardless of the circumstances (being unable to resurrect him, being on a strict time limit to save the world), then so is letting Belkar tag around with them.

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

[Cuthalion]

Roy is soft. That sword went through him like butter.

[Rakoa]

Also, that people are still giving Belkar a lot more slack, morally, than they should. Even if Durkon is Evil, the Order has been traveling with an Evil companion for the entirety of the strip, one that has actually attacked a fellow party member at one point, Belkar. If letting Durkon live unlive as a vampire is a terrible mistake regardless of the circumstances (being unable to resurrect him, being on a strict time limit to save the world), then so is letting Belkar tag around with them.

There wouldn't be an issue if Durkon had been evil the entire comic. The fact that it was recent, forced upon him, and reversible is the issue.

[Kish]

There is, Belkar's blurring and many forumites' going along with that blurring to the contrary, actually no question of resurrecting Durkon now. Neither Belkar nor his supporters is saying "Let's get to that cleric who can resurrect him sooner rather than later." What Belkar is pushing for, is the immediate destruction of Vampire Durkon--with what happens to the corpse being something Roy has spoken about, but Belkar has not.

[BaronOfHell]

Roy is soft. That sword went through him like butter.

What kind of butter is that? :smalltongue:

[Cuthalion]

What kind of butter is that? :smalltongue:

Butter left out of the refrigerator for fourteen minutes with a skeleton inside.

[Gwynfrid]

@Gwynfrid

The reasons I offered are pretty plausible actually if you are going to dismiss my arguments explain why they are implausible.

I, along with several others, have already explained this in the above comments. I see no need to repeat those points with a different wording.

[Reverent-One]

There wouldn't be an issue if Durkon had been evil the entire comic. The fact that it was recent, forced upon him, and reversible is the issue.

Due to the lack of appropriate cleric, it isn't currently reversible. If Roy was against it even though Julio also had a cleric capable of resurrecting Durkon after they destroy his vampire form, that would be another matter.

[Vladier]

@Vladier

Durkon is evil because he is a vampire, getting rid of the vampirism should also be a cure for his evil.


By that logic, if vampirism is a cause of Evil alignment, since it is a prolonged condition that makes one hunger for blood and be hateful of all life like most undead because of the influence of Negative Energy, there shouldn't be any Good or Neutral vampires. Yet there are, Jander Sunstar of Faerun being probably the most known example.
I still find my explanation for the cause of alignment change being one-time and independent of the subject's condition to be more believable. Sort of like the Helm of Opposite Alignment - you can take the helm off but if the change happens it's forever unless the Wish of Miracle is cast. Except weaker because a vampire still can return to his original alignment if he wants that very much and makes steps towards it, whereas the Helm's effect makes the wearer explicitly enjoying his new alignment and being fearful of restoration.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

@Loreweaver15, Kish, Grey Wolf, Smolder, Jay R

Durkula is more than Belkar ever was. As Harbinger stated, it's not even a certainty that the Order can take him on and live.
So you are in favour of only killing creatures that you can't kill?

Also, the statement is factually incorrect: see below


If Belkar ever decides to betray the Order, they can kick his backside and recover their pretty easily. If Durkula does the same, I don't really think the Order stand a chance with surprise on his side.
The order includes a wizard that can dispel. Durkon can be toast any time they are in the sun. Even when not in the sun, V is already preparing to beat a Lich in magical combat. The same techniques will work on Durkon.


It doesn't even have to be out of malice, Durkula may decide that being a vampire is better than being and want to share this gift with his friends or perhaps he may conclude that vamping the entire Order maybe the best chance for the world to survive since they would be pretty much equivalent to low epic characters and immune to negative energy, allowing them to face Xykon on more equal grounds and having a reset button in the form of their Gaseous shapes.
Yeah, killing someone because of what they might, conceivably, do is Evil. Refraining from it is not "softness", it is Good.


Also, this talk of Durkon not being evil just because his alignment is Lawful Evil is grasping for straws. The alignments are a rough estimation of a person's character, Durkon's alignement is evil because he is evil, he doesn't have to kick a puppy to show he is evil, given time and opportunity his evil has to manifest in some shape or form, else his alignment wouldn't read evil.

[citation needed]

Durkon's alignment might be evil in the same way that Roy's was when carrying the crown.



Besides, all Undead are characterized by their hatred of the living, I'm pretty sure that hating the living is required to be undead.
This is simply false in OotS, as evident from Malack's sincere friendship with Durkon.


Durkon is evil because he is a vampire, getting rid of the vampirism should also be a cure for his evil.
So you keep saying, but I have yet to see evidence for that in-comic - no, his grin doesn't count: Roy had one just like it when attempting to kill Nale. And don't give me a link to the SRD. I can give you another one that says the same thing for orcs. It means nothing.

The only creatures in OotS that are known to have fixed alignments are the embodiments of the morality planes, like angels. Not the undead, and especially not the self-aware undead.



Roy is pretty easily shaken actually. All it takes is a few quips from Xykon to get him angry and let's not forget his emotional breakdown at Durkon's death. He pretty much just gave up back there, sure the guy was his best friend but they live in a world where revival is possible and also relatively cheap so that is no excuse.
Killing a sentient being that has done nothing wrong, on the other hand, is a perfectly Good excuse for Roy. Also, you are the one claiming he is stoic, not me: you cannot claim in the OP that Roy is OOC because he isn't stoic, and then tell me he is shaken. In any case, what I said that he is used to handling evil creatures, not that he does it without misgivings.


PS: Why is there a C in your name? I thought you were the only Grey Wolf around.

This is not the only forum on the Internet. I have used this handle for over 20 years, I'm not about to abandon it just because I don't happen to need the extra bit in this particular forum.

Grey Wolf

[SaintRidley]

Roy is soft. That sword went through him like butter.

Supporting evidence: when he falls to the ground from 200+ ft. up, he goes SPLAT (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0443.html).

[Amphiox]

Roy is willing to allow an undead bloodsucker to walk around with his team and even offer up sustenance for him simply because the living version was his friend.

"Simply because" is a judgment you made that is not supported by any in-narrative evidence, and is in fact explicitly contradicted by Roy's own words on two separate occasions. To stick with this argument you have to argue that Roy was lying to Belkar on both those occasions.


The fact that he does this instead of reviving Durkon shows a lapse of judgement on his part as a result of his emotional weakness and can even be considered a betrayal of Durkon himself since as Malack put it, goth Malack and breathing Malack are not one and the same.

The fact that he does this shows that he is truly a Lawful Good character since destroying Vampire Durkon now would be in my a book an act of premeditated murder for which Roy should lose his alignment, if he did it.


I think this is a staggering moment of OOCness from the normally stoic, no-nonsense personality of Roy as he is putting himself and his team at grave risk of severe blood loss and the less severe death associated with it.

I think this is a moment 100% consistent with Roy's characterization to date and is in fact the best possible decision Roy could have made at this time in this situation.


Remember Durkon is Lawful Evil now regardless of how helpful he appears to be at this moment.

Remember that being Lawful Evil does not preclude the possibility of Durkon being helpful genuinely and sincerely. Also remember that even if Durkon is offering to be helpful under false pretenses, it does not mean that the benefit the Order will derive from that help for the duration that Durkon is willing to give it might not ultimately outweigh any harm or risk they face from an evil Durkon eventually turning on them, given the circumstances they are in.


Thoughts? Is Roy still a good leader or has he become a bit too emotional from the trauma of enduring his best friend's death?

He has shown himself a BETTER leader as a result of this than he had shown before.

[Cuthalion]

Supporting evidence: when he falls to the ground from 200+ ft. up, he goes SPLAT (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0443.html).

See? So much evidence, it's hard to deny. I think we can end the thread here, right? :smalltongue:

[Vladier]

The only creatures in OotS that are known to have unfixed alignments are the embodiments of the morality planes, like angels. Not the undead, and especially not the self-aware undead.


I assume you've meant "fixed", because otherwise this doesn't make sense.

Also, I don't think that the undead that aren't self-aware can be anything but their normal Evil alignment - they usually can't act on their own volition and are driven solely by the Negative Energy (which gives them active hatred for all life), without their soul remaining. Even if their master makes them do Good things that wouldn't make them Good.


On unrelated note, I've noted that my auto-check really wants me to correct the word "undead" as if it doesn't exist. Yet among the variants it's offered me there is a word "undeaden" which apparently does, even though I couldn't find its definition.

[hamishspence]

Yet among the variants it's offered me there is a word "undeaden" which apparently does, even though I couldn't find its definition.

'I deaden the sound from the noisy thing"

"I undeaden the sound from the noisy thing"

[cheesecake]

Each of those threads reminds me how tremendously stupid each and every "Always <Alignment>" listing is, and the one for vampires is even dumber than most.

I agree 100%. I read so many threads people referring to the monster manual saying that vampires are always "evil" This isn't D&D. This is OOTs and the universe.

[Jay R]

Out of idle curiosity, Kruploy, does it tempt you to re-consider your moral position even a little bit that the only character who agrees with you is the Chaotic Evil murderous halfling psychopath?

[JBiddles]

Out of idle curiosity, Kruploy, does it tempt you to re-consider your moral position even a little bit that the only character who agrees with you is the Chaotic Evil murderous halfling psychopath?

It doesn't matter very much if the argument comes from Belkar, Einstein, Stalin or from a stone tablet that descends to an angelic chorus - what matters is the argument itself. If Belkar says that the sky is blue, that doesn't make it green.


As for the thread topic: no, Roy is not soft. He's being ruthlessly utilitarian by allowing his friend to remain a vampire for the good of both worlds.

[allenw]

@Yakk

Can you even resist spells when you are dead?



In this case, yes. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm) As previously demonstrated by Lord Shojo. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0410.html) And by Eric Greenhilt. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html)


Revivification against One’s Will

A soul cannot be returned to life if it does not wish to be. A soul knows the name, alignment, and patron deity (if any) of the character attempting to revive it and may refuse to return on that basis.

[Bulldog Psion]

Roy is soft. That sword went through him like butter.

"Have you ever noticed how soft a man's head is?" -- Major George Broadfoot

[Socksy]

I was hoping this would be cute and fluffy and about how physically soft he is, possibly based on some comment from Celia which I must have missed...

Nope, vampire alignment debate. Again.

:smallfrown:

EDIT: Shoot, I see a couple of posts now my phone decided to load the page properly. Sorry!

[martianmister]

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

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

[jidasfire]

While I think the criticism of Roy in this case is overly zealous, given that Durkon is being perfectly helpful, has done nothing overtly wrong, and there's no actual way to raise him at the moment, I don't think the vampirism falls under the same header as the strip's general message about racism. After all, Rich has said that his beliefs about such things extend to biological beings (goblins, dragons, what-have-you), while supernatural creatures like demons and undead are fair game for absolute villainy, largely because they are made of evil rather than living beings who can make conscious choices about such matters.

Will Durkon prove to be truly terrible over time, or will the internal qualities that made him the person he was be able to win out? There's simply no way to know right now. Still, in either case, from Roy's perspective it makes total sense not to execute his friend at a time when he needs all the help he can get against arch-villains who are at this point over a week ahead of him towards their ultimate goal. Plus, no doubt it will make for a more interesting story this way.

[Jay R]

It doesn't matter very much if the argument comes from Belkar, Einstein, Stalin or from a stone tablet that descends to an angelic chorus - what matters is the argument itself. If Belkar says that the sky is blue, that doesn't make it green.

As for the thread topic: no, Roy is not soft. He's being ruthlessly utilitarian by allowing his friend to remain a vampire for the good of both worlds.

But that requires an argument. You haven't really provided one - just a moral stance and self-righteous emotion. And the moral stance that is the foundation of your position does not agree with the moral stance of any member of the party except the murderous Chaotic Evil psychopath.

Really - I suggest you consider if this has any ramifications to your position.

[TheLoneCleric]

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

Yep. Roy is LG (smart) He may not like those he works with, but he is loyal to a fault. And understands the greater good than a lot of the other LG characters in the strip. Greater good is harder path, but as a Fighter, doing questionable things for it doesn't hurt Roy much. (He unlike a Paladin, won't loose favor with any one god.) He's not afraid of death, he's afraid of failing and letting the world die.

Durkula is an ally, maybe a more dangerous ally then before. But they're still fighting for the same general cause.

I'd say the whole party is sliding heavily into the Lawful Neutral territory.

[Snails]

I agree 100%. I read so many threads people referring to the monster manual saying that vampires are always "evil" This isn't D&D. This is OOTs and the universe.

I agree that "always evil" monsters are stupid, but they are stupid in a specific way, very much on purpose. We have goblins and dragons and devils and vampires in our stories to give our heroes a free hand to chop with their swords. Otherwise, why not just stick with tales about humans?

[hamishspence]

Because it's interesting to explore a point of view that is somewhat (but not completely) alien.

[Snails]

Because it's interesting to explore a point of view that is somewhat (but not completely) alien.

That would be a sound reason, but it is not the reason fantastic creatures are usually included in a story (or D&D campaign), quite obviously.

Aladdin does not find a magical lamp so that we can empathize with djinn. Faust does not strike a bargain so we can learn about devils. Tolkien did not show us orcs so we can imagine their sorrows and dreams.

It is probably true that the Giant made Durkon a vampire so we can reconsider Durkon's "humanity" under extreme conditions. But that is not the typical purpose of including a vampire in a tale, and the designers of D&D did not err by making such creatures "always evil" -- they were honoring the most common mythic tradition with loving accuracy.

[Loreweaver15]

That would be a sound reason, but it is not the reason fantastic creatures are usually included in a story (or D&D campaign), quite obviously.

Aladdin does not find a magical lamp so that we can empathize with djinn. Faust does not strike a bargain so we can learn about devils. Tolkien did not show us orcs so we can imagine their sorrows and dreams.

It is probably true that the Giant made Durkon a vampire so we can reconsider Durkon's "humanity" under extreme conditions. But that is not the typical purpose of including a vampire in a tale, and the designers of D&D did not err by making such creatures "always evil" -- they were honoring the most common mythic tradition with loving accuracy.

See, this is an attitude that the Giant explicitly has spoken out against and is trying to subvert--hence all the argument about what he's going to do with Durkon.

[hamishspence]

The idea that:

"We have goblins and dragons and devils and vampires in our stories to give our heroes a free hand to chop with their swords."

The specific The Giant post that discusses it:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120

[Snails]

While I agree with the gist of the Giant's argument, the basic problem is that races/species on the main stage of the campaign have an alignment entry at all. IMHO, whether the MM includes youngling dragons to kill is vastly less an issue than "often CE orcs" wandering the wilderness in droves.

As for Durkon, I expect I will like wherever the Giant intends to go.

Yet I am still pro-staking-in-principle (not as a practical choice). Because a vampire is what a vampire is -- the most heinous and over the top kind of evil magic incarnate it is possible to imagine, arguably far worse than the unmakings of an angry Snarl.

[hamishspence]

Yet I am still pro-staking-in-principle (not as a practical choice). Because a vampire is what a vampire is -- the most heinous and over the top kind of evil magic incarnate it is possible to imagine, arguably far worse than the unmakings of an angry Snarl.
In some D&D splats, maybe. OoTS may take a slightly different line.

[theNater]

We have goblins and dragons and devils and vampires in our stories to give our heroes a free hand to chop with their swords.
We have those critters in our stories so that our heroes can, through the virtues the story is trying to teach, overcome greater obstacles than ordinary humans can(and therefore greater obstacles than ordinary humans can provide). Nobody's going to be impressed by the legend of Saint George and some guy.

[TheFool]

And here I was thinking this discussion would be about how Roy needs to start laying off those high-calorie potions and start doing more cardio.

[Snails]

We have those critters in our stories so that our heroes can, through the virtues the story is trying to teach, overcome greater obstacles than ordinary humans can(and therefore greater obstacles than ordinary humans can provide). Nobody's going to be impressed by the legend of Saint George and some guy.

Did Lancelot kill any dragons? If he did, I never read such a tale, yet I recall he made quite a name for himself.

What did Odysseus ever do? Outsmarted some humans. Ran away from a giant.

Yes, you are correct, to a degree. But I would suggest it does bring up the question whether having off the shelf Types is okay. "Tonight the role of Antagonist will be played by Bad Guy wearing a _______ suit", where ______ could be "scaly fire-breathing monster (dragon)", "sniveling smelly humanoid with bad table manners and uncontrollable urge to pillage (orc)", "monstrosity from your nightmares that will drink your blood and/or rape your soul (vampire)".

[Lord Raziere]

Apparently Rich's measures to show that killing things on sight based on real or perceived alignment is wrong are still too subtle. One wonders what would he need to do for it to get through to some people.

I would personally go full Watchmen to hammer it in, make all the PC's villain protagonists, all the monsters just tribes of people just trying to survive on the land, already pushed out of their previous homes while the PC's are paid to push them out even more or kill them, then top it off with hitler-analogue as the PC's slowly realize what they are doing is wrong, so they fight against the hitler analogue and win....then another one comes in and uses Locate City bomb as a nuke to genocide a race or two, who the PC's then kill.

if people don't get the message by then well....probably those people are beyond hope one way or another anyways.

Edit: wait....The Giant already has a form of genocide (Familicide) in his comic, hmmm, guess mine IS still too subtle. very well. genocide of all races except humanity. that ought to do it.

[zimmerwald1915]

What did Odysseus ever do? Outsmarted some humans. Ran away from a giant.
Did you just claim there are no monsters in the Odyssey? If s, a certain six-headed beastie and a choir of supernatural temptresses (two problematic "types") would like a word with you.

[oppyu]

I would personally go full Watchmen to hammer it in, make all the PC's villain protagonists, all the monsters just tribes of people just trying to survive on the land, already pushed out of their previous homes while the PC's are paid to push them out even more or kill them, then top it off with hitler-analogue as the PC's slowly realize what they are doing is wrong, so they fight against the hitler analogue and win....then another one comes in and uses Locate City bomb as a nuke to genocide a race or two, who the PC's then kill.

if people don't get the message by then well....probably those people are beyond hope one way or another anyways.

Edit: wait....The Giant already has a form of genocide (Familicide) in his comic, hmmm, guess mine IS still too subtle. very well. genocide of all races except humanity. that ought to do it.
Rorschach was the good guy in that movie, right? He seemed like the good guy.

[Lord Raziere]

Rorschach was the good guy in that movie, right? He seemed like the good guy.

touche. even with Watchmen basically shoving the message "MORALITY IS NOT CERTAIN OR CLEAR. LIKE. AT ALL. EVER." down everyone's throats, some people still root for Rorshach, and of course, it inspired the entire Iron Age of comic books where every character was basically ripping off Rorshach and killing criminals left and right.

perhaps better not to make it then. learn from history. only leads to suck.

[Snails]

Did you just claim there are no monsters in the Odyssey? If s, a certain six-headed beastie and a choir of supernatural temptresses (two problematic "types") would like a word with you.

Odysseus did a lot of running away, and he did it before it was fashionable and the Doctor laced on tennies.

[Sloanzilla]

Can someone tell me which vampire alignment debate thread is the bestest one? I keep getting them confused.

[137beth]

Can someone tell me which vampire alignment debate thread is the bestest one? I keep getting them confused.

This one... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326558)
although it's not actually about vampire alignment, it's about the "fact" that the vampire called Durkon is actually Trigak, the vampire chimera.

[theNater]

Did Lancelot kill any dragons? If he did, I never read such a tale, yet I recall he made quite a name for himself.
In some versions of the story, rescuing Elaine required slaying a dragon.

What did Odysseus ever do? Outsmarted some humans. Ran away from a giant.
It took a bit of cleverness on Odysseus' part to ensure that the giant couldn't catch him; he didn't escape by being a faster runner than the giant. It is worth noting that overcoming doesn't have to mean killing, as with Odysseus.

[Sloanzilla]

I read that one and enjoyed it.

For what it is worth, I'm very much in the "the author has made it very clear that he thinks automatic alignment is a bad idea, and is therefore probably going to have his more reasonable, good characters give the benefit of doubt to entities that have not done anything evil" camp.

[Paseo H]

Without going into detail about Watchmen, if Rorschach was meant to be portrayed unsympathetically, it should not have been so subtle. I could see the little things where we are meant to see he's far too far, but you have to actually think about it and look between the lines a little.

As for Durkula, I'm going to be cheap and take the middle road: Belkar's misgivings are not meritless, but circumstances make it impossible to kill/eliminate Durkula without making things even worse.

[oppyu]

touche. even with Watchmen basically shoving the message "MORALITY IS NOT CERTAIN OR CLEAR. LIKE. AT ALL. EVER." down everyone's throats, some people still root for Rorshach, and of course, it inspired the entire Iron Age of comic books where every character was basically ripping off Rorshach and killing criminals left and right.

perhaps better not to make it then. learn from history. only leads to suck.
Rorschach was a raving puritanical lunatic with crippling mother issues. Why wouldn't he be a fan favourite character? It's so obvious we're meant to support the guy, what with his extended rants about how the filth of whoredom would consume the Earth and everything.

[Lord Raziere]

Rorschach was a raving puritanical lunatic with crippling mother issues. Why wouldn't he be a fan favourite character? It's so obvious we're meant to support the guy, what with his extended rants about how the filth of whoredom would consume the Earth and everything.

.....can't tell if sarcasm.

[oppyu]

.....can't tell if sarcasm.
Clearly the 'blue text as sarcasm' meme has had a detrimental effect on this forum's sarcasm detectors.

[Snails]

Without going into detail about Watchmen, if Rorschach was meant to be portrayed unsympathetically, it should not have been so subtle. I could see the little things where we are meant to see he's far too far, but you have to actually think about it and look between the lines a little.

I am pretty sure that all the characters are intended to viewed both sympathetically and unsympathetically, to varying degrees. I really do mean "all".

[Loreweaver15]

Whatever Moore meant with Rorschach, what I always took away from the character was a message of hope; as broken and awful as Rorschach is, as twisted and dark and hateful, as wrong about most of the people he hates, what Rorschach is doing, even half-mad, is still trying to help. Whether he was right or wrong to oppose the main villain, whether him being such a massive douchebag makes him something you're unable to root for, the most misanthropic, hateful, twisted, broken, insane character in a story full of insane characters is still trying to help people and, in fact, inspires other people in the story to be better people.

If somebody that awful can still try to be good, that really says something about the potential of the human heart, doesn't it?

[jidasfire]

Rorschach was a raving puritanical lunatic with crippling mother issues. Why wouldn't he be a fan favourite character? It's so obvious we're meant to support the guy, what with his extended rants about how the filth of whoredom would consume the Earth and everything.

Going off the rails a bit here, but frankly, if Alan Moore didn't want people to like Rorschach, he shouldn't have made him the one character in the story who was actually trying to solve the mystery, he shouldn't have given him a tragic origin, he shouldn't have made his personality so unique and complex, he certainly shouldn't have given him so many cool things to do in prison (killing dudes with his lunch, his shirt, and a toilet, for instance), and he most definitely shouldn't have given him a [SPOILER ALERT] heroic death in the face of impossible odds. One can certainly argue that Rorschach's a messed up guy and we shouldn't adopt his philosophy or way of life, but I get a little sick of the comic book intelligentsia telling me I'm reading it wrong (ironic since most of them think the Author Is Dead) for finding the character compelling.

[Lord Raziere]

Clearly the 'blue text as sarcasm' meme has had a detrimental effect on this forum's sarcasm detectors.

we kinda have it for a reason. to detect sarcasm. before it, no one caught the sarcasm.

Yea....Alan Moore kinda screwed up there...but at least I can now make Santa Rorshach jokes every Christmas:
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk25/Trizap/SantaRorshach-1.png~original

[Rodin]

Going off the rails a bit here, but frankly, if Alan Moore didn't want people to like Rorschach, he shouldn't have made him the one character in the story who was actually trying to solve the mystery, he shouldn't have given him a tragic origin, he shouldn't have made his personality so unique and complex, he certainly shouldn't have given him so many cool things to do in prison (killing dudes with his lunch, his shirt, and a toilet, for instance), and he most definitely shouldn't have given him a [SPOILER ALERT] heroic death in the face of impossible odds. One can certainly argue that Rorschach's a messed up guy and we shouldn't adopt his philosophy or way of life, but I get a little sick of the comic book intelligentsia telling me I'm reading it wrong (ironic since most of them think the Author Is Dead) for finding the character compelling.

The character is compelling. That is the right word.

That is not the same thing as "saintly", which is the argument I see from so many people on the Internet.

Heck, I've seen people say that Rorschach "I will tell the world even if it means nuclear war" had the moral high ground, and even that he was going to negotiate with the Russians. Yep, the nihilist that subscribed to an anti-Communist newspaper was going to bring about World Peace.

The entire point of the story is that people are complex. Rorschach was, objectively, a terrible person. And yet, he did what some would argue was the right thing, for quite good reasons, right up until he did the wrong thing for what were arguably good reasons, and put the world at risk. Sound familiar?

The only difference is that Soon was too slow to stop Miko.

[Gnome Alone]

we kinda have it for a reason. to detect sarcasm. before it, no one caught the sarcasm.

Yes, because not a single one of us is capable of discerning sarcasm from the actual intellectual content of what someone wrote. Nope, not a one.

(This message intentionally left black-and-white by the order of the resist-weird-internet-things council.)

[Cavenskull]

Yes, because not a single one of us is capable of discerning sarcasm from the actual intellectual content of what someone wrote. Nope, not a one.

(This message intentionally left black-and-white by the order of the resist-weird-internet-things council.)
Can't. Tell. If. Serious.

[Lord Raziere]

Can't. Tell. If. Serious.

Me neither mate. the lengths some people go to resist something on the grounds that they themselves don't need it, when other people do, is silly. because I've totally caught sarcasm well in the past without this blue text. totally. every single time. you can totally pick up the sarcastic tone from text alone, and there is no possibility for misinterpretation at all. people pick up the sarcasm every single time. the internet is not full of people who will misinterpret everything you say if there is the slightest hint of ambiguity or room for alternate (read: LITERAL) interpretation of what you say after all.

that and if I gone around resisting weird things from other cultures just because I considered them weird, I'd be even more of a jerk than I am now. I'm already an independently minded opinionated stubborn individualist with the social graces of a hammer. don't need to add "narrow-minded about other people's culture" to the list, especially the internet culture, thats just stupid.

[oppyu]

So... Roy is soft because he's a big softie. See here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0283.html), and here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html).

[martianmister]

Roy is not just soft, he's also delusional. We're talking about a lawful good person who ignore Belkar's crimes.

[hamishspence]

Roy is not just soft, he's also delusional. We're talking about a lawful good person who ignore Belkar's crimes.

Once Belkar had been caught, Roy had no problem agreeing to him being tried:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html

[martianmister]

Once Belkar had been caught, Roy had no problem agreeing to him being tried:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html

And then actively help him to beat the system:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html

[warrl]

Just because Durkon is now an evil bloodsucker doesn't mean Roy is wrong, only that Roy is taking a calculated risk. His calculations include his love for his best friend, the tinge of denial he's already shown over the death, and an unwillingness to judge Durkula based simply on the Vampire template. He's gambling that Durkula really is his old friend, just addicted to magical evil heroin, an addiction that can be cured when the whole world isn't in immediate danger.

In purely pragmatic terms. Remembering that the characters are aware of Xykon's plan to do something that (they believe) has a strong chance of destroying their entire world. Not just installing a repressive global empire, but actually physically destroying the planet so nothing survives.

Roy's view:

Durkon's corpse would not be useful in combating Xykon
Durkon's ashes in a little jar would not be useful in combating Xykon
Durkon as a vampire - one of the highest-level clerics on the planet plus the Vampire bonuses, and with inverted response to negative-energy spells (meaning: if he conceals the fact of his vampirism, Xykon and Redcloak are likely to heal him at least once) - would be extremely useful in combating Xykon.
Durkon staked and resurrected - is not currently an available option. Assuming an intent to pursue it eventually, it's one of those cases where the odds of success are better later (when they have stopped Xykon and thus presumably have lots of time) than now (when the time they have before the world is probably destroyed is likely to be short).


Durkon's view:

If he wants to remain a vampire, that requires the world survive - so he wants Xykon defeated, and he'd be a big help.
If he wants to be staked and resurrected, that requires the world survive - so he wants Xykon defeated, and he'd be a big help.
If he wants to be destroyed and his remains (whatever form they take) conveyed to his homeland for burial alongside his ancestors, that requires the world survive - so he wants Xykon defeated, and he'd be a big help.
If he doesn't really care about that but wants his friends to be happy (or for that matter if he wants them to be miserable), that requires the world survive - so he wants Xykon defeated, and he'd be a big help.

[StreetUrchin]

Besides.... alignment < power of Plot

In case this hasn't been brought up: an example of D&D storytelling of where a vampire doesn't equal Evil is Jandar Sunstar (Chaotic Neutral) in the Forgotten Realms/Ravenloft series.

Though watching the various Durkula threads is amusing (Trigak!) enough so it pulled me out of years of lurking just to post on the matter

next post 2018....or when ever this gets wrapped up! :)

[Kish]

Clearly the 'blue text as sarcasm' meme has had a detrimental effect on this forum's sarcasm detectors.
They never really worked that well.

[Tengu_temp]

Throw me in with the anti-blue text people. No other community on the internet uses blue text, and somehow they're capable of telling if someone is being blatantly sarcastic.

[hamishspence]

I liked the way subtitles used to represent sarcastic questions and sarcastic statements.

With (?) for the question, and (!) for the statement.

[ISitOnGnomes]

Durkon's view:

If he wants to remain a vampire, that requires the world survive - so he wants Xykon defeated, and he'd be a big help.
If he wants to be staked and resurrected, that requires the world survive - so he wants Xykon defeated, and he'd be a big help.
If he wants to be destroyed and his remains (whatever form they take) conveyed to his homeland for burial alongside his ancestors, that requires the world survive - so he wants Xykon defeated, and he'd be a big help.
If he doesn't really care about that but wants his friends to be happy (or for that matter if he wants them to be miserable), that requires the world survive - so he wants Xykon defeated, and he'd be a big help.


This.

Alignment doesn't dictate the wants and desires of the character. It simply shows what a character is willing to do to achieve their goals.

On a side note: I don't think it's entirely coincidental that the order now has every alignment extreme (LG, CG, LE, CE) represented in the party.

[Loreweaver15]

This.

Alignment doesn't dictate the wants and desires of the character. It simply shows what a character is willing to do to achieve their goals.

On a side note: I don't think it's entirely coincidental that the order now has every alignment extreme (LG, CG, LE, CE) represented in the party.

And a True Neutral to boot!

[zimmerwald1915]

And a True Neutral to boot!
Just as a curiosity...

Let 1L>x>1/3L represent a Lawful ethic. Let 1/3L>x>-1/3L represent a Neutral ethic. Let -1/3L>x>-1L represent a Chaotic ethic.

Let 1G>x>1/3G represent a Good morality. Let 1/3G>x>-1/3G represent a Neutral morality. Let -1/3G>x>-1G represent an Evil ethic.

The Order as a whole is aligned...

2L-3L/6:3G-2G/6

-1/6L:1/6G

True Neutral, leaning slightly Chaotic and Good.

EDIT, More curiosities:

Before Durkon's vampirization, the Order was aligned -1/6L:1/2G, Neutral Good, leaning slightly Chaotic.

[Loreweaver15]

LG, CG, CG, TN, LE, CE? Sounds about right.

[Snaaake]

It is also possible that Durkula would resist resurrection.


Resurrecting Durkon probably won't unmake the alignment change as there is nothing in the description of the spell or vampires that would make that happen.

He wouldn't be Durkula after his vampire self is destroyed, just Durkon's soul. My view on the above is that (in terms of the rules; in-universe, we'd have to rely on Word of Giant to confirm anything one way or another) it's the vampire template that has the evil, and when a vampire is destroyed, the template is removed. Said person can then be resurrected, resetting them to the point of their conversion to undead(? - implied by Malack). If you want to "resurrect" a vampire, you'd have to re-vamp them.



Can you even resist spells when you are dead?

It's not a question of resisting spells, reincarnate/raise dead/resurrection/true resurrection/etc. all require that "the subject’s soul is free and willing to return."



Yet I am still pro-staking-in-principle (not as a practical choice). Because a vampire is what a vampire is -- the most heinous and over the top kind of evil magic incarnate it is possible to imagine, arguably far worse than the unmakings of an angry Snarl.

You've got vamps confused with Lichs (Liches?). Vampires do not necessarily become so due to any fault of their own, nor do they necessarily have to kill or even feed on anyone involuntarily. To become a lich, a caster needs to willingly fully commit to evil, or the ritual just fails (see SoD for more on that). Or something to that effect anyway.



Whatever Moore meant with Rorschach, what I always took away from the character was a message of hope; as broken and awful as Rorschach is, as twisted and dark and hateful, as wrong about most of the people he hates, what Rorschach is doing, even half-mad, is still trying to help. Whether he was right or wrong to oppose the main villain, whether him being such a massive douchebag makes him something you're unable to root for, the most misanthropic, hateful, twisted, broken, insane character in a story full of insane characters is still trying to help people and, in fact, inspires other people in the story to be better people.

If somebody that awful can still try to be good, that really says something about the potential of the human heart, doesn't it?

The above post was pretty far off-topic regarding the threat, but thank you Loreweaver for bringing up that point: I hadn't thought about it before, but it just makes so much sense!


Finally, more to the point: I'm firmly in the "it's not practical to raise Durkon right now, and keeping him as a vampire until the *immediate* threat to the world from Xykon, at least, is gone, will probably do more good than harm." Other potential threats include Redcloak/the goblin deity, and the Snarl. Because, as mentioned, the vampire form does give him certain advantages. That staff is also pretty nifty, methinks.

It's too bad (for the purposes of resurrecting Durkon, not for how interesting the story is) that clerics rarely take Scribe Scroll as a feat (while Wizards get it as a bonus one at 1st level by default iirc). Then Durkula (or heck, Durkon could've done this in advance) could scribe a scroll of resurrection (worth thousands of gold, of course). If I'm reading http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm right, then instead of a 13th-level cleric (to cast resurrection), all you need to activate it from a scroll is ANY cleric (or other character with Resurrection in their class' spell list) with a Wisdom of 17. Not trivial but much easier, especially if you have a +Wis item to lend to the potential cleric, or can buff them for the duration of the casting time. To improve the chances of passing the caster level check, the cleric's level should be as high as possible, of course. And a mishap might even have the spell go off, just delayed or somehow altered.

Further, I think it's been demonstrated in-comic (I think she got handed/used a wand at some point?) that Haley has ranks in Use Magic Device (sadly, not maxed out, I think?), a smart rogue's best friend. It's a DC 33 check to decipher the scroll, a DC 32 check (or buffs/boosts as above) to emulate Wis 17, and a DC 33 check to activate the scroll itself. These DCs aren't all that hard for a 13th-level rogue, who can have 16 ranks in UMD, as well as potential synergy bonuses of +6 to deciphering and +4 to the others, and Haley should get at least a +1 or +2 from her Charisma (which should be easy to buff for at least 4 points to raise the modifier to +4), for a total of +17 at a minimum (just full ranks +1 from Cha) to +24 (+26 to decipher).

UMD/"must have spell on class' spell list" -fuelled use of wands of Cure Light Wounds by Paladins/Rangers/etc (non-clerics/druids) were ubiquitous at least when I played Pathfinder Society, since it was no guarantee that you'd ever have a full divine caster in your party.

[Jay R]

The purpose of blue text is so people can deduce the meaning of my words without bothering to read and process them. Since I actively want people to read and process my words, blue text works against my interests.

It's a special symbol to clarify what my words are intended to mean. But wait, it turns out words already do that. (http://xkcd.com/1306/)

Besides, sarcasm that you know is coming is like a joke with the punch line explained at the beginning.

Hey - the funny part of this joke is that people are expecting an explanation for wanting to cross the road, instead of the mere fact of wanting to cross it.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: to get to the other side.

[Gnome Alone]

Jay R, thank you for explaining that better and more politely than I ever yet have. Especially spot-on is how telegraphing the intent of a joke is just the worst.

[theNater]

It's a special symbol to clarify what my words are intended to mean. But wait, it turns out words already do that. (http://xkcd.com/1306/)
Words do mean things. For example, sarcasm is a synonym with irony, which is defined as "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning".

Your defense of using of words to indicate things other than what those words actually mean by claiming that words have inherent meaning is making me dizzy. I'm going to have to go lie down for a bit.

[Math_Mage]

The purpose of blue text is so people can deduce the meaning of my words without bothering to read and process them.
No, it isn't. You can use it, or not use it, that way--as you can with language in general. But let's not make that a sweeping generalization about how people in general can use it, hm?

[Lord Raziere]

Throw me in with the anti-blue text people. No other community on the internet uses blue text, and somehow they're capable of telling if someone is being blatantly sarcastic.

yes, BLATANTLY. however other forms of sarcasm are more subtle.

forum communities however are surprisingly similar, your right in that respect. I wonder what anomaly this forum has then? <- Sarcasm

[Ridureyu]

Guys, guys, guys, you are really making this whole thing more complicated than it has to be.

All that they need to restore Durkon are one HEAL and one FENIX DOWN, and those are all pretty cheap in the shops. Now that they have an airship, they can even go all the way back to Figaro and get them at the cheapest price.

[Porthos]

I came to a realization a few days ago why I dislike blue text in most situations (beyond the whole insular/in-joke nature of it).

It's like adding a laugh track to a sitcom to tell everyone something is funny.

Once I made that mental observation, everything that I usually dislike about the meme clicked in my head.

Oh, sure, I've done something similar on occasion with some of my posts when I use this little smilie:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a35/BuckGodot/Icons/icon_sarcasm.gif~original

But, then again, I almost always mock myself for using it. So I figure it's a bit more of a fair game. :smallwink:

But when I really stop to think about it, I think the real reason I dislike the blue text meme is that I REALLY appreciate a fine use of sarcasm. It appeals to my love of dry wit. And when I see that laugh track I mentioned above get added to it, it grates.

Now will I ask people to stop using it? No. I realize the reason why some people do indeed do it (the communication reasons given). I just don't like it, mostly for personal reasons. Which is why I will almost certainly not use it.

Anyway, I've been meaning to get that observation off my chest for a while, and the discussion in this thread was the perfect opportunity to do it. You lucky lucky people. :smalltongue:

[Wardog]

Going off the rails a bit here, but frankly, if Alan Moore didn't want people to like Rorschach, he shouldn't have made him the one character in the story who was actually trying to solve the mystery, he shouldn't have given him a tragic origin, he shouldn't have made his personality so unique and complex, he certainly shouldn't have given him so many cool things to do in prison (killing dudes with his lunch, his shirt, and a toilet, for instance), and he most definitely shouldn't have given him a [SPOILER ALERT] heroic death in the face of impossible odds. One can certainly argue that Rorschach's a messed up guy and we shouldn't adopt his philosophy or way of life, but I get a little sick of the comic book intelligentsia telling me I'm reading it wrong (ironic since most of them think the Author Is Dead) for finding the character compelling.

Agreed. And also, I was never quite convinced that a) nuclear war was inevitable without Ozy's intervention, or that b) Ozy's plan was sure to work (provided none of the witnesses talked).

I sympathise with Rorschach despite him being personally and morally disgusting, because he is the only one fighting evil for the sake of fighting evil (which is inferior to fighting evil for the sake of helping people, but probably better than doing it for fame/fortune/kicks), and because he refused to participate in the coverup of mass-murder. (Which is certainly something thats reasonable to sympathise with opposing, even if the cover-up was in fact necessary).

Besides, given that Ozy is demonstrably (almost) as dangerous as a Lovecraftian horror / rogue Dr Manhatten, Rorschach talking wouldn't necessarly have prevented East and West uniting to fight a common enemy. (The world might end up shifting from a super-Cold War scenario to a more typical comic universe, where the major percieved threat to peace and stability is mad scientists and other super-villains).

[Fnordius]

You know, this is a common theme in most stories, especially the noir ones. The good guy is accused of going soft because he shows mercy. It almost seems to be a requirement for a good character to face this accusation.

Sometimes being good means being soft-hearted, not being so cold as to try to exterminate evil once and for all. Trying to do that is the beginning of a "the forces of good are no better than the demons of hell" storyline in a lot of tales.

[Talya]

Roy is willing to allow an undead bloodsucker to walk around with his team and even offer up sustenance for him simply because the living version was his friend.

The fact that he does this instead of reviving Durkon shows a lapse of judgement on his part as a result of his emotional weakness and can even be considered a betrayal of Durkon himself since as Malack put it, goth Malack and breathing Malack are not one and the same.

I think this is a staggering moment of OOCness from the normally stoic, no-nonsense personality of Roy as he is putting himself and his team at grave risk of severe blood loss and the less severe death associated with it.

Remember Durkon is Lawful Evil now regardless of how helpful he appears to be at this moment.

Thoughts? Is Roy still a good leader or has he become a bit too emotional from the trauma of enduring his best friend's death?


Roy is practical. Durkon is WAY more powerful right now than he would be if he were revived (which would result in an effective nine level loss - 1 for the resurrection, 8 for the template.

As Lawful Evil, Durkon can be every bit as committed to the completion of the Order's goal as he was when Lawful Good, and far more useful an asset.

[Cavenskull]

The purpose of blue text is so people can deduce the meaning of my words without bothering to read and process them. Since I actively want people to read and process my words, blue text works against my interests.

It's a special symbol to clarify what my words are intended to mean. But wait, it turns out words already do that. (http://xkcd.com/1306/)
Then you're going to have to live with the fact that there are people who will mistake your sarcasm as support for whatever point you're trying to argue against. If you're only tossing sarcasm into a post as punctuation for a point you've explicitly spelled out in your post, then it's not a problem, but sarcastic statements that stand alone are often indistinguishable from statements that are intended as-is.


Besides, sarcasm that you know is coming is like a joke with the punch line explained at the beginning.

Hey - the funny part of this joke is that people are expecting an explanation for wanting to cross the road, instead of the mere fact of wanting to cross it.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: to get to the other side.
I don't see that analogy as being particularly applicable. In my experience, most people who have delivered sarcasm in my presence can't help but change something about their delivery that indicates the presence of sarcasm mid-sentence. I'm not just talking about that loopy way of talking that blatant sarcasm tends to have, or words like "totally" that also telegraph the presence of sarcasm. There's often a change of character to mimic the sort of person that's the subject of the sarcasm. I've only seen pure deadpan delivery in cases where the person is known well enough that the sarcasm stands out purely by its content, or in cases where the person is trying to be sarcastic in such a way that everyone gets the sarcasm except the target of the sarcasm.

Personally, I generally avoid doing anything to explicitly mark statements I make on the internet as sarcasm. But I do try to ensure that my real point of view has been made clear, so that my sarcasm doesn't get confused for a genuine opinion contrary to my actual opinion.

Edited to add: Here's a very recent example of sarcasm spotted at the last moment (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16868714&postcount=36) only because of a hidden sarcasm tag. Without it, martianmister's sarcastic post reads exactly like the sort of thing someone else might say with absolute seriousness.

(By the way, I'm not picking on you martianmister! Your post and its subsequent response just happened to be useful for my point.) :smallsmile:

[Scow2]

yes, BLATANTLY. however other forms of sarcasm are more subtle.

forum communities however are surprisingly similar, your right in that respect. I wonder what anomaly this forum has then? <- Sarcasm
I've tried not sarcasm/Insanity-marking on other forums. Two of them got me banned for "Trolling/Flaming" because Poe's Law is a thing. ALL of them had people immediately jump in and try to "Correct" my statements.

Sarcasm is conveyed through tone, body language, and familiarity with the speaker - all of which are lost in an online setting, so you need something else.

A monk is Tier 1 because it can UMD partially-charged wands to do whatever it needs to get done, and its class features allow it to build a Tippy-Optimized wizard.

[Gwynfrid]

Sarcasm is conveyed through tone, body language, and familiarity with the speaker - all of which are lost in an online setting, so you need something else.
I wholly agree with that point.

Now, I'm not prepared to adopt blue text as a way to convey sarcasm, just because it doesn't do the job very well. Blue isn't a sarcastic color, as far as I know. Nor does it have any natural association with irony, laughter, and or lack of seriousness. The convention is by no means universal, and if you are unaware of it, you're going to miss the point completely. So it's up to each poster who wants to use sarcasm how they're going to convey it, through the text, smileys, or in-your-face clues such as [/sarcasm] or something.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Blue isn't a sarcastic color, as far as I know.

This is the core of the problem, really. Unless you have seen it in a signature of a forumnite, and thus are predisposed to understand its meta-meaning, blue is no more sarcastic than green or orange.

And to anticipate the most obvious counter, no, certain colours are not universally associated to emotions. Death is generally black in the Western world, but white in the Eastern. I've seen green used to mean jealousy, greed and horniness (not at the same time). Blue tends to be associated with both depression and freedom. Etc.

I seem to have had a certain amount of success with using grey for academic tones - but I think that's not so much the colour as much as it makes my "voice" seem softer.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

I wholly agree with that point.

Now, I'm not prepared to adopt blue text as a way to convey sarcasm, just because it doesn't do the job very well. Blue isn't a sarcastic color, as far as I know. Nor does it have any natural association with irony, laughter, and or lack of seriousness. The convention is by no means universal, and if you are unaware of it, you're going to miss the point completely. So it's up to each poster who wants to use sarcasm how they're going to convey it, through the text, smileys, or in-your-face clues such as [/sarcasm] or something.

I prefer a deadpan "Note my Sarcasm" at the end. Its blatant enough that anyone who misses it deserves how silly they look, and subtle enough that people have to actually read to understand my point.

[ChristianSt]

I really don't like (blue)-color coding for sarcasm.

Without body language/tone/etc it is pretty hard to transport that a message is meant sarcastic. Adding that there are people who aren't that fluent in the English language (second language for example) makes the problem harder than it already is.

It is very seldom that I use sarcastic posts in forums, because I think it is pretty hard to know if the intend was so or not. And when I do ,I use imo really obvious methods like "[/sarcasm]". While some users might never have seen such a tag, they should at least realize that something is not normal here (and that it should be related to sarcasm).

Using color-coding works only if it would be a hard rule (which it isn't) or if you include it in your signature (which other people still need to spot, but at least the information is there). It also has the problem that when someone uses blue-text for whatever other reason, people might think it is meant to be sarcastic despite the post not being intended as such.

[SiuiS]

Roy is willing to allow an undead bloodsucker to walk around with his team and even offer up sustenance for him simply because the living version was his friend.

Yup!


The fact that he does this instead of reviving Durkon shows a lapse of judgement on his part as a result of his emotional weakness and can even be considered a betrayal of Durkon himself since as Malack put it, goth Malack and breathing Malack are not one and the same.

Faulty premise. Malack is not Durkon. Malack is not all vampires. Malack is not young.


I think this is a staggering moment of OOCness from the normally stoic, no-nonsense personality of Roy as he is putting himself and his team at grave risk of severe blood loss and the less severe death associated with it.

Eh. It's perfectly in character for Roy to stoically solve problems through intelligent application of resources, to commandeer infrastructure, to respect a friend after death despite philosophical differences, and to sacrifice from himself. There is also absolutely no reason to think blood loss and death are anywhere near on the table. You have the cure right there. Even if Durkon isn't Durkon, he's also not Evlulz. You don't kill the people who offer to be your bread and butter forever for free. You invest in them.


Remember Durkon is Lawful Evil now regardless of how helpful he appears to be at this moment.

Evil doesn't mean you don't have friends. There is an article on this by the giant, even.


Thoughts? Is Roy still a good leader or has he become a bit too emotional from the trauma of enduring his best friend's death?

Roy is actually being perfectly in character and responding like a PC.

[137beth]

Derailing a perfectly rational discussion about the pure evilness of Durkon by turning it into an argument about the merits of using blue text as sarcasm is the best thing that ever happened to the internet.

[orrion]

Roy is practical. Durkon is WAY more powerful right now than he would be if he were revived (which would result in an effective nine level loss - 1 for the resurrection, 8 for the template.

As Lawful Evil, Durkon can be every bit as committed to the completion of the Order's goal as he was when Lawful Good, and far more useful an asset.

He's more powerful in some ways, but his potential has been crushed. Durkon will almost certainly not level up to the point where he gains access to 8th and 9th level spells now.

He's also largely lost the ability to be a healbot, and although he's more powerful in melee now that's not exactly the category where the Order was lacking. Also, neither his new conversion ability nor his Slam will be effective against Xykon, though he may be able to wreck Redcloak effectively.

[lunar2]

He's more powerful in some ways, but his potential has been crushed. Durkon will almost certainly not level up to the point where he gains access to 8th and 9th level spells now.

He's also largely lost the ability to be a healbot, and although he's more powerful in melee now that's not exactly the category where the Order was lacking. Also, neither his new conversion ability nor his Slam will be effective against Xykon, though he may be able to wreck Redcloak effectively.

1. potential. if he was resurrected, he might lose access to 7th level spells, which at this point would be even worse than potentially not gaining access to 8th level spells (he wasn't going to get 9ths, anyway. not during the course of the comic, at least. and he wouldn't get 8ths before they reach kraagor's gate)

2. losing the ability to be a healbot isn't much of a loss. if they stop to do a supply run, they can always pick up more potions/a wand or two.

3. you can never have too much melee, especially when your melee has other options, as well.

4. being more of a match for redcloak is definitely what is needed right now. no one else in the party is equipped to handle a high level cleric.

[Kish]

1. potential. if he was resurrected, he might lose access to 7th level spells, which at this point would be even worse than potentially not gaining access to 8th level spells (he wasn't going to get 9ths, anyway. not during the course of the comic, at least.

That is a huge unsupported assumption; there are two books left in the comic's run.


2. losing the ability to be a healbot isn't much of a loss. if they stop to do a supply run, they can always pick up more potions/a wand or two.

I doubt very much that Rich is on board with it not hurting an adventuring cleric's abilities to go from being a positive energy channeler to being a negative energy channeler. Somehow. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/YPgbz2j3PckGjjviJU5.html)

(Third paragraph from the bottom.)


4. being more of a match for redcloak is definitely what is needed right now. no one else in the party is equipped to handle a high level cleric.
While the members of the Order have no way of knowing this, you remember that Redcloak has a ring he took from Tsukiko which will render him immune to negative levels, right?

[orrion]

1. potential. if he was resurrected, he might lose access to 7th level spells, which at this point would be even worse than potentially not gaining access to 8th level spells (he wasn't going to get 9ths, anyway. not during the course of the comic, at least. and he wouldn't get 8ths before they reach kraagor's gate)

Assuming Durkon is 14th level now then no he would not lose access to 7th level spells when resurrected. According to the Cleric table, access to 7th level spells begins at 13. He is currently one level away from 8th level spells, so vamping him effectively stopped that from happening. Malack states that it was very tough to find adequate challenges, and he was 2 levels lower than Durkon.



2. losing the ability to be a healbot isn't much of a loss. if they stop to do a supply run, they can always pick up more potions/a wand or two.

The Order has always been deficient in terms of the scope and amount of items they should have access to at their level. I don't see why that would change now, though they have picked up some wands (probably not healing wands) and would be silly not to take some of Julio's stash of potions.

Durkon's versatility with regard to 1st through 4th level spells has gone way down now because he has to prepare Cure spells and will have less of them. Before he essentially had as many Cure spells as he had 1st through 4th level slots and could prepare whatever he wanted.



3. you can never have too much melee, especially when your melee has other options, as well.

Elan was the only guy on the team that could both melee and do other options. Roy and Belkar are melee or bust.



4. being more of a match for redcloak is definitely what is needed right now. no one else in the party is equipped to handle a high level cleric.

Well, given Kish's note that Redcloak has Tsukiko's ring most of that is gone, though he could still spontaneously Inflict Redcloak a bunch, or blast him depending on new domains. However, the Order doesn't have much healing potential outside of Durkon, so he likely still needs to prioritize healing rather than going toe to toe with Redcloak.

[Snails]

Durkon, V, Elan have no reliable means of putting the hurt on Redcloak. Belkar is likely screwed as well.

Roy and Haley are the Order's best shot against RC, if it falls to the Order to deal with him.

Durkon gained some staying power at the cost of flexibility. Unfortunately the kind of power Durkon gained is probably not going to help a whit against RC or X. It will help against sundry other threats the Order is likely to stumble upon.

It seems that the Order is 15th or 16th level entering the end game. Durkon was lagging a little, and has gained his vampire template in lieu of access to 8th level spells. It is hard to say whether this is a good deal.

[Snails]

If buffed with Righteous Might and/or Divine Might, Durkon is pretty darn effective in melee. However that array will prove useless against Xykon or RC, because they can easily strip all buffs away with a dispel.

[Der_DWSage]

...I'm not so sure about Durkon's new abilities not being so useful against Redcloak. He has a minor penchant for death spells, and I doubt RC has any reason to think that there are Undead in the Order. He might have a 'Screw Undead' spell in reserve for Xykon, but Durkon has a better will save than Xykon, epic levels or no.

Against Xykon though, yeah. Vamp!Durkon is kinda boned. Xykon likes to just hit things with Meteor Swarm until they stop twitching. (Although Vamp!Durkon goading Xykon into hitting him with Energy Drain over and over again could be amusing... 'What is that, a 'death by tickling' spell? I didn't realize we were fighting with cantrips!')

...Never gonna happen, but I can still be amused.

[DeliaP]

...I'm not so sure about Durkon's new abilities not being so useful against Redcloak. He has a minor penchant for death spells, and I doubt RC has any reason to think that there are Undead in the Order. He might have a 'Screw Undead' spell in reserve for Xykon, but Durkon has a better will save than Xykon, epic levels or no.

Against Xykon though, yeah. Vamp!Durkon is kinda boned. Xykon likes to just hit things with Meteor Swarm until they stop twitching. (Although Vamp!Durkon goading Xykon into hitting him with Energy Drain over and over again could be amusing... 'What is that, a 'death by tickling' spell? I didn't realize we were fighting with cantrips!')

...Never gonna happen, but I can still be amused.

Xykon is, occasionally, dumb enough to make this kind of mistake (until Redcloak turns up he's really screwing up against the ghost martyrs, for example...)

[orrion]

Against Xykon though, yeah. Vamp!Durkon is kinda boned. Xykon likes to just hit things with Meteor Swarm until they stop twitching. (Although Vamp!Durkon goading Xykon into hitting him with Energy Drain over and over again could be amusing... 'What is that, a 'death by tickling' spell? I didn't realize we were fighting with cantrips!')

...Never gonna happen, but I can still be amused.

Funny as that would be, I tend to think Xykon knows the basics about his own template and his tied-for-favorite spell.

Far as the Order planning goes, I'd think Roy is smart enough not to rely on the enemy making a dumb mistake like that.

[oppyu]

Xykon is, occasionally, dumb enough to make this kind of mistake (until Redcloak turns up he's really screwing up against the ghost martyrs, for example...)
True, but the ghost martyrs were a weird, rare thing he'd never encountered before. I'm fairly certain at some point he's discovered that negative energy heals the undead. Especially since he is the undead.

EDIT: Ninjas.

[DeliaP]

Funny as that would be, I tend to think Xykon knows the basics about his own template.


True, but the ghost martyrs were a weird, rare thing he'd never encountered before. I'm fairly certain at some point he's discovered that negative energy heals the undead. Especially since he is the undead.

Well, ok, sure, when you put it like that....

[Snails]

It depends how obvious vampirism is.

There were reasons the lizgreaper's nature was overlooked (by most readers).

[Keltest]

It depends how obvious vampirism is.

There were reasons the lizgreaper's nature was overlooked (by most readers).

Dwarves do not normally have red eyes or fangs, while albino lizardfolk would.

[DeliaP]

Dwarves do not normally have red eyes or fangs, while albino lizardfolk would.

Red eyes, yes. In retrospect, Malack's fangs are so obviously more pronounced than Ganji's teeth, that I praise the Giant's misdirecting us....

[Keltest]

Red eyes, yes. In retrospect, Malack's fangs are so obviously more pronounced than Ganji's teeth, that I praise the Giant's misdirecting us....

Malack also lacks legs (I think, its really hard to tell).

[Domino Quartz]

Malack also lacks legs (I think, its really hard to tell).

He definitely lacks legs - you can see that while he's killing Durkon.

[Snails]

The legs that weren't there was completely awesome. It was just a crazy little detail to freak us out, when we were already totally freaked, and the Giant played it so nicely.