Updating the arguments from #939

[johnbragg]

Belkar was arguing (assuming) that Durkula, as a vampire, was a valid target. Roy rejected that assumption.

There was much forum argument back and forth that Belkar was not entirely wrong--that Roy (and Haley and Elan) were being foolishly trusting of an undead abomination with a congenital lust for blood.

In #944, Roy says "...our cleric is in the shop." It's not much, but it's a data point that Roy does not trust Durkula the way he trusted Durkon.

[Keltest]

Belkar was arguing (assuming) that Durkula, as a vampire, was a valid target. Roy rejected that assumption.

There was much forum argument back and forth that Belkar was not entirely wrong--that Roy (and Haley and Elan) were being foolishly trusting of an undead abomination with a congenital lust for blood.

In #944, Roy says "...our cleric is in the shop." It's not much, but it's a data point that Roy does not trust Durkula the way he trusted Durkon.

Im relatively certain that all it means is Roy doesn't know what to think. As he just finished saying, stuff like that is a bit over his head.

[Loreweaver15]

Im relatively certain that all it means is Roy doesn't know what to think. As he just finished saying, stuff like that is a bit over his head.

Which...means he doesn't trust Durkula the way he trusted Durkon, i.e. implicitly.

While I don't think he should just stake Durkula and be done with it--he should wait and see what happens, at least--it does mean that he has his doubts, and is not in the kind of denial some people were positing.

[Keltest]

Which...means he doesn't trust Durkula the way he trusted Durkon, i.e. implicitly.

While I don't think he should just stake Durkula and be done with it--he should wait and see what happens, at least--it does mean that he has his doubts, and is not in the kind of denial some people were positing.

Shush you. Ill be contrary without being contrary if I want to!

[Vinsfeld]

I think Roy is just playing "safe"[1] for now. As they don't know any cleric capable of raising Durkon. I'm curious to see what will happen when they DO find a cleric that can do that. What will be Roy's action? And how will Durkula react?


[1] Kinda ironic to say "playing safe" with an undead blood-lusting monster.

[Kristinn]

I'm pretty sure that as long as they are still racing Xykon for the last gate, and the vampire collaborates, Roy will use the tactical asset without complaining. But should they find themselves in the situation of having a Resurrection available, I'm also pretty sure that the Vampire will find itself fighting the whole Order of the Stick.

I can imagine how that will go. The Order turns on the vampire, and Roy says something like "It's time for the real Durkon to come back". Then we will see in one panel zoomed in on the vampire, its face showing confusion, and then the next panel it will show anger and determination. A Cleric 14 vampire is no easy fight. Damage reduction 10 means Haley will literally not be able to hurt it (can't Sneak Attack undead), and cripple all the melee. Besides, with at will Dominate, Belkar (and maybe Haley, Elan and Roy too) will go from asset to liability as fast as in 874 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html). Pretty much the only one that has a chance the Order has is Vaarsurvius. If he earns one more level before the fight he will have level 9 spells at his disposal, which honestly seems like the only fighting chance of the Order.

But if they do manage to destroy the vampire and Resurrect Durkon I would be really happy, I miss the Dwarf. It would be very characteristic for the Oracle to use such a misleading play on words to describe Durkon's future (returning to the Dwarven lands postmortem would here just mean that he was dead for a while, hence returns "after death").

[veti]

I can imagine how that will go. The Order turns on the vampire, and Roy says something like "It's time for the real Durkon to come back". Then we will see in one panel zoomed in on the vampire, its face showing confusion, and then the next panel it will show anger and determination. A Cleric 14 vampire is no easy fight. Damage reduction 10 means Haley will literally not be able to hurt it (can't Sneak Attack undead), and cripple all the melee. Besides, with at will Dominate, Belkar (and maybe Haley, Elan and Roy too) will go from asset to liability as fast as in 874 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html).

The 'Dominate' thing is overstated. Vampiric dominate requires "looking into the victim's eyes". When you're taken unawares (as in 874), that's not hard to arrange, but when you're forewarned it's another matter. And if V doesn't keep at least one spell slot filled with "Magic Circle against Evil" from now on (optionally, 'Quickened', if she can afford it), she's not the wizard I think she is.

Haley has a magic bow, and she's known (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0062.html) to carry silver arrows. So she can cut right through the DR. And Roy's sword has some sort of specifically anti-undead enchantment, which surely means it'll also do quite well. Elan can sing, Belkar can - well, let's face it, he'll quite possibly be dead by then anyway...

[oppyu]

Hopefully, any plan to resurrect Durkon will involve Roy and Vaarsuvius brainstorming the best possible spells to neutralise a violent mid-to-high level vampire cleric the night before. For additional points, tell not-Durkon that he'll need a lot of healing spells tomorrow.

[Bird]

For additional points, tell not-Durkon that he'll need a lot of healing spells tomorrow.Not sure I follow why. He can always convert healing spells to inflicts.

[oppyu]

Not sure I follow why. He can always convert healing spells to inflicts.
I didn't know that. Point is, they should take every step possible to both compromise his ability to defend himself or escape and maximise their ability to inflict damage without reducing him to a form they can't take to a cleric for Resurrection. No hasty ambushes on the vampire cleric with class levels.

EDIT: Yes, that does seem like a pointless thing to suggest now that I'm typing it out.

[SavageWombat]

Not sure I follow why. He can always convert healing spells to inflicts.

Because inflicts only do damage, and clerics have a lot more potent spell options in their repertoire. (Sp?)

[Bird]

Because inflicts only do damage, and clerics have a lot more potent spell options in their repertoire. (Sp?)
Yes, that's true. He can use inflicts to heal himself, also, but it's bad news for Durkula if he has to start burning actions on self-repair.

If the plan involves feeding him lies, better have Haley chug a potion of glibness, because with his high wisdom and +8 racial modifier, Durkula has a nice sense motive. (Not as good as Haley's natural bluff, most likely, but still -- not a risk you want to run.)

[Loreweaver15]

Yeah, seeing as clerics get way more useful spells than heals or inflicts, forcing him to give those up for the (relatively) useless spontaneous conversions is a good move.

[thereaper]

I'm pretty sure that as long as they are still racing Xykon for the last gate, and the vampire collaborates, Roy will use the tactical asset without complaining. But should they find themselves in the situation of having a Resurrection available, I'm also pretty sure that the Vampire will find itself fighting the whole Order of the Stick.

I can imagine how that will go. The Order turns on the vampire, and Roy says something like "It's time for the real Durkon to come back". Then we will see in one panel zoomed in on the vampire, its face showing confusion, and then the next panel it will show anger and determination. A Cleric 14 vampire is no easy fight. Damage reduction 10 means Haley will literally not be able to hurt it (can't Sneak Attack undead), and cripple all the melee. Besides, with at will Dominate, Belkar (and maybe Haley, Elan and Roy too) will go from asset to liability as fast as in 874 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html). Pretty much the only one that has a chance the Order has is Vaarsurvius. If he earns one more level before the fight he will have level 9 spells at his disposal, which honestly seems like the only fighting chance of the Order.

But if they do manage to destroy the vampire and Resurrect Durkon I would be really happy, I miss the Dwarf. It would be very characteristic for the Oracle to use such a misleading play on words to describe Durkon's future (returning to the Dwarven lands postmortem would here just mean that he was dead for a while, hence returns "after death").

This would be considered an evil act.

If Vampire Durkon is Durkon, then murdering Vampire Durkon is evil.

If Vampire Durkon is not Durkon, then he is a different creature, and murdering one sentient creature to bring back another is also evil.

[Kristinn]

This would be considered an evil act.

If Vampire Durkon is Durkon, then murdering Vampire Durkon is evil.

If Vampire Durkon is not Durkon, then he is a different creature, and murdering one sentient creature to bring back another is also evil.

Actually, as undead creature, even intelligent undead, such as Liches and Vampires, are not alive, it is not an evil act to destroy them. I know Rich likes to play around with traditional moral values and rules of DnD, with sympathetic goblins et cetera, but undead are a whole other matter. They are not living beings. They are constructed and driven by negative energy. The fact that this Vampire has inherited some of Durkon's personality and memories doesn't change the fact that it is a vampire, an evil being, and the only way to bring back the Lawful Good Durkon is to destroy it.

And of course there is the obligatory nod to the irony of Belkar being the only character that is fully grasping the situation.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

So far, Durkon has done nothing to warrant destruction from others. While he may be a vampire, until he has actually committed an act of evil, there is no reason to destroy him.

[Fafnir13]

The reason for destroying him is resurrecting Durkon. And he's a vampire. You know, a creature literally composed of evil?
This is not a goblin raised in a violent culture who could turn over a new leaf. This is a corpse animated by a warping disease. You don't wait for a rabid dog to bight someone before putting it down. If Durkon's really in there, he would volenteer for destruction and resurrection as soon as possible.
But he won't. He can't. It's not really Durkon and even Roy knows it.

[Finn Solomon]

So far, Durkon has done nothing to warrant destruction from others. While he may be a vampire, until he has actually committed an act of evil, there is no reason to destroy him.

Bringing the real Durkon back is the perfect reason to destroy this vampire.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

How do we know this isn't the real Durkon? He looks like Durkon to me. I don't think Durkon would volunteer for being put down, since he has no way of knowing when he would get resurrected and he knows that the Order is significantly weakened without him.

[Keltest]

How do we know this isn't the real Durkon? He looks like Durkon to me. I don't think Durkon would volunteer for being put down, since he has no way of knowing when he would get resurrected and he knows that the Order is significantly weakened without him.

well, presumably they would be smart enough to stake him until they have a cleric on hand. As mentioned by Roy, hes not hurting them right now, and vampire durkon is still more helpful than pile-o'-meat durkon.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Right. That's why Durkon won't volunteer to be killed and resurrected right now; there is no one to resurrect him.

[Ridureyu]

Bringing the real Durkon back is the perfect reason to destroy this vampire.

That kind of defense does not hold up in court.

Uh... just trust me on this one.

[Amphiox]

Belkar was arguing (assuming) that Durkula, as a vampire, was a valid target. Roy rejected that assumption.

There was much forum argument back and forth that Belkar was not entirely wrong--that Roy (and Haley and Elan) were being foolishly trusting of an undead abomination with a congenital lust for blood.

In #944, Roy says "...our cleric is in the shop." It's not much, but it's a data point that Roy does not trust Durkula the way he trusted Durkon.

Not trusting Durkula the way he trusted Durkon is sensible. But that doesn't mean in any way that Belkar was right about *attacking* and trying to kill Durkula at that moment.

Also, the context of the "cleric is in the shop" statement is with respect to giving moral advice to V over familicide. It's a far leap to go from saying "yeah, the vampire Durkon has become probably isn't a good place to go for advice about redeeming yourself after committing genocide" to "hur hur let's kill the undead abomination against nature".

[johnbragg]

Not trusting Durkula the way he trusted Durkon is sensible. But that doesn't mean in any way that Belkar was right about *attacking* and trying to kill Durkula at that moment.

Oh, I agree. Belkar's impulse to attack Durkula was completely tactically unsound, and morally debatable.


Also, the context of the "cleric is in the shop" statement is with respect to giving moral advice to V over familicide. It's a far leap to go from saying "yeah, the vampire Durkon has become probably isn't a good place to go for advice about redeeming yourself after committing genocide" to "hur hur let's kill the undead abomination against nature".

I believe that the "Belkar has a point" side of the argument wasn't saying "Belkar is completely right" so much as "The Order is showing zero visible suspicion of Durkula." With Roy's comment, zero becomes non-zero.

[Loreweaver15]

I believe that the "Belkar has a point" side of the argument wasn't saying "Belkar is completely right" so much as "The Order is showing zero visible suspicion of Durkula." With Roy's comment, zero becomes non-zero.

This, yeah. I was also mostly using it as a foundation for the argument that Belkar is developing empathy--he's now capable of caring about what Durkon would want, and whether he's right or not, he's arguing to kill Durkula as soon as possible because he believes that it's what Durkon would want.

[orrion]

That kind of defense does not hold up in court.

Uh... just trust me on this one.

Ok, now you have to cite me a real case about a vampire.

[oppyu]

Ok, now you have to cite me a real case about a vampire.
I'll settle for a real case about resurrecting a corpse by destroying any sentient undead, because I'm generous like that.

[thereaper]

Actually, as undead creature, even intelligent undead, such as Liches and Vampires, are not alive, it is not an evil act to destroy them. I know Rich likes to play around with traditional moral values and rules of DnD, with sympathetic goblins et cetera, but undead are a whole other matter. They are not living beings. They are constructed and driven by negative energy. The fact that this Vampire has inherited some of Durkon's personality and memories doesn't change the fact that it is a vampire, an evil being, and the only way to bring back the Lawful Good Durkon is to destroy it.

And of course there is the obligatory nod to the irony of Belkar being the only character that is fully grasping the situation.

Irrelevant. Being evil is not grounds for execution (we had an entire character (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html) built around deconstructing this idea, remember?). It doesn't matter that vampires are undead creatures that are inherently evil. It doesn't matter that killing him can facillitate the resurrection of a Good person. It doesn't matter that the undead are twisted mockeries of the people they were in life. They are sentient beings, and therefore have a right to exist unless they do something specifically to justify execution, just like any other sentient creature. Good, Evil, Neutral, living, undead, construct, it doesn't matter as far as the alignment system is concerned.

Killing Vampire Durkon without him having actually done anything wrong is Evil, pure and simple. And Evil is Evil, regardless of what Good might come out of it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html).

[Emanick]

This would be considered an evil act.

If Vampire Durkon is Durkon, then murdering Vampire Durkon is evil.

If Vampire Durkon is not Durkon, then he is a different creature, and murdering one sentient creature to bring back another is also evil.

Barring the fact that the living Durkon would almost certainly have preferred to be killed and brought back to life again as soon as possible, I'm deeply skeptical that you can consider killing Undead Durkon and immediately resurrecting him as morally equivalent to murder. Besides the fact that doing so, the Order would be ending their friend's status as an unholy mockery of everything he was in life, I'm pretty sure we'd all view murder as a much less serious crime if it was customary for the killer to immediately resurrect hir victim.

To be clear, I'm not stating outright that the Order would be 100% justified in killing (and then resurrecting) Count Cleric without provocation, although I do lean that way - that's a harder case to make. What I am saying is that doing so, even if wrong, can't seriously be equated to murder without significant absurdity.

[SlashDash]

A Cleric 14 vampire is no easy fight.

Considering they will only bother to do so when they have a chance to resurrect him, meaning an even higher level cleric with them- I fail to see how that will be an issue.

Also there's plenty of ways to kill him if they wanted to (Laurin and Nale did a fine job, plus they could take a note from the Black Dragon as well)

But the thing that bothers me even more is Red Cloak. Isn't it possible that he could command Durkon now? Like he did with Tsukiko's wights?
Sure, Durkon is higher level, but RedCloak is even higher than him, isn't he?

[Domino Quartz]

But the thing that bothers me even more is Red Cloak. Isn't it possible that he could command Durkon now? Like he did with Tsukiko's wights?
Sure, Durkon is higher level, but RedCloak is even higher than him, isn't he?

According to the D&D experts on this board, no, Redcloak's not at a high enough level.

[ReaderAt2046]

Considering they will only bother to do so when they have a chance to resurrect him, meaning an even higher level cleric with them- I fail to see how that will be an issue.

Also there's plenty of ways to kill him if they wanted to (Laurin and Nale did a fine job, plus they could take a note from the Black Dragon as well)

But the thing that bothers me even more is Red Cloak. Isn't it possible that he could command Durkon now? Like he did with Tsukiko's wights?
Sure, Durkon is higher level, but RedCloak is even higher than him, isn't he?

Redcloak would have to be twice Dukon's level to Command him. Rebuking him might work, but not Commanding.

[factotum]

Redcloak would have to be twice Dukon's level to Command him. Rebuking him might work, but not Commanding.

I'm not sure even Rebuke would work, considering vampires get +4 turn resistance. Plus, Durkon can use the same trick Malack did and use his own cleric powers to Bolster himself, making it even more difficult for Redcloak to turn him in any way.

[Keltest]

I'm not sure even Rebuke would work, considering vampires get +4 turn resistance. Plus, Durkon can use the same trick Malack did and use his own cleric powers to Bolster himself, making it even more difficult for Redcloak to turn him in any way.

Even if he isn't getting turned, Redcloak would be occupying the party cleric, which is never a good thing when fighting dangerous undead. Or dangerous anything-that-can-hurt-you.

[thereaper]

Barring the fact that the living Durkon would almost certainly have preferred to be killed and brought back to life again as soon as possible, I'm deeply skeptical that you can consider killing Undead Durkon and immediately resurrecting him as morally equivalent to murder. Besides the fact that doing so, the Order would be ending their friend's status as an unholy mockery of everything he was in life, I'm pretty sure we'd all view murder as a much less serious crime if it was customary for the killer to immediately resurrect hir victim.

To be clear, I'm not stating outright that the Order would be 100% justified in killing (and then resurrecting) Count Cleric without provocation, although I do lean that way - that's a harder case to make. What I am saying is that doing so, even if wrong, can't seriously be equated to murder without significant absurdity.

If Vampire Durkon is Durkon, and doesn't want to be resurrected, then it's certainly evil to kill him just because his past self would have wanted it.

If Vampire Durkon is not Durkon, then Durkon's wishes are also irrelevant, because Vampire Durkon is a seperate person who has just as much right to live as anyone else, and killing him to resurrect Durkon would be evil.

Also, let's not get into morally-justified territory. We're talking specifically about D&D alignments here. And in the D&D alignment of Good, you don't get to kill sentient creatures unless they have specifically done something to deserve it. Being created from the corpse of another person doesn't qualify.

[hamishspence]

And in the D&D alignment of Good, you don't get to kill sentient creatures unless they have specifically done something to deserve it. Being created from the corpse of another person doesn't qualify.

Using BoED at least, yes.

[Xelbiuj]

If it's not Durkon and just another sentient being, what entitles it to Durkon's corpse?

*self scrubbed*

Vampire Durkon doesn't have the right to Durkon's corpse.

If it is* Durkon, they're not really killing him. More of a minor inconvenience.

I see no moral issues here.

[Greatmoustache]

yeah, well... i don't know if the order will find a resurrection-casting-levelth level cleric (or at least one willing to do so) but i think, IF they find one and gank the vamp, durkon will reject the ressurection. he will be too ashamed of what he had become, even if he had become "it" unwillingly. but you know dwarves are, the stubbornnes, honor and stuff... and then maybe someone somehow will convince him to suck it up, get out of that bench, and start batting (hammerin') again.

here's me 2 cents.

edit: meh nvm, my theories never come true anyways. i don't even call some of them theories. just random guesses.

[Keltest]

yeah, well... i don't know if the order will find a resurrection-casting-levelth level cleric (or at least one willing to do so) but i think, IF they find one and gank the vamp, durkon will reject the ressurection. he will be too ashamed of what he had become, even if he had become "it" unwillingly. but you know dwarves are, the stubbornnes, honor and stuff... and then maybe someone somehow will convince him to suck it up, get out of that bench, and start batting (hammerin') again.

here's me 2 cents.

See my sig for Durkon's views on duty. And he's stated that he is still with the order because the gate quest isn't over yet.

[Greatmoustache]

well maybe they'll find the said cleric after this craziness about this business with "the gates" that i've been hearing so much about. huh? HUH?

anyway, see my edit note in the previous post, and by all means, carry on. :smallsmile:

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Durkon would not be minorly inconvenienced by death, nor would be prefer such an outcome. Currently, killing Durkon would leave them with no cleric until they find someone willing to resurrect him. Durkon is more useful to the party alive than dead, at least until they find a cleric.

[Keltest]

Durkon would not be minorly inconvenienced by death, nor would be prefer such an outcome. Currently, killing Durkon would leave them with no cleric until they find someone willing to resurrect him. Durkon is more useful to the party alive than dead, at least until they find a cleric.

Do we need to add a disclaimer to our sigs that whenever we say "the order will kill and resurrect Durkon" or some variation of it, that they will refrain from doing so until they have a cleric on hand?

not only is this not the first time ive said this in this thread, its not the first time ive said it to you!

there really needs to be an exasperated smily.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Do we need to add a disclaimer to our sigs that whenever we say "the order will kill and resurrect Durkon" or some variation of it, that they will refrain from doing so until they have a cleric on hand?
Actually, I'm saying that Durkon would refuse to be killed unless he knew he would have a certain chance of being resurrected afterwards. Of course, even then, Durkon might decide that he likes the advantages being a vampire might give him, evil alignment or not, and choose to not be resurrected. Until he is faced with that choice, he will not ask to be killed.

[Keltest]

Actually, I'm saying that Durkon would refuse to be killed unless he knew he would have a certain chance of being resurrected afterwards. Of course, even then, Durkon might decide that he likes the advantages being a vampire might give him, evil alignment or not, and choose to not be resurrected. Until he is faced with that choice, he will not ask to be killed.

Yes, durkon is probably also smart enough to realize that hes not helpful while dead as well.

And being a vampire makes him a lot more vulnerable than anybody would like, new powers aside.

[oppyu]

Waiting may not necessarily be the best plan. not-Durkon's a smart cookie with a very high WIS score, he has to know that the Order is at least considering a plan that involves pointy sticks and diamond dust. So if not-Durkon gets suspicious, he may fight it out with the Order or even worse, just bail and head back to the EoB to go through Malack's stuff and learn Protection From Daylight.

[factotum]

And being a vampire makes him a lot more vulnerable than anybody would like, new powers aside.

I'm not seeing this...the disadvantages a vampire has are not really that bad, apart from the whole "can't go out in sunlight" thing; and if the final showdown takes place in the Dwarven caverns, as many suspect, that won't be a big issue anyway.

[Keltest]

I'm not seeing this...the disadvantages a vampire has are not really that bad, apart from the whole "can't go out in sunlight" thing; and if the final showdown takes place in the Dwarven caverns, as many suspect, that won't be a big issue anyway.

well, Redcloak can Rebuke him, for example. Suddenly his utility is massively decreased, as he either needs to prepare heal spells or not use them at all. and (correct me if im wrong) but I believe theres a limit to how much more powerful he can get as a vampire.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

As a Vampire, Durkon can be rebuked by Redcloak. However, he can bolster himself, and he gains +4 turn resistance, so he might not be able to be rebuked by Redcloak.

Being a Vampire does give Durkon better ability scores, some good Special Attacks and Special Qualities, and it improves his AC, so it gives him a major advantage. However, a LA of +8 means he won't be leveling up any time soon

[Loreweaver15]

Basically, he just got a fair bit more powerful, but he won't be getting any more powerful for a very, very long time.

[Snails]

If Vampire Durkon is Durkon, and doesn't want to be resurrected, then it's certainly evil to kill him just because his past self would have wanted it.

If Vampire Durkon is Durkon, and doesn't want to be resurrected, then Roy's obligation to stop this ongoing magical rape of Durkon's LG soul is all the greater.

I am not arguing against Roy's choices. But I do believe that, based on standard D&D rules, Belkar's point has merit. But his sense of timing sucks, of course.

[thereaper]

Until literally this strip, we had no reason to believe that anything was happening to Durkon's soul, so that is irrelevant.

In the Good alignment, sentient beings have a right to exist unless they do something to deserve death. Being born a living mockery of someone else does not qualify, because it's not something they did.

Of course, now that we know that Vampire Durkon is indeed enslaving Durkon's soul, things are different for him. But the original point that a sentient being has a right to exist so long as it hasn't committed an act deserving of death still stands.

[Snails]

Until literally this strip, we had no reason to believe that anything was happening to Durkon's soul, so that is irrelevant.

In the Good alignment, sentient beings have a right to exist unless they do something to deserve death. Being born a living mockery of someone else does not qualify, because it's not something they did.

The question of where Durkon's soul was and what was happening to it was raised a number of times. Some people preferred to not think about, or carefully consider its implications.

I based my opinion on vampirism in the OotSverse sticking closely to the standard D&D models, and came to the right conclusion. The "reason to believe" was right in front of all of us.

(Of course, some people did have interesting narrative reasoning why the Giant might choose a non-standard variant of vampirism. That reasoning made a good degree of sense, but that is not the same thing as evidence either.)


Of course, now that we know that Vampire Durkon is indeed enslaving Durkon's soul, things are different for him. But the original point that a sentient being has a right to exist so long as it hasn't committed an act deserving of death still stands.

It only stands with respect to creatures whose moral status is strongly determined by its overt actions, like the humanoid races (and perhaps dragons). It was always apparent that vampires might fall far outside that realm. The standard D&D rules hinted extremely loudly that would be the case here.

[factotum]

well, Redcloak can Rebuke him, for example.

As I already pointed out, +4 turn resistance means Redcloak would struggle to do that anyway, and Durkon can bolster himself to make it even less likely it would work. Don't forget that he's a level 15 (or thereabouts) cleric as well as being a vampire--he's not some 4HD wight who can be easily steamrollered!

[thereaper]

The question of where Durkon's soul was and what was happening to it was raised a number of times. Some people preferred to not think about, or carefully consider its implications.

I based my opinion on vampirism in the OotSverse sticking closely to the standard D&D models, and came to the right conclusion. The "reason to believe" was right in front of all of us.

(Of course, some people did have interesting narrative reasoning why the Giant might choose a non-standard variant of vampirism. That reasoning made a good degree of sense, but that is not the same thing as evidence either.)



It only stands with respect to creatures whose moral status is strongly determined by its overt actions, like the humanoid races (and perhaps dragons). It was always apparent that vampires might fall far outside that realm. The standard D&D rules hinted extremely loudly that would be the case here.

There are no standard D&D rules on whether or not an undead creature is the creature it was in life, or what happens to the soul if it is not. They're all over the place. Some sources invoke an "evil spirit", while others just say the person becomes evil.

[Kristinn]

This thread is somewhat amusing to me, with people referring to the vampire as Durkon, who not only died, but died in a very dramatic manner, not trivialized in the slightest by the Giant. This is not Dumbledore in a portrait bypassing death, Durkon was gone the moment his eyes turned to X's.

Regarding the sentient creatures have the right of life: this simply isn't true. Beings of pure evil, being literally constructed and fuelled by negative energy (the essence of evil in DnD) cannot by definition be anything else than evil. They have no choice. In effect, their sentience is limited by the fact that they will always act evil. When a being cannot act in another way than evil, it is irrelevant whether those acts have been committed or not. Again, remember these are characters in a role-playing game defined as being irreversibly evil, to the point of being made up of evil energy, not a free race (Human/elf/goblin etc.).

Also, referring to the Miko arc as to say being evil doesn't deprive you of your right to life doesn't make sense. She would have been right in executing Belkar. He had committed multiple homicides, including the very guards that were keeping the murderous psychopath from killing more people. Don't get me wrong, I like our little shoeless god of war. But Miko wouldn't have fallen for killing Belkar, she would have gotten a medal probably. She fell because she killed Shojo, who is not evil.

Besides, the whole thing is irrelevant, as it involves only free races. Belkar has the capacity to become good, or at least a bit compassionate, a path I believe he is going down. To iterate one more time, undead, even if sentient, are evil and nothing but evil by the very definition of DnD rules.

[hamishspence]

Regarding the sentient creatures have the right of life: this simply isn't true. Beings of pure evil, being literally constructed and fuelled by negative energy (the essence of evil in DnD) cannot by definition be anything else than evil. They have no choice.

Actually, this is incorrect in a number of ways.

First - the Negative Energy plane is Neutral - not Evil - and Inflict X Wounds spells (negative energy) have no alignment.

Second- undead and fiends have some degree of choice about whether to be evil or not. The (Evil) tag mentions that a fiend can change alignment (but will still detect as evil) - the Always X Alignment description in Monster Manual says that it's possible for such creatures to change alignment, and Ghosts (undead) are stated as being of any alignment.

[Finn Solomon]

How do we know this isn't the real Durkon? He looks like Durkon to me. I don't think Durkon would volunteer for being put down, since he has no way of knowing when he would get resurrected and he knows that the Order is significantly weakened without him.

Caaaaaaaallllllled it.

[Keltest]

As I already pointed out, +4 turn resistance means Redcloak would struggle to do that anyway, and Durkon can bolster himself to make it even less likely it would work. Don't forget that he's a level 15 (or thereabouts) cleric as well as being a vampire--he's not some 4HD wight who can be easily steamrollered!

If he's bolstering himself, he isn't doing anything else. If he's actively rebuked, theyre even more borked.

[Xelbiuj]

Until literally this strip, we had no reason to believe that anything was happening to Durkon's soul, so that is irrelevant.

In the Good alignment, sentient beings have a right to exist unless they do something to deserve death. Being born a living mockery of someone else does not qualify, because it's not something they did.

Of course, now that we know that Vampire Durkon is indeed enslaving Durkon's soul, things are different for him. But the original point that a sentient being has a right to exist so long as it hasn't committed an act deserving of death still stands.

I don't think anyone was ever disputing the idea that sentient beings have the right to exist.

Like an other real life moral debate about a beings right to exist and the body of another being, we're arguing precedent. Does the vampire's right to exist take precedent over Durkon's "right" to his own corpse, in a world with raise dead, I'd say no flippin way. Yes, the vampire still has the right to exist but it doesn't* get to use another person's body, whether it's to give it form or for drinking their blood, very little difference.

"You don't have to go home but you can't stay here."

[factotum]

If he's bolstering himself, he isn't doing anything else. If he's actively rebuked, theyre even more borked.

That works both ways--if Durkon is doing nothing but Bolstering himself then Redcloak is doing nothing but Rebuking, and forcing an opposing high-level cleric to waste his action on a Rebuke rather than any of the numerous horrible things he could *actually* be doing (see: Implosion) seems like a win-win to me.

[Keltest]

That works both ways--if Durkon is doing nothing but Bolstering himself then Redcloak is doing nothing but Rebuking, and forcing an opposing high-level cleric to waste his action on a Rebuke rather than any of the numerous horrible things he could *actually* be doing (see: Implosion) seems like a win-win to me.

It depends on how much each side relies on their clerics. Xykon is a credible threat by himself, but without Durkon the order is in a bit of trouble.

[Snails]

There are no standard D&D rules on whether or not an undead creature is the creature it was in life, or what happens to the soul if it is not. They're all over the place. Some sources invoke an "evil spirit", while others just say the person becomes evil.

Yes but.

It was apparent that Durkon's soul was not available for true resurrection or similar means of revival. Why? The most plausible answers suggested some form of entrapment (although we could never know for sure without an explicit ruling by the DM/author).

As for "evil spirit" versus "becomes evil", either strongly supports Belkar's point of view.

[Snails]

Second- undead and fiends have some degree of choice about whether to be evil or not. The (Evil) tag mentions that a fiend can change alignment (but will still detect as evil) - the Always X Alignment description in Monster Manual says that it's possible for such creatures to change alignment, and Ghosts (undead) are stated as being of any alignment.

It is true that a creature born in the moral equivalent of the bottom of a 1000' pit with a shovel in hand and inclination to use the shovel has the theoretical possibility of climbing into the light. So...?

When it comes to demons/devils, I do not think any caution in applying action is required by heroes.

When it comes to orcs or dragons, a degree of caution is advised.

The question was whether a vampire seems closer to a devil or an orc. The fact that a vampire can take a Good soul (and/or corpse) and make it "always evil" was a very strong hint we were much closer to devil here.

[hamishspence]

When it comes to demons/devils, I do not think any caution in applying action is required by heroes.

Some settings have Risen Fiends be more common than in other settings.

In Planescape, K'rand Vahlix is a general of the Risen Fiends who have fled to the various Upper Planes, organizing them into the Celestial Hosts.

In Ravenloft, Jander Sunstar was a nonevil elven vampire.

[Snails]

Some settings have Risen Fiends be more common than in other settings.

True. But I think it is a fair assumption that fantastic oddball examples of personal moral growth still hold the responsibility for "wearing the right jersey". Being a devil cleric wearing the robes and holy symbol of a Good god might still get you viewed with suspicion, but you are unlikely to be smited on sight by those who are not brain dead.

[Doug Lampert]

It depends on how much each side relies on their clerics. Xykon is a credible threat by himself, but without Durkon the order is in a bit of trouble.

Bolster lasts 10 rounds, why again would Durkula be doing nothing but bolstering?

[hamishspence]

True. But I think it is a fair assumption that fantastic oddball examples of personal moral growth still hold the responsibility for "wearing the right jersey". Being a devil cleric wearing the robes and holy symbol of a Good god might still get you viewed with suspicion, but you are unlikely to be smited on sight by those who are not brain dead.

Or those who believe that "killing a fiend is always a Good act" trumps "killing a creature without Just Cause is Murder".

But yes - redeemed villains can make life a bit easier for themselves that way.

[Snaaake]

Yes but.

It was apparent that Durkon's soul was not available for true resurrection or similar means of revival. Why? The most plausible answers suggested some form of entrapment (although we could never know for sure without an explicit ruling by the DM/author).
...

It's not a question of there being some extra form of magic that's trapped Durkon's soul. It's a rules technicality from the spell descriptions of the 3(4) spells that can be used to bring back the dead, by which I mean return the soul to it's living body (or if you're using option #4, Reincarnate, to a new one). Raise dead can't raise a "creature who has been turned into an undead creature or [that has] killed by a death effect", whereas Resurrection can "resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed." As far as I know, and the OotS knows, the only characters we've seen/know of capable of either Resurrection or True Resurrection are Durkon/Durkula himself, and Redcloak. Raise dead would be easier to do, since they still have a whole body and everything, but explicitly doesn't work if the corpse has been an undead creature meanwhile.

True Resurrection allows raising elementals and outsiders and removes the need to have even some remains of the deceased (which Resurrection requires). Reincarnate, a Druid spell is the 4th option, which is pretty much a cheaper and more easily available (lower level than Raise Dead, even) but more strictly time-limited Resurrection. And most importantly, it has Raise Dead's restrictions on who can be raised in the first place.

[Keltest]

Bolster lasts 10 rounds, why again would Durkula be doing nothing but bolstering?

I dunno. Redcloak was channeling Bolster Undead when Durkon was trying to turn them way back in DCF.

[factotum]

I dunno. Redcloak was channeling Bolster Undead when Durkon was trying to turn them way back in DCF.

Because he hadn't had a chance to use it ahead of time, so had to use it reactively to Durkon's turn attempt. (Remember, they were trying to trick the Order, Redcloak was presumably hoping to avoid a fight). Same applies to Malack, who was surprised by Durkon in the middle of his Belkar meal.

In any case, I think your discounting of the rest of the Order is a bit disingenuous. Sure, no one of them is a match for Xykon (or even Redcloak), but they manage to keep succeeding despite the odds (and their own incompetence) largely through teamwork. In addition, Durkon's main contribution to all their fights seems to be pre-buffing and post-healing, neither of which are likely to be an issue in the first round of the fight!

[RickDaily12]

If Vampire Durkon is Durkon, and doesn't want to be resurrected, then it's certainly evil to kill him just because his past self would have wanted it.

If Vampire Durkon is not Durkon, then Durkon's wishes are also irrelevant, because Vampire Durkon is a seperate person who has just as much right to live as anyone else, and killing him to resurrect Durkon would be evil.

I'm sorry, but no. Your premises just don't work.

IF (and this is a BIG if) I'm willing to grant you that the sentient being inside Durkon's body has a mind of its own that needs to be respected, then I preserve your first claim.

Even if I grant you this, (right now, I'm not) your second claim fails utterly to see the entirety of the situation. It sees the first half of the problem. What it doesn't remark is, a friend who by no means wanted their remains to be used to leech off of the living, in fact, against their will even, is forced to face this fate anyway by means of vamprism. You killing the vampric form frees your friend from a fate they never desired. Freeing a friend from a fate they deemed horrible is undoubtedly a Good act. From there, the resurrection of a friend fallen to such a fate can also be argued as Good, but that's not an argument I'm willing to make.

Durkon clearly never wanted to be a vampire in the first place. Durkon wants to be freed from this fate he deems horrible. If this must be accomplished by killing the being responsible for holding him hostage, then the act is just. QED.

[Snails]

It's not a question of there being some extra form of magic that's trapped Durkon's soul. It's a rules technicality from the spell descriptions of the 3(4) spells that can be used to bring back the dead, ...

Everything is just a technicality. Unless it isn't. Within the realm of those things that are not spelled out in black and white within the rules text, we have to make educated guesses.

I do not really have a problem with the suggestion that Raise Dead or Reincarnation have "limitations" that are technicalities or (perhaps) flavor. But True Ressurection is a "Wish-level" spell intended to fix exactly these kinds of problems.

If it is "just a technicality", I would expect a Wish or Miracle would be a possible means of getting around the issue. But when True Resurrection cannot help, it is implied that Wish and Miracle cannot either. That suggests the problem is outright unsolvable for a concrete reason.

The most logical reason would be the soul is "trapped" in some fashion. Do you have a plausible alternative explanation?

[thereaper]

I don't think anyone was ever disputing the idea that sentient beings have the right to exist.

Like an other real life moral debate about a beings right to exist and the body of another being, we're arguing precedent. Does the vampire's right to exist take precedent over Durkon's "right" to his own corpse, in a world with raise dead, I'd say no flippin way. Yes, the vampire still has the right to exist but it doesn't* get to use another person's body, whether it's to give it form or for drinking their blood, very little difference.

"You don't have to go home but you can't stay here."

The one that has the right to the body is the one that is currently alive, obviously.

Murdering someone for the purpose of giving someone else the body that they were forced to inhabit through no choice of their own is an evil act, regards of the alignments of the people involved.

(Of course, if a vampire is choosing to keep a person's soul trapped, that changes things; you can kill them for the crime of trapping a person's soul, and then once they're gone resurrect the original person. But that's irrelevant to the original topic)

Now, if one of the creatures has willingly stolen the body of another, then that's different. But a vampire (or, better yet, a sentient flesh golem) doesn't choose to be created from another person's body, and is therefore innocent of that particular crime. The body from that point on is as much theirs as it used to be the dead person's. Any claim the dead person could make on it the vampire can claim as well (in the end, the only meaningful claim that can be made by either of them is "I was born into it, through no choice of my own", and that applies to both of them), and the vampire has the additional advantages that the deceased already had a life (so, given that both have an equal right to life, and the deceased already had one, fairness would dictate it to be the vampire's turn now), and that the vampire is currently using it (meaning that to take it away requires an act of murder, which is clearly not Good).

If a villain cuts off the arm of the hero's best friend and grafts it onto a child (burning the child's original arm to ash), is it Good for the hero to cut it off of the child and re-attach it to his friend?

No, of course not; he would be irrevocably punishing an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit just to benefit someone else. It's very clearly evil.

Why must the situation be different when the child is replaced by a vampire? Both of them are innocent of the original crime (again, the vampire didn't choose to be born in another person's body, any more than the child chooses to have another person's arm attached to themselves).

If it is evil to mutiliate the child for the sole purpose of healing the hero's friend, then it is also evil to kill the vampire for the sole purpose of resurrecting Durkon.

[orrion]

It's not a question of there being some extra form of magic that's trapped Durkon's soul. It's a rules technicality from the spell descriptions of the 3(4) spells that can be used to bring back the dead, by which I mean return the soul to it's living body (or if you're using option #4, Reincarnate, to a new one). Raise dead can't raise a "creature who has been turned into an undead creature or [that has] killed by a death effect", whereas Resurrection can "resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed." As far as I know, and the OotS knows, the only characters we've seen/know of capable of either Resurrection or True Resurrection are Durkon/Durkula himself, and Redcloak. Raise dead would be easier to do, since they still have a whole body and everything, but explicitly doesn't work if the corpse has been an undead creature meanwhile.

True Resurrection allows raising elementals and outsiders and removes the need to have even some remains of the deceased (which Resurrection requires). Reincarnate, a Druid spell is the 4th option, which is pretty much a cheaper and more easily available (lower level than Raise Dead, even) but more strictly time-limited Resurrection. And most importantly, it has Raise Dead's restrictions on who can be raised in the first place.

There are other beings that are capable of Resurrection. The Oracle tells the lizardfolk who Raise him to be ready for a Resurrection the next time they visit. The Cleric of Loki says he has a scroll of Resurrection even though it's above his caster level. That means someone else made the scroll and can cast the spell.

Now, whether the Order runs into anyone capable of it is another question. Heck, before that question there's at least 2 other more important questions: "Will they realize Durkon is trapped?" and "Can they destroy the High Priest of Hel if they do?"


The one that has the right to the body is the one that is currently alive, obviously.

Murdering someone for the purpose of giving someone else the body that they were forced to inhabit through no choice of their own is an evil act, regards of the alignments of the people involved.

(Of course, if a vampire is choosing to keep a person's soul trapped, that changes things; you can kill them for the crime of trapping a person's soul, and then once they're gone resurrect the original person. But that's irrelevant to the original topic)

Now, if one of the creatures has willingly stolen the body of another, then that's different. But a vampire (or, better yet, a sentient flesh golem) doesn't choose to be created from another person's body, and is therefore innocent of that particular crime. The body from that point on is as much theirs as it used to be the dead person's. Any claim the dead person could make on it the vampire can claim as well (in the end, the only meaningful claim that can be made by either of them is "I was born into it, through no choice of my own", and that applies to both of them), and the vampire has the additional advantages that the deceased already had a life (so, given that both have an equal right to life, and the deceased already had one, fairness would dictate it to be the vampire's turn now), and that the vampire is currently using it (meaning that to take it away requires an act of murder, which is clearly not Good).

If a villain cuts off the arm of the hero's best friend and grafts it onto a child (burning the child's original arm to ash), is it Good for the hero to cut it off of the child and re-attach it to his friend?

No, of course not; he would be irrevocably punishing an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit just to benefit someone else. It's very clearly evil.

Why must the situation be different when the child is replaced by a vampire? Both of them are innocent of the original crime (again, the vampire didn't choose to be born in another person's body, any more than the child chooses to have another person's arm attached to themselves).

If it is evil to mutiliate the child for the sole purpose of healing the hero's friend, then it is also evil to kill the vampire for the sole purpose of resurrecting Durkon.

Meh. From the knowledge that this vampire is a dark spirit it can be extrapolated - though not proven at this point - that all vampires are dark spirits. Even though such a dark spirit might be innocent of the original crime, it is hardly innocent overall.

[Snails]

Now, if one of the creatures has willingly stolen the body of another, then that's different. But a vampire (or, better yet, a sentient flesh golem) doesn't choose to be created from another person's body, and is therefore innocent of that particular crime.

It all depends on what you consider is Square One.

You start from the normal rules of everyday morality, where observable actions are the primary definition of "innocence" or not. Then you (apparently) assume that the vampire description indicating "always evil" is a silly detail that can be downplayed or ignored.

I start from the actual description of an SRD vampire. For a creature to appear from the body/soul of a Good person to be "always evil" is not some minor point, but an immensely important one. Therefore the usual assumptions about moral mechanics are questionable. This new being is not innocent (the rules have informed us), and for all we know the spirit that inhabits the body would not be there without willfully embracing evil action upon the previous owner. It is entirely possible that the vampire does choose to be created from another person's body, and that choice is unambiguously evil.

Either viewpoint is workable. Only one can plausibly be true in a given campaign. The question, as I mentioned in a previous post, is whether you accept that a vampire is likely (or unlikely) to be sufficiently fantastic that its moral status is more similar to a Devil than an Orc.

[thereaper]

According to the rules of the Good alignment, you don't get to kill a sentient creature just because it's evil. There has to be some specific crime that you are punishing him or her for. From Miko to familicide, the comic has gone out of its way to drive this point home.

[orrion]

According to the rules of the Good alignment, you don't get to kill a sentient creature just because it's evil. There has to be some specific crime that you are punishing him or her for. From Miko to familicide, the comic has gone out of its way to drive this point home.

Except that there's evidence that all the vampires are coming from the Lower Planes. Spirits don't get damned to the Lower Planes because they did good things.

[Loreweaver15]

Except that there's evidence that all the vampires are coming from the Lower Planes. Spirits don't get damned to the Lower Planes because they did good things.

We have evidence that one vampire came from the lower planes, and a bunch of baseless and slightly contraindicated conjecture that the rest of them do too.

[factotum]

Except that there's evidence that all the vampires are coming from the Lower Planes. Spirits don't get damned to the Lower Planes because they did good things.

The spirit which currently controls Durkon's body was "birthed in Hel's hall", not on the Lower Planes. (The gods in Stickverse appear to live somewhere different from the demons/devils, even the evil ones).

[Keltest]

The spirit which currently controls Durkon's body was "birthed in Hel's hall", not on the Lower Planes. (The gods in Stickverse appear to live somewhere different from the demons/devils, even the evil ones).

in D&D a deity will make a home in a given plane. It may or may not encompass the entire plain, but there is no non-planar location for the gods to live. If Hel rules her entire plane, then its still a Lower Plane in the sense that it is a plane with a generally evil alignment, even if is not specifically one of the ones we are familiar with.

[orrion]

We have evidence that one vampire came from the lower planes, and a bunch of baseless and slightly contraindicated conjecture that the rest of them do too.

There's no proof the other way either, which means that at this point either one is equally likely. Point being that if it's true then there's no reason not to kill vampires.

Even if it isn't true there's no reason not to kill THIS vampire, but I grant you the Order doesn't know that at this point

[Loreweaver15]

There's no proof the other way either, which means that at this point either one is equally likely. Point being that if it's true then there's no reason not to kill vampires.

Even if it isn't true there's no reason not to kill THIS vampire, but I grant you the Order doesn't know that at this point

Oh, I freely admit that there's no proof that Durkula is an exception, either, only the implications of Malack's expectations; since that's been interpreted both ways by forumites, we can't list that as evidence in either direction, really. I read it as Durkula being the exception; others read it as Durkula being the norm; my position is that we don't know for sure yet, and that I am somewhat confused by all the people assuming that Durkula is the norm from all the sketchy evidence.

[Porthos]

and that I am somewhat confused by all the people assuming that Durkula is the norm from all the sketchy evidence.

Direct on-screen evidence usually trumps past inferred evidence when it comes to intital impressions.

Well, that and recent-ism. :smallsmile:

[oppyu]

We have one explicit depiction of vampirism and souls, and no evidence that says it's any different for other vampires. Similarly, we have one explicit depiction of what happens when not-Durkon tries to spontaneously cast healing spells, and my default assumption is that that is what will happen if not-Durkon tries to do so again. Do I have any proof that the Cure spell turning into an Inflict spell was not an anomaly and that not-Durkon retains his spontaneous healing ability? No, but I have no reason to assume otherwise.

[Loreweaver15]

We have one explicit depiction of vampirism and souls, and no evidence that says it's any different for other vampires. Similarly, we have one explicit depiction of what happens when not-Durkon tries to spontaneously cast healing spells, and my default assumption is that that is what will happen if not-Durkon tries to do so again. Do I have any proof that the Cure spell turning into an Inflict spell was not an anomaly and that not-Durkon retains his spontaneous healing ability? No, but I have no reason to assume otherwise.

Partially incorrect; we have one explicit description, and one character (Malack) who appears to have expected something different.

[oppyu]

Partially incorrect; we have one explicit description, and one character (Malack) who appears to have expected something different.
Could you explain the Malack thing? I thought Malack expected pretty much exactly what happened.

[Loreweaver15]

Could you explain the Malack thing? I thought Malack expected pretty much exactly what happened.

Malack appeared to expect, not some foreign entity in a corpsey Durkon suit, but Durkon himself, with a fresh perspective from having the sudden hunger for the blood of others and negative energy coursing through his body; what this implies is that Malack as we knew him was the same entity as living Malack but warped by centuries of vampirism, and his 'destroying the person I am today' line referenced removing what he regarded as his current, vampire-based perspective rather than actually annihilating some foreign spirit.

[RickDaily12]

According to the rules of the Good alignment, you don't get to kill a sentient creature just because it's evil. There has to be some specific crime that you are punishing him or her for. From Miko to familicide, the comic has gone out of its way to drive this point home.

I've already said this before, and it'd be nice if you address it this time: I do not think you are seeing the entire picture.

As far as killing people are concerned, it is NOT cut and dry Evil. The act in and of itself is, but intent always matters. As far as the Evil cases of killing someone, you already have a few really good examples:

1. This is one I've included to lead into the next: Any action a member of the Sapphire Guard has taken that was so strongly Evil that led their falling. This includes, but does not limit itself to, the Genocide of the goblin village. Paladins left and right fell; they thought the mass murder of evil creatures, all for the falling of the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle was necessary to protect the greater good. They were wrong. Why? Because almost all of the goblins were innocent and posed zero threats to anyone else at that time. This was an obviously evil action.

2. A lot of what Miko was relates to a radical way of thinking about Good- that all it is is Good purging all Evil for the sake of doing so. While surely detecting Evil and then murdering them shortly after is Evil, clearly what was more Evil was killing her liege. It didn't matter that she believed that he was evil/was protecting evil. What did matter was that she had nothing but her ideas, and by killing an incredible Good force on such an idea, she did far more harm and had to be punished for it. She needed more than an idea. She needed proof that Shojo was a threat, and she failed utterly at establishing that at all.

3. Vaarsuvius, of course, and her Familicide trick. This goes without saying, but for the sake of focus, this was horribly evil for two reasons: One, she killed countless innocent Black Dragons who posed no clear threat to her or her family at that time. Two, she later defended this act in a revelation with Blackwing that no real harm, in her mind, could ever be done, because Black Dragons are pure evil. Which is mass murder based on belief and pure racism. I need not say more.


I don't, however, appreciate that you keep defining the Good Alignment based on the absence of its negatives. Murder in and of itself is not a Good act. This does not translate to "Murder in and of itself is always Evil". Almost every single Good DND PC, and this is also true for OOTS, has their hands stained with Murder, and most of them have good reasons as to why. Likewise, you can be Good in other ways.

1. The Astral Deva herself applauded Roy for sticking to his quest to destroy Xykon. Meanwhile, she NEVER goes after Roy for killing [insert character name here] for the exact same reason: it is GOOD to fight Evil, sometimes to kill Evil when presented with no other alternatives, when you do so to protect someone, or to thwart evil plans that directly threaten sapient life.

2. Likewise, because she did it to protect her family from that obvious threat, V killing the ABD in and of itself was not evil. The line was crossed purely from what happened shortly afterwards.

3. Again, the Astral Deva applauds Roy for rescuing Elan from a bad fate not once, but twice. She does, however, threaten him for ever having left Elan to a bad fate even once. There is a clear distinction between what is Good and what is Evil when a friend is held hostage, based on her words to Roy at that time.


Now, after all those long winded distinctions, we can talk about where you keep falling short:


Killing someone based purely on what they believe (Evil) is evil. Killing someone at all is not evil all the time. For example, killing to stop harmful actions or for the protection of others is Good.

However, abandonment of a friend to an unknown fate is Evil. Likewise, rescuing a friend from a horrible fate is Good.

So, explain to me, then, how killing Vampire Durkon has anything to do with him being Evil, rather than trying to save Living Durkon at all. Also, explain how the "evilness" of that death could at all negate the goodness of his rescue. Because unless you can prove that killing a sentient being is wrong all of the time regardless of the circumstances, I point to you that saving someone from a horrible fate is always good. Yes, even if it means killing a hostage taker.

Just ask Celia.

[thereaper]

I have never argued that killing is always wrong. Indeed, killing evil creatures for their crimes is depicted as Good.

Until 946, we had no reason to believe that Durkon was suffering. Speculation to that effect is no excuse for killing someone (though it could easily be grounds for investigating his vampiric condition further, but that's outside the scope of this discussion).

Again, now that we know that Vampire Durkon is holding Durkon's soul prisoner, killing him would absolutely be Good. But that's irrelevant to the original debate, because we've been discussing this from a pre-946 perspective (wherein there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Vampire Durkon other than being born into a specific body with no choice in the matter).

The only question, therefore, was whether or not it would be Good to kill Vampire Durkon despite him having committed no crimes anyone was aware of for the purpose of resurrecting Living Durkon. And in the absence of any specific crime, it would absolutely be Evil to kill Vampire Durkon, even if doing so would allow Durkon's resurrection. It doesn't matter if we like it or not, or if it makes sense to us or not. That's just how the Good alignment rolls.

[137beth]

I have never argued that killing is always wrong. Indeed, killing evil creatures for their crimes is depicted as Good.

Until 946, we had no reason to believe that Durkon was suffering. Speculation to that effect is no excuse for killing someone (though it could easily be grounds for investigating his vampiric condition further, but that's outside the scope of this discussion).

Again, now that we know that Vampire Durkon is holding Durkon's soul prisoner, killing him would absolutely be Good. But that's irrelevant to the original debate, because we've been discussing this from a pre-946 perspective (wherein there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Vampire Durkon other than being born into a specific body with no choice in the matter).

The only question, therefore, was whether or not it would be Good to kill Vampire Durkon despite him having committed no crimes anyone was aware of for the purpose of resurrecting Living Durkon. And in the absence of any specific crime, it would absolutely be Evil to kill Vampire Durkon, even if doing so would allow Durkon's resurrection. It doesn't matter if we like it or not, or if it makes sense to us or not. That's just how the Good alignment rolls.
Furthermore, we know not to trust High Priest of Hel. Roy, Haley, Elan, and Belkar don't.
Now, it is possible (though not certain) that all OOTS vampires work like this. In that case, anyone with enough ranks in Knowledge (religion) would know. Which doesn't include Roy, Elan, Haley, or Belkar.

Belkar's desire to attack High Priest of Hel right now are no different than V killing Kabuto. V didn't even know who Kabuto was, or what he had done, but killed him 'cause he looked bad. Now, if Elan had killed rather than capture Kabuto, that would have been completely different: Elan knew full well that Kabuto had organized the troll attacks, tried to get Lien and himself killed, and killed Therkla. But V didn't, so it was still an evil act when V killed him.
This is no different. Belkar doesn't actually have any reason to attack High Priest of Hel, he just wants to stab someone. Based only on what BELKAR knows, he is entirely wrong. Belkar doesn't get to read the cutaway panels.

[Loreweaver15]

Furthermore, we know not to trust High Priest of Hel. Roy, Haley, Elan, and Belkar don't.
Now, it is possible (though not certain) that all OOTS vampires work like this. In that case, anyone with enough ranks in Knowledge (religion) would know. Which doesn't include Roy, Elan, Haley, or Belkar.

Belkar's desire to attack High Priest of Hel right now are no different than V killing Kabuto. V didn't even know who Kabuto was, or what he had done, but killed him 'cause he looked bad. Now, if Elan had killed rather than capture Kabuto, that would have been completely different: Elan knew full well that Kabuto had organized the troll attacks, tried to get Lien and himself killed, and killed Therkla. But V didn't, so it was still an evil act when V killed him.
This is no different. Belkar doesn't actually have any reason to attack High Priest of Hel, he just wants to stab someone. Based only on what BELKAR knows, he is entirely wrong. Belkar doesn't get to read the cutaway panels.

I'd argue that this is actually Belkar's character development really showing; he's finally capable of caring about what Durkon would want, and wants to kill Durkula because he thinks it is what Durkon would want. Whether he's right or wrong is irrelevant.

[Domino Quartz]

Belkar's desire to attack High Priest of Hel right now are no different than V killing Kabuto.

V killed a pokémon?? :smalleek:

[RickDaily12]

I have never argued that killing is always wrong. Indeed, killing evil creatures for their crimes is depicted as Good.

While I am glad you address this bit more clearly, it's still the lesser of the two points I'm getting at. I'm aware that you distinguish "killing while a person is shown doing a harmful act" and "killing because a person is pure evil". That's partly the reason I keep coming back to this distinction. If Vampire Durkon is killed, it was not because reason 2. Reason 2 is Evil, therefore Not Reason 2 is "possibly not evil".

But I'm trying to move off this topic for a bit, to bring back in THIS point:


The only question, therefore, was whether or not it would be Good to kill Vampire Durkon despite him having committed no crimes anyone was aware of for the purpose of resurrecting Living Durkon. And in the absence of any specific crime, it would absolutely be Evil to kill Vampire Durkon, even if doing so would allow Durkon's resurrection. It doesn't matter if we like it or not, or if it makes sense to us or not. That's just how the Good alignment rolls.

Bolded for emphasis. This is where I think you're focusing too much. No, that is not "just" how the Good alignment works. The problem could also be that it just doesn't have much to say...


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Your argument takes a focus not on life, though, but a focus on the undead. I concede not every vampire necessarily is evil or will only be capable of bad. Where I want to draw your attention though, is the third line, about "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Now turn your attention back to the mere existence of the undead, or more specifically, intelligent undead. They are sentient, but their mere existence is a mockery of who they were in life.

So, let's say I have this friend, who I knew for only a day. In this day, I find out that if he were ever to die, he'd rather live again the way he is. He considers the thought of ever being undead horrifying. Then he dies right in front of me. I reach out to raise him, because he'd want me to... But too late. He's already a Wight and speaking before me again.

Now, I know this discussion happened before 946, and Reaper, I think that hardly matters for anything. Because you already cited that in the event that Durkon and his vampire form are two seperate entities (which turns out to be the case) then killing Vampire Durkon because A, he's Evil, or B, to raise Living Durkon disrespects the sentient undead form of him. Except you also forget that ONLY in the event that the two are seperate entities is when I have to concern myself with the dignity of, frankly, a brand new person before me in my friend's body. A person who, in this world, prevents the living form of my friend from existing before me at this time. In this sense, Undead Person X holds Living Person X's soul hostage from his body.

Back to my hypothetical friend. I'd kill the Wight, not because it did anything, not because it was Evil, but because I have reason to believe (in the DND world) that undead are not the same as their living counterparts and that the undead soul stands directly in the way of the living one from being allowed to return. And this living soul told me point blank what he'd rather have happen to him should he ever have died. That soul didn't magically stop being sentient upon dying either.

Therefore, I have just as much responsibility to my living friend's wishes as I do to the undead's, at BEST, based on your argument and just how the DND world operates. At worst... I have that the undead soul restricts the freedom of the living one. In which case, to uphold Good, I'd almost say I'm obligated to free the living soul by slaughtering the undead one.


You agree that killing is not always evil based on the reasoning behind it. Killing Vampire Durkon just because he's evil would be bad, but that's not what's happening. Vampire Durkon dies so that Living Durkon can be raised, or at the very least, can stop being in agony. That counts as freeing a person in my books, and by THIS viewpoint, I'd be horrified by any DM who says "You have to change your alignment to Neutral now because you killed the vampire possessing your friend's body in order to raise him". You can make those kinds of sacrifices for a dead person and still be good. Yes, you can be Good, especially in the DND world, to spare a dead soul's agony if it's at the expense of someone who wrongs them, even if only by existing in their body. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

[thereaper]

While I am glad you address this bit more clearly, it's still the lesser of the two points I'm getting at. I'm aware that you distinguish "killing while a person is shown doing a harmful act" and "killing because a person is pure evil". That's partly the reason I keep coming back to this distinction. If Vampire Durkon is killed, it was not because reason 2. Reason 2 is Evil, therefore Not Reason 2 is "possibly not evil".

But I'm trying to move off this topic for a bit, to bring back in THIS point:



Bolded for emphasis. This is where I think you're focusing too much. No, that is not "just" how the Good alignment works. The problem could also be that it just doesn't have much to say...



Your argument takes a focus not on life, though, but a focus on the undead. I concede not every vampire necessarily is evil or will only be capable of bad. Where I want to draw your attention though, is the third line, about "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Now turn your attention back to the mere existence of the undead, or more specifically, intelligent undead. They are sentient, but their mere existence is a mockery of who they were in life.

So, let's say I have this friend, who I knew for only a day. In this day, I find out that if he were ever to die, he'd rather live again the way he is. He considers the thought of ever being undead horrifying. Then he dies right in front of me. I reach out to raise him, because he'd want me to... But too late. He's already a Wight and speaking before me again.

Now, I know this discussion happened before 946, and Reaper, I think that hardly matters for anything. Because you already cited that in the event that Durkon and his vampire form are two seperate entities (which turns out to be the case) then killing Vampire Durkon because A, he's Evil, or B, to raise Living Durkon disrespects the sentient undead form of him. Except you also forget that ONLY in the event that the two are seperate entities is when I have to concern myself with the dignity of, frankly, a brand new person before me in my friend's body. A person who, in this world, prevents the living form of my friend from existing before me at this time. In this sense, Undead Person X holds Living Person X's soul hostage from his body.

Back to my hypothetical friend. I'd kill the Wight, not because it did anything, not because it was Evil, but because I have reason to believe (in the DND world) that undead are not the same as their living counterparts and that the undead soul stands directly in the way of the living one from being allowed to return. And this living soul told me point blank what he'd rather have happen to him should he ever have died. That soul didn't magically stop being sentient upon dying either.

Therefore, I have just as much responsibility to my living friend's wishes as I do to the undead's, at BEST, based on your argument and just how the DND world operates. At worst... I have that the undead soul restricts the freedom of the living one. In which case, to uphold Good, I'd almost say I'm obligated to free the living soul by slaughtering the undead one.


You agree that killing is not always evil based on the reasoning behind it. Killing Vampire Durkon just because he's evil would be bad, but that's not what's happening. Vampire Durkon dies so that Living Durkon can be raised, or at the very least, can stop being in agony. That counts as freeing a person in my books, and by THIS viewpoint, I'd be horrified by any DM who says "You have to change your alignment to Neutral now because you killed the vampire possessing your friend's body in order to raise him". You can make those kinds of sacrifices for a dead person and still be good. Yes, you can be Good, especially in the DND world, to spare a dead soul's agony if it's at the expense of someone who wrongs them, even if only by existing in their body. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

If the friend wants you to kill someone else as his dying wish, do you do it? It's the exact same thing.

Your hypothetical wight hasn't done anything wrong. Killing him because it's what your friend would have wanted is no different from killing a child because it's what your friend would have wanted. An innocent person's right to live is infinitely more important than someone's dying wishes. Heck, it's even more important than someone's desire to be resurrected. That's why you don't get to murder someone, raise them, and then pretend it's all good (since you brought them right back and all).

Remember, the wight has as much claim to the body as your friend did (technically more, since your friend already had a life). Strictly speaking, the moment the wight is born, it's no longer your friend's body; it's the wight's body. It became his the same way it became your friend's; by being born into it. There's no hostage situation there.

Killing one innocent person for the benefit of another is pretty much what the Evil alignment boils down to.

The wight has just as much right to live as your friend, and to make the decision that one innocent life is more important than another is evil. But to kill one innocent person for the sake of another requires you to make that choice. In order to kill the wight, you have to think "This person has done nothing wrong and has every right to live. But I want my dead friend to live more, so I'm going to murder (he's done nothing wrong, so it's definitely murder) this person to bring him back". It's killing a child so that a grandparent can come back.

And that, my friend, is evil.

[RickDaily12]

Then we can agree to disagree.

You say we can't perform murder because an undead creature is innocent, therefore it's evil.

I say not evil because the undead soul holds the living soul in the same situation as a soul bind until it dies. And it's probably intelligent enough to know it's doing this.

From there, our interpretations go completely opposite ways. I respectfully disagree. Well met though. :P

[theNater]

I'd argue that this is actually Belkar's character development really showing; he's finally capable of caring about what Durkon would want, and wants to kill Durkula because he thinks it is what Durkon would want.
I don't think there's sufficient evidence in the comic to support this. It's just as plausible that Belkar wants to kill Durkula because of the injury Durkula did to Belkar, and is trying to come up with reasons for Roy to let him.

That said, there's no evidence to refute your argument, either. We'll have to wait until the next book to really find out what's going on in Belkar's head.

[137beth]

I say not evil because the undead soul holds the living soul in the same situation as a soul bind until it dies. And it's probably intelligent enough to know it's doing this.


But Belkar doesn't know that. Even if it is the case for all vampires in the OOTS-verse (which might not be true), Belkar doesn't know that.

[Rakoa]

But Belkar doesn't know that. Even if it is the case for all vampires in the OOTS-verse (which might not be true), Belkar doesn't know that.

No, Belkar doesn't know that. He does know that whatever it is, though, is a mockery of everything that Durkon stood for.

[thereaper]

Then we can agree to disagree.

You say we can't perform murder because an undead creature is innocent, therefore it's evil.

I say not evil because the undead soul holds the living soul in the same situation as a soul bind until it dies. And it's probably intelligent enough to know it's doing this.

From there, our interpretations go completely opposite ways. I respectfully disagree. Well met though. :P

Well, yeah, we know that now. That little detail changes the whole situation, because now the undead has committed a crime justifying execution (after which point there's no reason not to resurrect the original creature).

But this isn't about what we know now, it's about what we knew pre-946. And before 946, we had no reason to believe that Vampire Durkon was trapping Durkon's soul. Any speculation to that effect would not justify killing him "just in case", just like how it's not Good to kill a guy who happens to walk down the street with blood on his shirt "just in case" (of course, both scenarios could easily justify an investigation to find out if the person has done something wrong, but that's beside the point).

[Snails]

According to the rules of the Good alignment, you don't get to kill a sentient creature just because it's evil. There has to be some specific crime that you are punishing him or her for. From Miko to familicide, the comic has gone out of its way to drive this point home.

An evil creature that is preventing a soul from its earned reward can be killed for that reason, thus it would not be an evil act.

[RickDaily12]

:smallsigh:

Let me be crystal clear.

First off- the Soul Bind was a figure of speech. Living Durkon cannot be raised until Vampire Durkon dies. Vampire Durkon knows this. Vampire Durkon knows this because he is sentient and an intelligent undead. This is a fact.

Now, as for you crying the Pre-946: How does the discussion I've given in the hypothetical (which just so happens to be true now) that IF Vampire Durkon and Living Durkon turn out to be separate, that killing Vampire Durkon with the intention of raising Durkon would not be evil, suddenly become irrelevant?

It doesn't. Nor can you just suddenly negate that half of the discussion just because it turns out to be true.

To humor the "if or if not Durkon" discussion prior to 946, I will say it now: IF Living Durkon and Vampire Durkon are the same entity, then killing him for the sake of raising him would be evil. Period. Why? Because Living Durkon has already given his thoughts on that matter.

But, IF Vampire Durkon and Living Durkon are separate entities, then:


You say we can't perform murder because an undead creature is innocent, therefore it's evil.

I say not evil because the undead soul holds the living soul in the same situation as a soul bind until it dies. And it's probably intelligent enough to know it's doing this.
That, and IF they are separate, then Vampire Durkon would knowingly go against Living Durkon's wishes by continuing to exist within his body stopping the resurrection, and would thusly be driving Durkon's Soul into agony. It would not exist in ignorance to this fact, and thus the murder of Vampire Durkon for this virtue, claiming it as still being evil is questionable at best. Outright false at worst.

Belkar would still need to discover this fact first, but it does not negate the validity of my claims. They still stand before the posting of 946- it just turns out that my desired instance of proving Vamp Durkon's staking as an easy Good act an easier case to make.

[Snails]

I would not go so far as to claim staking vampires is generally a Good act.

My interpretation of the Giant's point is that there exist corner cases where a vampire should just be left alone. EX: If it is hiding away and avoiding harming innocents, and perhaps it chose its condition as some dark blessing from its god. (Malack offered a very thin veneer of an excuse that he was only feasting on condemned criminals, but Durkon knew via Roy that such is a hogwash argument. Therefore hunting down Malack would be a Good act.)

I have always held that it can be presumed acceptable to stake Vampire!Durkon, because the Order actually knows a far bit about the nature of Durkon's soul and could accurately guess his opinion.

[RickDaily12]

I would not go so far as to claim staking vampires is generally a Good act.

Neither would I. Hence why I did not say all vampires.

Mind you, this is because I am not entirely certain that every vampire does not retain its original soul. I could see some compelling reasons to believe so, but none of them are quite sound. Until we know for sure that every vampire seizes control of the corpse putting the living soul at its mercy, what should happen for every vampire will remain ambiguous.

As far as Durkon, though? What should happen there is quite clear.


I have always held that it can be presumed acceptable to stake Vampire!Durkon, because the Order actually knows a far bit about the nature of Durkon's soul and could accurately guess his opinion.

Again, I concur, and then some.

[thereaper]

:smallsigh:

Let me be crystal clear.

First off- the Soul Bind was a figure of speech. Living Durkon cannot be raised until Vampire Durkon dies. Vampire Durkon knows this. Vampire Durkon knows this because he is sentient and an intelligent undead. This is a fact.

Now, as for you crying the Pre-946: How does the discussion I've given in the hypothetical (which just so happens to be true now) that IF Vampire Durkon and Living Durkon turn out to be separate, that killing Vampire Durkon with the intention of raising Durkon would not be evil, suddenly become irrelevant?

It doesn't. Nor can you just suddenly negate that half of the discussion just because it turns out to be true.

To humor the "if or if not Durkon" discussion prior to 946, I will say it now: IF Living Durkon and Vampire Durkon are the same entity, then killing him for the sake of raising him would be evil. Period. Why? Because Living Durkon has already given his thoughts on that matter.

But, IF Vampire Durkon and Living Durkon are separate entities, then:


That, and IF they are separate, then Vampire Durkon would knowingly go against Living Durkon's wishes by continuing to exist within his body stopping the resurrection, and would thusly be driving Durkon's Soul into agony. It would not exist in ignorance to this fact, and thus the murder of Vampire Durkon for this virtue, claiming it as still being evil is questionable at best. Outright false at worst.

Belkar would still need to discover this fact first, but it does not negate the validity of my claims. They still stand before the posting of 946- it just turns out that my desired instance of proving Vamp Durkon's staking as an easy Good act an easier case to make.

You're assuming that an innocent dead person's right to be resurrected trumps an innocent living person's right to continue living, and that is simply not the case. A vampire is under no moral obligation to commit suicide to allow the return of someone who is getting the afterlife they deserve. The dead person already had a life. Now it's the vampire's turn. His life is worth just as much as the dead person's was. The only difference is that killing an innocent person is evil, whereas letting a dead person remain dead is not.

[laylowmoe]

I think it's very likely that the Order will be lulled into a false sense of security vis-a-vis Darkon for a good long while (except probably Belkar).

Which isn't to say they'll be stupid about it; none of them are that dumb enough to not know what to expect from a vampire in the team (except perhaps Elan). But I do expect Darkon to be very, very good at pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. He'll probably start by persuading them that he really is Durkon, he's happier being undead than he ever was as a mortal, and staking him would be killing the new person he's become.

Then again, I can also foresee a strip in which Darkon acts out his sudden but inevitable betrayal, only to learn that Roy has been prepared for it all along. :smallamused:

[RickDaily12]

The dead person already had a life. Now it's the vampire's turn. His life is worth just as much as the dead person's was. The only difference is that killing an innocent person is evil, whereas letting a dead person remain dead is not.

This. This right here. This is the heart of our disagreement. We have differing definitions of life and of innocence.

If the other is not willing to budge on the opposite stances that Vampire Durkon has been given a life in the same sense that a newborn has, or that Vampire Durkon has the same innocence as either a child or a bystander (You firmly accept both while I firmly reject both)...

Then I propose we end our part of the argument here between us, since I can only see us arguing in circles from here.