Undead and Souls

[Trillium]

So, now that we know that the real Durkon's soul is trapped within Durkula's body/soul, would it be logical to assume, that it is common for all sentient undead to follow same principles?

Is there a repentant and tormented old man's spirit trapped within Xykon? :smalleek:

[zimmerwald1915]

would it be logical to assume, that it is common for all sentient undead to follow same principles?
No, it would not be logical to assume that.

[hamishspence]

It would, however, be correct (using standard D&D) that all sentient undead have souls.

The "trapped soul" model tends to be used with spawning undead - ones that use some kind of spawning ability to create more undead.

That ability might be called Create Spawn, or it might be called Ghoul Fever - but the same principle tends to apply.

[Obscure Blade]

Is there a repentant and tormented old man's spirit trapped within Xykon? :smalleek:Nope, given how exceedingly evil he was while alive. Also, the vampire spirit in Durkon's body is aware of Durkon as a separate entity, while there's never been a hint that Lich Xykon is a different Xykon than fleshy Xykon.

And liches and vampires are created by very different methods to boot.

[Keltest]

So, now that we know that the real Durkon's soul is trapped within Durkula's body/soul, would it be logical to assume, that it is common for all sentient undead to follow same principles?

Is there a repentant and tormented old man's spirit trapped within Xykon? :smalleek:

The process of creating a Lich specifically remove's the target's soul and places it within a vessel for preservation (the Phylactery). If a malign entity took over the body, they could just destroy that body and regenerate a new one.

[hamishspence]

Actually, the phylactery is not stated to be the repository for the soul in MM - at least - not for the lich under normal circumstances. It should be thought of as the location the soul retreats to when the lich's undead body is slain, I think.

Complete Divine (D&D splatbook) takes this approach.

In SoD, Xykon specifically states that his soul is not - at the moment - in the phylactery - which matches up well with Complete Divine:


Complete Divine (p126):

liches are characters who've voluntarily transformed themselves into undead, trapping their souls in skeletal bodies.

[Keltest]

Actually, the phylactery is not stated to be the repository for the soul in MM - at least - not for the lich under normal circumstances. It should be thought of as the location the soul retreats to when the lich's undead body is slain, I think.

Complete Divine (D&D splatbook) takes this approach.

In SoD, Xykon specifically states that his soul is not - at the moment - in the phylactery - which matches up well with Complete Divine:

Well, either way, it's Xykon's soul in the driver's seat.

[BaronOfHell]

Maybe the process Malack expected went something along the lines of:
#1 Make thrall (undead spirit is in control)
#2 Release thrall (undead spirit leaves body, former soul takes over)

But I guess maybe Hel was keeping an eye out for this opportunity so in stead of Durkon retaking his now vampire body, Hel had another spirit possess it.

On the other hand, it could also be because Durkon is not evil and vampires are evil, hence if the soul isn't evil an evil spirit will be in control in stead.

I wonder if this process allows any number of spirits to enter Durkon's body as a vessel.

[Gift Jeraff]

Maybe the process Malack expected went something along the lines of:
#1 Make thrall (undead spirit is in control)
#2 Release thrall (undead spirit leaves body, former soul takes over)

But I guess maybe Hel was keeping an eye out for this opportunity so in stead of Durkon retaking his now vampire body, Hel had another spirit possess it.

On the other hand, it could also be because Durkon is not evil and vampires are evil, hence if the soul isn't evil an evil spirit will be in control in stead.

I wonder if this process allows any number of spirits to enter Durkon's body as a vessel.

It's implied that this spirit was inside Durkon as a thrall, as Rich implied he was a cleric of Hel when he conjured the barbed devil.

[AKA_Bait]

Maybe the process Malack expected went something along the lines of:
#1 Make thrall (undead spirit is in control)
#2 Release thrall (undead spirit leaves body, former soul takes over)

It seems more likely to me that Malack expected something like:
#1 Make thrall (Malack is in control of undead spirit, former soul is still trapped).
#2 Release thrall (undead spirit is in the driver's seat, former soul is still trapped).

[Roland Itiative]

If I'm not mistaken, the fact vampires are controlled by dark souls different from the original mortal is backed up by RAW, but just for vampires (or rather, just for a sub-set of undead creatures, not all of them).

As for Malack acting like he and the priest his vampire self was born from were the same person, right now I think that usually vampire do think they're the same as the mortal, and Durkula is an exception. I imagine the usual vampire gets a "fresh" soul when they're transformed, and this soul, while definitely evil, latches onto the memories in that body, without knowing they weren't always there. Durkula, on the other hand, already had some memories of Hel, and thus managed to keep his identity completely separate from Durkon's.

Or maybe Malack did know that the soul in control was "born" a vampire, but it's not common for vampires to share that knowledge in a direct fashion (after all, it's very useful to pretend you're still somewhat "human", no one would want to blow that cover). He did say that reviving "him" would destroy the person he was, and that the mortal priest who became Malack didn't even have this name originally. He also acted like the Durkon was dead once he vampirised him (trying to fulfil his last wish, for instance), and was reluctant to turn his friend to begin with, once more implying the end result of the process was not really Durkon.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Xykon was an evil, terrible person almost right from the start. He willingly underwent the process of becoming a lich with no second thoughts. I doubt liches work the same way vampires do, but if they do then Xykon is no doubt cool with everything. However, as I said, I doubt liches work like vampires.

[Psyren]

So, now that we know that the real Durkon's soul is trapped within Durkula's body/soul, would it be logical to assume, that it is common for all sentient undead to follow same principles?

According to Libris Mortis: specifically for the ones that were created by being preyed upon by another undead, yes. So Isamu might have been trapped inside his wight-body until Belkar "released him."

For liches - no, because they chose to become what they are. Lichdom is always voluntary.

[Sir_Leorik]

So, now that we know that the real Durkon's soul is trapped within Durkula's body/soul, would it be logical to assume, that it is common for all sentient undead to follow same principles?

We can assume nothing of the kind. It may be that this only happened because Hel specifically caused it, or it may only happen with Vampires.


Is there a repentant and tormented old man's spirit trapped within Xykon? :smalleek:

Xykon does not have the spirit of a tormented old man within his bones, but he does have the spirit of one in his pocket, along with the spirit of that Elf hippie chick.

[hamishspence]

According to Libris Mortis: specifically for the ones that were created by being preyed upon by another undead, yes. So Isamu might have been trapped inside his wight-body until Belkar "released him."

Complete Divine actually - but yes.

As the two main sources discussing souls and undead, which book says what seems to get confused now and again.

[happyman]

I actually tend to the belief that this was a special case of spawning simply because of the stakes involved. I don't know if we can generalize this to every case.

On the other hand, as I mentioned in another thread, it thoroughly justifies turning things evil without turning morality into rubbish, so maybe. I'm guessing that no matter how standard vampire spawn works, this one is special in at least some way.

[zimmerwald1915]

Complete Divine actually - but yes.

As the two main sources discussing souls and undead, which book says what seems to get confused now and again.
To be fair, I at least found Libris Mortis' take on the subject considerably harder to locate in the book than Complete Divine's. Complete Divine's take on how vampires and other spawning undead work can be found on page 126. I still haven't found the page that gives Libris Mortis' take.

[hamishspence]

It's on page 7 of Libris Mortis: Atrocity Calls to Unlife.

[zimmerwald1915]

It's on page 7 of Libris Mortis: Atrocity Calls to Unlife.
Dankeschoen.

[Gnome Alone]

I regard all the stuff not in the core books to be completely optional and non-canonical for the standard, nebulous D&D setting, including what is so often called "fluff." And of course, whether one holds that same opinion or not, what the splatbooks or even the core books say does not necessarily have any bearing on OOTS, given that it's not D&D. So I don't think that a vampirized Durkon had to be a separate entity than the OD (original dwarf.) I'm actually pretty surprised that they are indeed separate: Durkon and the High Priest of Hel, just because so many of the usual crazy-theory speculators were so insistent that they were on the basis of so little evidence. Shows what I know, I guess.

Also, man am I glad that there is finally a non-stupid thing to call vampirized-Durkon: "The High Priest of Hel." Now there's no reason for anyone to keep saying "Durkula" at all, other than to give me a headache.* Of course, prior to #946 I would've said there was no need to have a separate term, seeing as how I think the evidence pointed to Durkon being the same ol' dwarf but just "in the shop," but again, shows what I know.

*Even "waah waah 'the High Priest of Hel' is too long" has no stubby little dwarven legs to stand on, as he could also be called Hel-Priest for short.

[zimmerwald1915]

I regard all the stuff not in the core books to be completely optional and non-canonical for the standard, nebulous D&D setting, including what is so often called "fluff." And of course, whether one holds that same opinion or not, what the splatbooks or even the core books say does not necessarily have any bearing on OOTS, given that it's not D&D. So I don't think that a vampirized Durkon had to be a separate entity than the OD (original dwarf.)
I don't think anything is saying that. What people are trying to do is find other sources that have vampires work in a way similar to the way the Giant has shown them working in The Order of the Stick. That's why people keep bringing up Buffy (even though the soul in Buffy is displaced from, and not enchained in, the body by the vampire spirit). That one of the sources that happens to contain an explanation of how vampires work that looks very similar to the way the Giant has shown them working is a D&D source is merely, as Hel would say, "serendipitous."

[rbetieh]

Also, man am I glad that there is finally a non-stupid thing to call vampirized-Durkon: "The High Priest of Hel." Now there's no reason for anyone to keep saying "Durkula" at all, other than to give me a headache.* Of course, prior to #946 I would've said there was no need to have a separate term, seeing as how I think the evidence pointed to Durkon being the same ol' dwarf but just "in the shop," but again, shows what I know.

*Even "waah waah 'the High Priest of Hel' is too long" has no stubby little dwarven legs to stand on, as he could also be called Hel-Priest for short.

High Priest of Hel?

HPOH...

HP-OH

Hippo!

From now on, V-Durkon shall be known as King Hippo! :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

That one of the sources that happens to contain an explanation of how vampires work that looks very similar to the way the Giant has shown them working is a D&D source is merely, as Hel would say, "serendipitous."

Indeed. Though it does "gel well", so to speak, with the fact that The Giant has used content from other D&D books in the Complete (something) series.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Is there a repentant and tormented old man's spirit trapped within Xykon? :smalleek:
From what I've heard of Start of Darkness, no.
Anyone who starts out as an evil toddler isn't going to get any better.

But onto the more general question...I'd say it has more to do with one of two factors:
1. The method of creation. Vampires and other undead with the Create Spawn ability or whatever it's called have control over the spawn created. This could be interpreted as mind control, or else replacing the soul of the spawn with a more malign one (which better explains why they show up on Detect Evil when a party member controlled by said vampire does not). Liches, ghosts, and such, on the other hand, are not spawn.
2. Alignment change. Liches do not change alignment when they turn, but pretty much every other variety of undead which someone can turn into does. This can be seen as either a change of heart, or replacing some part of the soul of the target with something...else. Again, this wouldn't apply to Xykon.

[hr]


Xykon does not have the spirit of a tormented old man within his bones, but he does have the spirit of one in his pocket, along with the spirit of that Elf hippie chick.

Really? All the time? That seems like the kind of thing you'd keep in a little box at home, so it doesn't fall out when you, I dunno, ride into battle on an invisible dragon or something.



I regard all the stuff not in the core books to be completely optional and non-canonical for the standard, nebulous D&D setting, including what is so often called "fluff."
And the stuff in the core books...isn't?


And of course, whether one holds that same opinion or not, what the splatbooks or even the core books say does not necessarily have any bearing on OOTS, given that it's not D&D.
Well, yes, but sometimes understanding the way D&D works provides greater insight on what's going on. And not just with the obvious rules jokes.



Also, man am I glad that there is finally a non-stupid thing to call vampirized-Durkon: "The High Priest of Hel." Now there's no reason for anyone to keep saying "Durkula" at all, other than to give me a headache.*

That does sound nice.



*Even "waah waah 'the High Priest of Hel' is too long" has no stubby little dwarven legs to stand on, as he could also be called Hel-Priest for short.
Or Priest of Hel. Poh for short.

[Knight.Anon]

Xykon still has his soul, but the loss of his humanity has caused him become even more evil. Because he's dead they only thing that makes him happy is hurting people. He doesn't sleep, eat, smell, or feel. All of those chemicals that cause day to day feelings and emotions are gone. Being powered by the opposite of life while remaining in the living world has got twist his psyche even further. Being a Lich drives a lot of Liches insane as eternity goes on and on. Xykon is still real young as Lichhood goes.

Other undead are vastly different. Lesser undead are virtually constructs, others are beasts endless trying to appease a hunger that never ends.

Ghosts and Revenants have something that makes them unable to leave the mortal world. I'm not sure what makes wraiths and specters tick.

I think there are lots of different states for vampires but they all function mostly the same. I don't think Malack was the same as Durkula or he wouldn't have been be so eager to convert him. Durkon being a cleric for a different pantheon likely changed the rules. Maybe there was a ritual that Malack knew that could actually make Durkon retain his soul but Malack was destroyed before he could cast it. That would be appropriately tragic.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think there are lots of different states for vampires but they all function mostly the same. I don't think Malack was the same as Durkula or he wouldn't have been be so eager to convert him. Durkon being a cleric for a different pantheon likely changed the rules. Maybe there was a ritual that Malack knew that could actually make Durkon retain his soul but Malack was destroyed before he could cast it. That would be appropriately tragic.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't follow your logic. Could you explain a bit?

[zimmerwald1915]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't follow your logic. Could you explain a bit?
There's a theory going around that Durkon's vampirization is somehow different from "normal" vampirization because Hel intervened somehow. It has about as much textual support as the Trigak theory.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Durkula is in cahoots with a god. I wouldn't make any assumptions about how things normally work when there is a god who is trying to trick people thrown into the mix.

Powers (in the Planescape sense of the word) can be very tricky folk and entirely capable of playing funny games with how souls attach to bodies.

[Morty]

Honestly, I think the way it seems to work in OotS and the D&D supplements mentioned here is the only way to make sense of the Always Evil restriction, ultimately. Otherwise, we have the situation in which being turned into a vampire somehow makes even a noble soul like Durkon evil - and can it really be called evil (or good, if it were to happen in reverse) if you're forced into it by a supernatural affliction? Having a vampire be actually an evil spirit hijacking the victim's body is a lot cleaner and makes as much sense as any part of D&D alignment can.

[Knight.Anon]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't follow your logic. Could you explain a bit?

DnD operates on the rule of cool, and vampires are very cool and popular so in game vampires can be created in a variety of ways. Vampires like Dracula were cursed for being evil. Strahd von Zarovich made a deal with death, killed his brother and was killed by his own guard. Of course this idea doesn't specifically apply to the OOTS world, so maybe all vampires were bitten there.

I don't think Malack would have created Durkua if he knew that he would be creating something that was utterly not his friend. Then again maybe Vampires have an overwhelming need to create another Vampire. Malack seemed pretty set on converting somebody that day.

I just like the idea that there are lots of ways to become and exist as a vampire but as far as the rules for the game go they operate more or less the same. The DM can also tweak the rules to make each vampire unique.

So maybe Malack was still the Lizard-folk shaman twisted by unlife much the same way as a Lich is twisted. Durkon coming from a different, culture and species became a very different Vampire than his sire. The same could go for any Vampires that Durkon creates and then gives free will.

Magic isn't Science - so if it seems like a good idea why not? Its a world literally made from what a score of Gods desired. If they had more than one idea of what a vampire should be like then there that's the way its going to be.

[Psyren]

Complete Divine actually - but yes.

As the two main sources discussing souls and undead, which book says what seems to get confused now and again.

Good catch, thanks.


I actually tend to the belief that this was a special case of spawning simply because of the stakes involved. I don't know if we can generalize this to every case.

On the other hand, as I mentioned in another thread, it thoroughly justifies turning things evil without turning morality into rubbish, so maybe. I'm guessing that no matter how standard vampire spawn works, this one is special in at least some way.

So far Durkula is working exactly like the rules suggest he would. He is too high level to be a mere spawn, thus he became an actual vampire; he can no longer spontaneously heal, and he is quite definitely evil.


I regard all the stuff not in the core books to be completely optional and non-canonical for the standard, nebulous D&D setting, including what is so often called "fluff." And of course, whether one holds that same opinion or not, what the splatbooks or even the core books say does not necessarily have any bearing on OOTS, given that it's not D&D. So I don't think that a vampirized Durkon had to be a separate entity than the OD (original dwarf.) I'm actually pretty surprised that they are indeed separate: Durkon and the High Priest of Hel, just because so many of the usual crazy-theory speculators were so insistent that they were on the basis of so little evidence. Shows what I know, I guess.

Core or not, a lot of the fluff in the splats does make sense. And it wouldn't be the first time the Giant used it - after all, it's splat books (Savage Species and BoED for instance) that give us the notion that, at least where dragons are concerned, "always evil" does not actually mean "ALWAYS evil."

The fluff in splats, for the most part, comes from talented designers collaborating and contemplating on this stuff for a DM's benefit. Why would a vampire made from a good person be automatically evil, if they're intelligent? The most sensible answer is - it's not really them anymore.

[Seward]

Vampires, Ghosts and Liches according to Xycon, who granted is not the most reliable. But all of these make sense, although in the case of Vamps they're passengers in the body it appears. They're still not in the afterlife, which for evil types is likely worse.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html

[Psyren]

Ghosts are the original soul, just corrupted (by passage of time, injustice, negative energy etc.)

Liches are the original soul twisted voluntarily.

Vampires trap the original soul but it is reduced to being a passenger.

[Doug Lampert]

Core or not, a lot of the fluff in the splats does make sense. And it wouldn't be the first time the Giant used it - after all, it's splat books (Savage Species and BoED for instance) that give us the notion that, at least where dragons are concerned, "always evil" does not actually mean "ALWAYS evil."

Uh, no. That comes from the core MM in both 3.0 and 3.5. It's right there in the rules in core. If you actually READ the part that tells you how to read a monster's stat block it tells you what always means.

[Knight.Anon]

I think that we are mistaking Durkon's case for the norm. Hel is a god, this is divine intervention and her hand is right there in the pot. There is no way that this is the case for every vampire. The gods would have no time left for TV.

[hamishspence]

Main reason I figured that "original soul is now trapped, and an evil spirit is now in control" was the norm - was - it's what Complete Divine says.

The bit that might not be the norm - is the particular spirit being Hel's minion.

If the cracking gates (or, for that matter, Familicide) are events major enough to be immediately noticeable to the gods- then they may have been watching for a while.

[AKA_Bait]

I think that we are mistaking Durkon's case for the norm. Hel is a god, this is divine intervention and her hand is right there in the pot. There is no way that this is the case for every vampire. The gods would have no time left for TV.

It might be the norm for every high level vampire cleric though. That's a pretty small subset. Direct communication between a high level cleric and their deity is not at all unusual in D&D.


The bit that might not be the norm - is the particular spirit being Hel's minion.

Possible. I still think, on the basis of Hel's description of the HPH as her "serendipitous servant," that it's more likely that she had no direct hand in his creation. It seems perfectly logical to me that the "always evil" version of Durkon created when he got vamped (i.e., a lawful evil dwarven cleric vampire) would worship Hel and, given his high level, be of interest to her. No extra involvement needed. Occam and all that.

[Grytorm]

I just assumed from that description of him that she took a rare opportunity to insert a servant of hers into the situation. Truthfully I think what would be the weirdest thing if this is the usual case for vampires is that he wouldn't get the accent automatically. Assuming that this is a new being created in Durkon then it seems that it would maintain the accent rather than having preexisting notions about itself and how to speak.

[Kish]

Yeah, I'm hoping the accent thing is "the possessing spirit automatically speaks with the same accent as Hel," and not, say, "the possessing spirit automatically speaks with the same accent as Rich Burlew."

[Heksefatter]

One question can be clearly answered: If Xykon the Lich is a different person than Xykon the Alive Person, he is surely not tormented and repentant. Xykon the Alive Person was a monster to the highest degree - he may be tormented, but he's not repentant, because he didn't have a figment of goodness in him, ever.

Another question can be answered almost as certainly: Xykon the Lich is the same person as Xykon the Alive Person. Their behavior is more or less exactly the same. And if Xykon the Lich's soul was something so different from Xykon the Alive Person, they wouldn't have cared about the same things. (See SoD for details).

In short, we can almost certainly rule out that all sentient undead are actually spirits from somewhere else.

All that we know for certain regarding that is that Durkula is an entirely different person than Durkon. It is possible that this is generally true for all vampires in the OotS-verse, though I, personally, do not believe it. I think Durkula is a special case. I could be wrong, however. Malack's comments could be taken both ways.

I don't think we can take D&D source material as any real indicator. Any of the possibilities is a perfectly legitimate choice for a DM in a game world.

In any case, we can be almost certain that it is not generally true for all sentient undead in the OotS-verse, and we only have qualified guesses as to whether it is true for vampires specifically.

Stay tuned for 31st march and beyond for answer! Same stick-comic, same stick-channel!

[hamishspence]

Another question can be answered almost as certainly: Xykon the Lich is the same person as Xykon the Alive Person. Their behavior is more or less exactly the same. And if Xykon the Lich's soul was something so different from Xykon the Alive Person, they wouldn't have cared about the same things. (See SoD for details).

In short, we can almost certainly rule out that all sentient undead are actually spirits from somewhere else.


And Complete Divine does reserve "spirit from Somewhere Else" for undead of the spawning type, it should be noted.

Which Liches are not.

[Porthos]

I don't think Malack would have created Durkua if he knew that he would be creating something that was utterly not his friend. Then again maybe Vampires have an overwhelming need to create another Vampire. Malack seemed pretty set on converting somebody that day.

In regards to the latter, let's not forget that Malack was in the process of vamping Belkar of all people when Durkon walked in.

[Kish]

It would be hilarious if it turns out that, ever since he agreed to let Redcloak turn him into a lich, Living Xykon has been looking out helplessly from behind Lich Xykon's eyes, screaming, "I'm not getting to kill any of these people! I'm just stuck watching as this skeleton does it with my magic!"

[Vladier]

It would be hilarious if it turns out that, ever since he agreed to let Redcloak turn him into a lich, Living Xykon has been looking out helplessly from behind Lich Xykon's eyes, screaming, "I'm not getting to kill any of these people! I'm just stuck watching as this skeleton does it with my magic!"

Ah, but wouldn't Xykon, lazy as he is, actually enjoy watching innocents being murdered at the hands of a skeleton wielding his magic?

[Heksefatter]

And Complete Divine does reserve "spirit from Somewhere Else" for undead of the spawning type, it should be noted.

Which Liches are not.

Hmmm, interesting...I've always understood D&D undead to be either mindless (skeletons or zombies) or, on a fundamental level, the same person as they were before, even if they were corrupted. A vampire, according to Van Richten's Guide to Vampires, can remain good under special circumstances, such as if its creator vampire leaves the area or is destroyed before it rises as a vampire. That only makes sense if it is still the same person. However, it will usually gradually turn more and more evil.

Also, vampires are sometimes punished based on their crimes in life, such as Sthrad from the Ravenloft setting is, which only makes sense if they are the same person. Same for other undead in the Ravenloft setting - the mummy Ankhtepot, for example.

Most of the stuff I recall as implying the same. There are also rules for undead PCs, and they don't say anything about the soul of the undead being actually being something entirely else than what it was in life.

[Porthos]

Hmmm, interesting...I've always understood D&D undead to be either mindless (skeletons or zombies) or, on a fundamental level, the same person as they were before, even if they were corrupted. A vampire, according to Van Richten's Guide to Vampires, can remain good under special circumstances, such as if its creator vampire leaves the area or is destroyed before it rises as a vampire. That only makes sense if it is still the same person. However, it will usually gradually turn more and more evil.

Also, vampires are sometimes punished based on their crimes in life, such as Sthrad from the Ravenloft setting is, which only makes sense if they are the same person. Same for other undead in the Ravenloft setting - the mummy Ankhtepot, for example.

Most of the stuff I recall as implying the same. There are also rules for undead PCs, and they don't say anything about the soul of the undead being actually being something entirely else than what it was in life.

D&D isn't exactly consistant with these sorts of things, even if you don't account for changes over editions. The game has been around for 40 years, with scores of different authors and numerous editions. Inconsistancies at various points is to be expected, I would think.

[Heksefatter]

D&D isn't exactly consistant with these sorts of things, even if you don't account for changes over editions. The game has been around for 40 years, with scores of different authors and numerous editions. Inconsistancies at various points is to be expected, I would think.

True dat. I'd still say that the gist of D&D has generally been that the souls are the same, though.

[Roland Itiative]

About Xykon, it's highly unlikely there's a soul different from Xykon's own in that body. The whole process of lichdom is about preserving your soul in the mortal world after you death in a specific way (better than just remaining as a ghost, for instance).

As for hard evidence, we could use the fact Xykon clearly shows the same identity after becoming undead.

Remember the whole coffee gag? Wouldn't make much sense if Lich Xykon was just a random dark spirit looking through Human Xykon's memories and noticing he can't taste coffee like that soul once did.

And, differently from Durkula, Lich Xykon would have no reason to hide his true identity if it was not the same as Human Xykon's.

[Clistenes]

Lichdom is a technique created by mortal evil spellcasters in order to give themselves immortal bodies. Of course that they would want to keep their own souls in control as opposed to being hijacked by some external force.

Vampirism is a curse of undeath that is forced into you, forcefully changes your nature and alignment and makes you turn agains those people you would have previously tried to protect. Whoever or whatever created it didn't want the original personality/soul to be in control.

[Heksefatter]

Lichdom is a technique created by mortal evil spellcasters in order to give themselves immortal bodies. Of course that they would want to keep their own souls in control as opposed to being hijacked by some external force.

Vampirism is a curse of undeath that is forced into you, forcefully changes your nature and alignment and makes you turn agains those people you would have previously tried to protect. Whoever or whatever created it didn't want the original personality/soul to be in control.

D&D-wise, this is not entirely true. You can become a vampire willingly, through some dark bargain with powerful beings. Also, the most detailed D&D supplements on vampirism, 'Van Richtens Guide to Vampires' do not really make sense if you assume that the vampire is a completely different person.

The OotS-verse certainly doesn't have to follow those rules, but the gist of D&D is (with some contradictions) not what you say. As for the OotS-verse, we can make qualified guesses, but have no knowledge so far.

[Clistenes]

D&D-wise, this is not entirely true. You can become a vampire willingly, through some dark bargain with powerful beings. Also, the most detailed D&D supplements on vampirism, 'Van Richtens Guide to Vampires' do not really make sense if you assume that the vampire is a completely different person.

The OotS-verse certainly doesn't have to follow those rules, but the gist of D&D is (with some contradictions) not what you say. As for the OotS-verse, we can make qualified guesses, but have no knowledge so far.

D&D offers several contradictory versions about what vampirism is. The Giant seems to use Complete Divine's version of vampirism.

Strahd Von Zarovitch is an example of a human who willingly became a vampire through a dark pact, but Richt isn't using that flavor of vampirism here. Unlike Xykon, his spawned Wights and Vampires seem to be completely different creatures than their living predecessors.

[Kish]

Van Richten's Guide to Vampires is purest 2ed. Even if Rich was slavishly following the rules of D&D 3.5ed instead of loudly stating that he doesn't care about them, it would be inapplicable.

[veti]

Ah, but wouldn't Xykon, lazy as he is, actually enjoy watching innocents being murdered at the hands of a skeleton wielding his magic?

I think, in that case, we would see Xykon-the-lich going out of its way to occasionally taunt or torment Xykon-the-trapped-soul. After all, why should he get to ride along for free?

Maybe that's why he was so unreceptive to Tsukiko's advances. But I don't think I want my imagination to go there.

[Gnome Alone]

And the stuff in the core books...isn't?

Touché.


Core or not, a lot of the fluff in the splats does make sense. And it wouldn't be the first time the Giant used it - after all, it's splat books (Savage Species and BoED for instance) that give us the notion that, at least where dragons are concerned, "always evil" does not actually mean "ALWAYS evil."

The fluff in splats, for the most part, comes from talented designers collaborating and contemplating on this stuff for a DM's benefit. Why would a vampire made from a good person be automatically evil, if they're intelligent? The most sensible answer is - it's not really them anymore.

Bigger touché.

Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense. The soul-displacement/hijacking is the best explanation I've seen for "automatic evil-ization" of vampires. I think what bothered me was people just asserting that Durkon had to be Evil now cuz it's in the rules! The rules, guys! And that's not particularly well thought out or interesting.

I am most pleased with the Giant's take on it, but I still don't think it necessarily had to be that way or that there was all that much evidence pointing toward it.

[Psyren]

I think that we are mistaking Durkon's case for the norm. Hel is a god, this is divine intervention and her hand is right there in the pot. There is no way that this is the case for every vampire. The gods would have no time left for TV.

Getting his orders straight from the god is the special case, but the state of being a twisted spirit calling on the memories of the victim is pretty standard.

(So basically, what hamish said.)



Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense. The soul-displacement/hijacking is the best explanation I've seen for "automatic evil-ization" of vampires. I think what bothered me was people just asserting that Durkon had to be Evil now cuz it's in the rules! The rules, guys! And that's not particularly well thought out or interesting.

I am most pleased with the Giant's take on it, but I still don't think it necessarily had to be that way or that there was all that much evidence pointing toward it.

I think the Giant went with it simply because it made sense (and conveniently provided him with a way to advance Durkon's subplot), not because of any desire to be faithful to 3.5.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Lichdom is a technique created by mortal evil spellcasters in order to give themselves immortal bodies. Of course that they would want to keep their own souls in control as opposed to being hijacked by some external force.

Vampirism is a curse of undeath that is forced into you, forcefully changes your nature and alignment and makes you turn agains those people you would have previously tried to protect. Whoever or whatever created it didn't want the original personality/soul to be in control.
And thus would either have kicked you out, or waited until your soul went off on it's journey to wherever before moving in, otherwise it's fighting your soul on your soul's home turf.

I think Durkula is something unusual, and not just because Malack sped up his rising - Hel herself says it's serendipitous, implying she's taking advantage of the circumstances.

Guess we'll find out at some point in the next couple of books. :smallamused:

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Hel herself says it's serendipitous, implying she's taking advantage of the circumstances.

That could also come from the fact that she was lucky enough to get a relatively powerful cleric as a Vampire, as opposed to just any dwarf.

[Heksefatter]

Van Richten's Guide to Vampires is purest 2ed. Even if Rich was slavishly following the rules of D&D 3.5ed instead of loudly stating that he doesn't care about them, it would be inapplicable.

I don't really agree there. Even across editions, there is kind of a D&D-verse. If vampires were the same people in 2nd edition, they likely are in 3.5 too. Also, there is source material in 3.5 edition implying the same, like Libris Mortis, which describes undead PCs, mostly as spawnable undead. It doesn't imply anything about undead being entirely new people.

Of course, the Giant is not in any way bound by D&D source material. I am speaking only from source material, which I view as contradictory, but with the gist pointing at undead not being entirely new beings.

[Heksefatter]

Also, as spawnable undead myself, a wraith, albeit a stick-one, I can testify for certain that I am the same person as I was in life. I was a ¤%"#¤%"! there too, though.

[Kish]

And I am certain you would no more lie about that than the High Priest of Hel...I mean Durkon would.

By the way, why do I see someone screaming behind one of your eyes?

[theduck]

With regards to Malack and his desire to vampirize Durkon, it may even be possible that the new soul doesn't even fully realize it isn't the original. If it all it has is access to the memories of the previous inhabitant, it might not have any reason to suspect that it isn't the same person. In which case, clerics may be a special exception, with a conversion to what ever god they know the most about that would accept an undead. No other class would feel such a fundamental change, and thus the new soul could attribute what changes it did know to being a by-product of the transformation.

And failing that, he may have known the new soul would still have access to the memories and whatnot, and thus they could carry on their conversation in a way.

[Heksefatter]

And I am certain you would no more lie about that than the High Priest of Hel...I mean Durkon would.

By the way, why do I see someone screaming behind one of your eyes?

Lies! Lies! LIIIIEEES! Simple necrophobic prejudice! :smalltongue:

What shall I do with him, Master? He suspects, but is it too soon to make my move?

[jere7my]

Van Richten's Guide to Vampires is purest 2ed. Even if Rich was slavishly following the rules of D&D 3.5ed instead of loudly stating that he doesn't care about them, it would be inapplicable.

It's also Ravenloft. Different settings in 2nd Edition had overlapping but distinct rulesets; what's true in one is not necessarily true in another, especially if it touches on the setting's distinct flavor (and vampires were the core of Ravenloft). What's true of dragons in Dragonlance may not be true of dragons in the Forgotten Realms.

WotC also says, in their description of Van Richten's Guide to Vampires, "Outside of these rules, the information within the book could reasonably come from an unreliable narrator, leaving ample room for a DM’s personal touch."

[Heksefatter]

It's also Ravenloft. Different settings in 2nd Edition had overlapping but distinct rulesets; what's true in one is not necessarily true in another, especially if it touches on the setting's distinct flavor (and vampires were the core of Ravenloft). What's true of dragons in Dragonlance may not be true of dragons in the Forgotten Realms.

WotC also says, in their description of Van Richten's Guide to Vampires, "Outside of these rules, the information within the book could reasonably come from an unreliable narrator, leaving ample room for a DM’s personal touch."

Of course. And even neglecting the comments from WotC, it's a silly dungeon master who feels bound by rules in the source material. If I thought it was the better choice in the campagin to make a vampire a completely different person than the original, I would not have hesistated to make that choice. In fact, I've always been a bit iffy on D&D's undead. Generally, my undead creatures have always had more of their original personality than the D&D rules imply. Even sentient undead in D&D are often implied to be overcome with hatred for living things, making them more or less faceless antagonists - I've always portrayed them as more "reasonable" and willing to communicate if it was in their best interest, just as warped by evil. To me, this was more interesting. Some disagree, and that's fine for their stories.

Rules are there as suggestions or ideas, not as anything binding storytellers, whether of a stick comic or a fantasy campaign.

That said, there's also rule material in Van Richten's Guide, which implies that the vampire is still a twisted version of the original person. This also goes for other source material, such as the Liber Mortis.

[Jasdoif]

It just occurred to me that Nale's "job offer" here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0907.html) makes far more sense if Nale was aware of the "new dark spirit" aspect of vampirism. Which would suggest that's the normal case for vampires.

[AKA_Bait]

It just occurred to me that Nale's "job offer" here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0907.html) makes far more sense if Nale was aware of the "new dark spirit" aspect of vampirism. Which would suggest that's the normal case for vampires.

It's also fair to think that Nale put some ranks into knowledge religion or went out of his way to acquire more information about vampires than the Order possesses. Given Nale's expectation of an eventual deadly conflict with Malack, he'd want the info.

[Gift Jeraff]

It just occurred to me that Nale's "job offer" here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0907.html) makes far more sense if Nale was aware of the "new dark spirit" aspect of vampirism. Which would suggest that's the normal case for vampires.

I wonder if he got that whole "vampires like the taste of the blood of their former loved ones" idea from Malack telling him about his seven brothers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0878.html).

[Roland Itiative]

It just occurred to me that Nale's "job offer" here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0907.html) makes far more sense if Nale was aware of the "new dark spirit" aspect of vampirism. Which would suggest that's the normal case for vampires.

I'm now imagining what was going on on Durkon/Dukula's head while he has a blank stare and Nale starts talking non-stop. Durkula probing Durkon's mind for the first time, weighting whether he should pretend to be Durkon and go back to the OotS or just go with Nale, and making his decision based on the track record of Nale's previous encounters with the Order.

Could be fun content for an extra strip, although it would kind of ruin the final reveal of the book for someone who hasn't already read the online comics.

[Millennium]

I think Durkula is something unusual, and not just because Malack sped up his rising - Hel herself says it's serendipitous, implying she's taking advantage of the circumstances.

Or maybe he is unusual because Malack sped up his rising.

Why do "normal" vampires take so long to rise? Perhaps an ordinary soul needs this time to bind itself back to the body in a way that can animate it. How could Malack's spell speed up that process? Maybe it doesn't: what if it instead sidesteps it, by substituting a spirit from the Lower Planes?

If this is true, then Malack himself might never have known. He researched the spell himself, so clearly he did not go through it when he first rose; even if he knew the spell by then, there would have been no one to cast it on him. We also know that he has not spawned in a very long time, and never really liked his spawn very much. Perhaps the last ones he made before Durkula were whatever he needed to finish his research, and he never took much interest in them after they rose.

[AKA_Bait]

I'm now imagining what was going on on Durkon/Dukula's head while he has a blank stare and Nale starts talking non-stop. Durkula probing Durkon's mind for the first time, weighting whether he should pretend to be Durkon and go back to the OotS or just go with Nale, and making his decision based on the track record of Nale's previous encounters with the Order.

Could be fun content for an extra strip, although it would kind of ruin the final reveal of the book for someone who hasn't already read the online comics.

Someone on the main thread (I think) suggested that the blank stare panels were the HPH receiving his initial instructions from Hel.

[Roland Itiative]

and never really liked his spawn very much

Wait, what? All the "YOU KILLED MY CHILDREN, I'LL KILL YOU" directed at Nale seems to point on a completely different direction than what you're saying. He thought of them as his children, love and everything. The fact he didn't see them as equals does not take away from that.

[Ramien]

Or maybe he is unusual because Malack sped up his rising.

Why do "normal" vampires take so long to rise? Perhaps an ordinary soul needs this time to bind itself back to the body in a way that can animate it. How could Malack's spell speed up that process? Maybe it doesn't: what if it instead sidesteps it, by substituting a spirit from the Lower Planes?

If this is true, then Malack himself might never have known. He researched the spell himself, so clearly he did not go through it when he first rose; even if he knew the spell by then, there would have been no one to cast it on him. We also know that he has not spawned in a very long time, and never really liked his spawn very much. Perhaps the last ones he made before Durkula were whatever he needed to finish his research, and he never took much interest in them after they rose.

Considering that he refers to his spawn as his 'children,' I'm wondering where you're getting the idea that he didn't like them very much. The fact that he does consider them his children is also a good sign that he knows that what's coming back isn't the same as whoever he bit to turn them in the first place.

[Shale]

I don't really agree there. Even across editions, there is kind of a D&D-verse. If vampires were the same people in 2nd edition, they likely are in 3.5 too. Also, there is source material in 3.5 edition implying the same, like Libris Mortis, which describes undead PCs, mostly as spawnable undead. It doesn't imply anything about undead being entirely new people.

Of course, the Giant is not in any way bound by D&D source material. I am speaking only from source material, which I view as contradictory, but with the gist pointing at undead not being entirely new beings.

Bear in mind that Complete Divine directly contradicts Libris Mortis and says vampires, specifically, are "controlled by a malign intelligence" that keeps the original soul prisoner. Splatbooks are not models of consistency.

[wyrmhole]

Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense. The soul-displacement/hijacking is the best explanation I've seen for "automatic evil-ization" of vampires. I think what bothered me was people just asserting that Durkon had to be Evil now cuz it's in the rules! The rules, guys! And that's not particularly well thought out or interesting.

Well I don't think "Durkon has to be Evil (at least at first) because the same negative energy magic that fundamentally altered his body while still keeping it somewhat the same, has also similarly altered his mind" is a particularly bad explanation. I think the idea that becoming a vampire would be only a superficial cosmetic change to be rather silly.


I am most pleased with the Giant's take on it, but I still don't think it necessarily had to be that way or that there was all that much evidence pointing toward it.

There's plenty of evidence, but none of it that has only a single interpretation, so no way to have a definitive per-determination. Which is another way of saying the same thing -- it definitely didn't have to end up this way. The way he handled the lead-up was great.

[Heksefatter]

Bear in mind that Complete Divine directly contradicts Libris Mortis and says vampires, specifically, are "controlled by a malign intelligence" that keeps the original soul prisoner. Splatbooks are not models of consistency.

I am aware. I've not read Complete Divine myself, but I've been told that it says what you say. The argument was one claiming that we couldn't use 2nd edition source material.

I'd still claim that the gist of what the D&D rules have been saying over the years is, with some contradictions, that the undead is, on some fundamental level, the same as it was before death.

Edit: I've just pulled my old Monster's Manual down from the shelf. It doesn't say anything about specifically about this, but it says some stuff which implies an answer, such as:

- The vampire is always chaotic evil. Idiotic, and should be ignored. Indeed it is ignored pretty much every where else. Lawful evil vampires have a proud and honourable tradition in D&D. It doesn't say much else about the psychology of the vampire, however.

- It does say, however, that the vampire speaks any languages they knew in life. Not that their HOST knew in life.

- It says that a vampire loses its bonds with familiars, except for rats and bats. However, why should a bat or a rat familiar have a bond with a completely new entity?

- It says that vampires receive a bonus to their stats, including their int. But why should a vampire always receive a +2 to int, if it is a completely new creature? Reasonably, one would expect the creature to have the possessing creature's int and wis, at least, maybe with a bonus of sorts, due to being able to access the host creature's mind. But if an int 16 entity possesses an int 8 being, why should an int 10 creature result?

[CaDzilla]

Durkon's body is probably being operated by a soul made out of negative energy.

[The Giant]

I just locked and redirected three other threads about this same topic here. Let's try to keep all discussion of the "rules" of vampirization/undeadification in this one thread. Other related topics, like speculation about what will happen next, can remain elsewhere.

[hamishspence]

Bear in mind that Complete Divine directly contradicts Libris Mortis and says vampires, specifically, are "controlled by a malign intelligence" that keeps the original soul prisoner. Splatbooks are not models of consistency.

Libris Mortis (Atrocity Calls to Unlife) says that for many undead "the soul is not present, having gone to seek its reward in the Outer Planes - this dark amalgamation is something new).

But the basic point of both - was that the original soul was not in charge.

That said - having the original memories of the being - tends to make the new one much like the old one in some ways.

[Heksefatter]

Libris Mortis (Atrocity Calls to Unlife) says that for many undead "the soul is not present, having gone to seek its reward in the Outer Planes - this dark amalgamation is something new).

But the basic point of both - was that the original soul was not in charge.

That said - having the original memories of the being - tends to make the new one much like the old one in some ways.

Hmmm, are you sure? It's a bit of time since I read Liber Mortis and I don't have it here to check. But I recall it as if there were undead PC rules with descriptions of how they related to the living person.

If you are sure, I will take your word for it. As I said, it's been some time since I read the book, and I could remember it wrong.

[Spoomeister]

I'm going to make a wild guess that this (emphasis mine)...


Let's try to keep all discussion of the "rules" of vampirization/undeadification in this one thread.

...syncs rather well with this...


Of course, the Giant is not in any way bound by D&D source material.

...and thus any speculation about how vampirism works in general in OOTS, or with Durkon specifically, is a moot point. Rich is telling the story he wants to tell, and it doesn't mean vampires need to work the way they work in any other fantasy setting. Which is as it should be.

Side note on my $.02 on the Durkon plotline, in a spoiler quote for brevity:
This is really a continuation of me processing and letting go of the disappointment of wanting to see plotlines and character development around Durkon-dealing-with-being-an-evil-being. Which then lets me try to take Durkon-Imprisoned-In-Durkula-Dark-Servant-Of-Hel-And-Don't-Call-It-A-Vampire on its own merits.

I get tripped up sometimes on the "oh, this is a D&D comic" thing and it ends up informing my opinion when I get surprised by something in the plot. Which is odd, since much of the time in a game I could roll with it as "ok, the DM has a house rule for this" or "ah, it's a source book I haven't read" or "hey, homebrewed critter, neat".

Plotlines like the Durkula one do feel a bit like Rich is 'cheating' a bit. I'd hope that by the time the story is done and we take all the books together, that it's as much or more him just playing with tropes and expectations to tell his story rather than leaving me head-scratching over a perceived plot hole.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

...and thus any speculation about how vampirism works in general in OOTS, or with Durkon specifically, is a moot point. Rich is telling the story he wants to tell, and it doesn't mean vampires need to work the way they work in any other fantasy setting. Which is as it should be.


Just because his vampires are different doesn't mean that there are no rules. In fact we have already seen a few rules regarding vampires. For example, Dwarven vampires fall under Hel's domain, and it appears that Nergal gets control of lizard vampires.

Your two points here don't tie together very well. You seem to be arguing that because the Giant is not beholden to rules established in other places, that vampirization in OOTS has no rules.

[Heksefatter]

I'm going to make a wild guess that this (emphasis mine)...



...syncs rather well with this...



...and thus any speculation about how vampirism works in general in OOTS, or with Durkon specifically, is a moot point. Rich is telling the story he wants to tell, and it doesn't mean vampires need to work the way they work in any other fantasy setting. Which is as it should be.

Side note on my $.02 on the Durkon plotline, in a spoiler quote for brevity:
This is really a continuation of me processing and letting go of the disappointment of wanting to see plotlines and character development around Durkon-dealing-with-being-an-evil-being. Which then lets me try to take Durkon-Imprisoned-In-Durkula-Dark-Servant-Of-Hel-And-Don't-Call-It-A-Vampire on its own merits.

I get tripped up sometimes on the "oh, this is a D&D comic" thing and it ends up informing my opinion when I get surprised by something in the plot. Which is odd, since much of the time in a game I could roll with it as "ok, the DM has a house rule for this" or "ah, it's a source book I haven't read" or "hey, homebrewed critter, neat".

Plotlines like the Durkula one do feel a bit like Rich is 'cheating' a bit. I'd hope that by the time the story is done and we take all the books together, that it's as much or more him just playing with tropes and expectations to tell his story rather than leaving me head-scratching over a perceived plot hole.

Personally, I just like yammering about stuff like D&D with people who shares my interests. Even if the D&D rules were absolutely clear, which they aren't, the Giant - and any other storyteller, including DMs - are free to make their own calls. I've never really followed D&D's take on the undead myself, and don't begrudge anyone else for not doing it either.

As for the story, who can tell? It's fun to speculate a bit. Objectively, we cannot conclude with certainty how vampirism works in the OotS-verse, we can only make qualified guesses. Personally, I think Durkula is a special case and others disagree. None of us knows the truth.

As for the spoilered material, which I will also spoiler:

I don't really care about whether Rich follows the "rules" in this matter. The rules are contradictory, and I don't think that D&D has handled undeath all that well, in any case. Whether vampires are completely new souls or warped ones of the originals, there can be a good story in it.

[Spoomeister]

You seem to be arguing that because the Giant is not beholden to rules established in other places, that vampirization in OOTS has no rules.

Nope. Not what I'm arguing.
Go back and read it again.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Nope. Not what I'm arguing.
Go back and read it again.
I'm not sure what you are saying then. Either you were referring specifically to speculation involving rules from other sources, and didn't clarify that, or you think that we can't speculate about it at all, which, given the quote you provided, seems to be implying that you think that they are only rules in an abstract sense. Perhaps, I misinterpreted you.

Either way, I think we speculation still has a point.

[Porthos]

I am tentatively in the camp of 'new soul/spirit' takes over/enslaves the old one for vampires in OotSWorld as it at least solves some of the ethical qualms of forced alignment change.

However, I did just have a delicious thought.

The suggestion has been made that Durkon is different from Malack because of the spell Malack used to speed up the vampirization process. The immediate rejoinder might be, "Well, why would that be the case?" or "Where's the evidence".

As for the latter, I have none. So :smalltongue: :smalltongue: :smalltongue:

But for the former, I have a bit of Doylist logic to employ.

Malack defeated Durkon partially because of a backdoor he snuck into the Mass Death Ward spell. It might be slightly ironic if there was a hidden backdoor/unknown component in the Hasten Undeath (or whatever the heck it is) spell that invited a malign spirit into the body, with Malack unawares.

I say ironic because if indeed Malack was trying to 'create' a friend and simply magically alter Durkon's soul it in fact would serve Malack right to find out that his so-called new best friend might not want anything to do with him once the thralldom was over.

Gain by the hidden feature of a spell, lose by a hidden feature of a spell.

I admit the chances of this idea being true are less than good. Very less than good. Very very less than good, actually. Some might even say zero. But it does make me smile to think about the possibility, especially if Durkon 'breaks free' at some point. That would be his ultimate revenge against Malack.

[Forikroder]

Dwarfs souls are dealt with diffferently, if a dwarf dies in an un-honourable way he goes to Hel regardless of his alignment so its possible that dwarven vampires are dealt with differently too, that being turned into a vampire is considered un-honourable death and so they go to Hel who then does what we jsut saw

also remember the Gods didnt follow rules when they made the world so it could easily have gone

Nergal: Vampires are jsut corrupted forms of the person soul
Hel: no Vampires are new souls in control of the body with the old soul suffering inside

[Spoomeister]

I'm not sure what you are saying then. Either you were referring specifically to speculation involving rules from other sources, and didn't clarify that, or you think that we can't speculate about it at all, which, given the quote you provided, seems to be implying that you think that they are only rules in an abstract sense. Perhaps, I misinterpreted you.

Either way, I think we speculation still has a point.

Yup, you misinterpreted me. Let me break it down differently for you:

I have no opinion on whether people should speculate about Durkon/Durkula specifically.
I have no opinion on whether people should speculate about the nature and rules of vampirism as they exist in OOTS.
I have no opinion on whether people should speculate about the nature and rules of vampirism as they exist in OOTS while using D&D or other source material as the basis of their speculation.
I previously had opinions on possibilities for Durkon's story arc post-vampirizing. My opinions on Durkon's story arc were based on my interpretation of D&D's rules for vampires.
I believe that Rich referring to discussions about the nature of vampirism as being "rules", in quotes, might have given some small clue that no, Rich is not following any established rules about vampires (from D&D, source books, popular culture or anywhere else) and that what we've been seeing in OOTS is Rich's presentation of what he calls a vampire and how vampires work, in OOTS.

Hope that helps.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Thank you. The way you had phrased it earlier had lead me to believe that you felt that speculating on vampires was pointless. Thanks for clarifying your point.

Now that I understand, I agree with your final point.

[Psyren]

...and thus any speculation about how vampirism works in general in OOTS, or with Durkon specifically, is a moot point. Rich is telling the story he wants to tell, and it doesn't mean vampires need to work the way they work in any other fantasy setting. Which is as it should be.

It may not follow the rules perfectly or even at all, but they're still a useful starting point for us to base our discussion on. Telling us that they may not work that way adds even less to the discussion than speculating does.

[Forikroder]

maybe all Vampires are corrupted souls, but Durkon died in battle so Hel couldnt get his soul so she had to improvise

[Lombard]

Wow what a rich topic for speculation. :elan:

I propose that not all types of undead are the same regarding the location/function of the soul, but that until shown otherwise it's reasonable to expect that the basic functionality within each type of undead is the same.

When we say undead we mean that a) the normal functions of the body have stopped, i.e. death, and b) something else is keeping the body going. So I would furthermore propose that all undead have a) in common but there is much room for variance within b).

In my recollection all undead however appear to be animated by either magic, a highly evolved disease organism, or some combination of both. It's possible however to distinguish between undead that have substantially all of the abilities that they had in life, such as a vampire or a lich, and those that can at best speak the language that they spoke, which appears to be the result of the undeath mechanism preserving and being able to access that portion of the brain.

I would go on to propose that for those undead that have substantially all of the abilities that they had in life, the soul of the formerly living being still resides in the undead vehicle. For those that do not have substantially all of the abilities that they had in life, I propose that the soul has gone on to the hereafter.

I would additionally propose that for those undead that have substantially all of the abilities that they had in life, when the process is undergone willingly there is only one soul resident in the undead vehicle. When the process is not undergone willingly then some new process, which is a bit beyond me to describe accurately (lol help?), must superimpose itself on the old soul. While that last bit may seem underdeveloped, I'm having trouble otherwise reconciling the fact that vampires, liches, baelnorns, and other 'truly sentient' undead have freedom of action, yet especially in the case of the vampire such actions are not what the soul would have chosen in life. At any rate it's my conclusion that the strip's representation of the duality between Durkon-that-was and Durkula-that-is is a fair portrayal/reconciliation of the rather mysterious forces at work here. Certainly it's not as if all the various portrayers of undead over the millenia had some convention to determine what fit the general philosophy and what did not, tossed out the heretics, and so on lol. However at least in the D&D portrayal there are some certain themes from which it's possible to draw general conclusions as I've done above.

[Devils_Advocate]

So I really only skimmed this thread, but there was something I wanted to comment on.


I'd still claim that the gist of what the D&D rules have been saying over the years is, with some contradictions, that the undead is, on some fundamental level, the same as it was before death.
The thing is that you can be the same person as someone on some fundamental level and also a different person from the same someone on some other fundamental level. If you see what I mean.

If you woke up with all of your usual memories but all of your other personality factors replaced with someone else's, you probably wouldn't say to yourself "Whoa, what am I doing here and what happened to the mind that was using this brain yesterday?". You'd probably say "Wow, I'm in a really weird mood today for some reason".

Y'know. For a certain value of "you".

So one would certainly generally expect a mind with a new personality but old memories to self-identify as the mind whose memories it inherits.

Conversely, if someone with one personality had two different sets of memories... (http://www.akimbocomics.com/?cat=9&paged=2) (Warnings: NSFW; story does not end well for anyone, in much the sense that the ocean is not particularly dry.)

I imagine that the revelation that the original Durkon still exists would have caused a lot of people would stop thinking of Vampire Durkon as Durkon even if he did self-identify as such. Which just goes to illustrate how quirky our intuitions about personal identity can be. Because in that case identity is functionally something you inherit by being the most similar to a previously existing entity in some way. So if someone more similar turns out to be still around, then you're ruled to no longer be "next of kin". (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2002-08-04)


The vampire is always chaotic evil. Idiotic, and should be ignored.
If anything, Lawful Evil makes more sense. Several of their weaknesses read like a weird code of conduct. And let's not forget the whole thrall thing. I'm pretty sure that being Chaotic is at odds with consistently and predictably obeying a master.

[Souhiro]

Durkon sees, feels and hears all the toughs of Durkula and see (or rather, is forced) to see his acts. Those toughs are against his nature, those thougs are alien to him.

Bio-Xykon, on the other hand, feels and hears all the toughs of Necro-Xykon, the one benefits from the other knowledges and abilities.

I think that Durkula is a paratite in Durkon's for body and soul, while Bio-Xykon and Necro-Xykon relationship is more a symbiotic one.

[Heksefatter]

So I really only skimmed this thread, but there was something I wanted to comment on.


The thing is that you can be the same person as someone on some fundamental level and also a different person from the same someone on some other fundamental level. If you see what I mean.

If you woke up with all of your usual memories but all of your other personality factors replaced with someone else's, you probably wouldn't say to yourself "Whoa, what am I doing here and what happened to the mind that was using this brain yesterday?". You'd probably say "Wow, I'm in a really weird mood today for some reason".

Y'know. For a certain value of "you".

So one would certainly generally expect a mind with a new personality but old memories to self-identify as the mind whose memories it inherits.

Conversely, if someone with one personality had two different sets of memories... (http://www.akimbocomics.com/?cat=9&paged=2) (Warnings: NSFW; story does not end well for anyone, in much the sense that the ocean is not particularly dry.)

I imagine that the revelation that the original Durkon still exists would have caused a lot of people would stop thinking of Vampire Durkon as Durkon even if he did self-identify as such. Which just goes to illustrate how quirky our intuitions about personal identity can be. Because in that case identity is functionally something you inherit by being the most similar to a previously existing entity in some way. So if someone more similar turns out to be still around, then you're ruled to no longer be "next of kin". (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2002-08-04)


If anything, Lawful Evil makes more sense. Several of their weaknesses read like a weird code of conduct. And let's not forget the whole thrall thing. I'm pretty sure that being Chaotic is at odds with consistently and predictably obeying a master.

Now we enter into some speculation as to the nature of personal identity. However, when it comes to Durkula, it is clear that:

- It is a different soul than Durkon.
- It knows that it is a different soul.
- Apparently it actively has to access Durkula's memories.
- The original soul, Durkon, knows these things as well.

I would say that in a world where souls are proven to exist (such as the D&D and OotS-verses), they are the fundamental piece of identity. It is perfectly possible that someone could have their soul exchanged without the replacement soul being aware of it, of course, but it is still a new person.

However, these complications do not appear to apply to the Durkula-Durkon situation. Whether it applies to other spawnable undead in D&D and OotS...who knows?

[Devils_Advocate]

I would say that in a world where souls are proven to exist (such as the D&D and OotS-verses), they are the fundamental piece of identity. It is perfectly possible that someone could have their soul exchanged without the replacement soul being aware of it, of course, but it is still a new person.
Why? And just what is a soul? What distinguishes one from another, and what's the difference between souls and things that aren't souls?

If anything, I would think that something would be termed "the soul" because it was understood to be the seat of identity, rather than vice versa. But if something were called "the soul" for entirely different reasons, it would be rather absurd to go on to consider it the seat of identity anyway, would it not?

Analogously, I think that some cultures traditionally considered the heart to constitute the self. But because we now understand the brain to be the conscious organ, people are rather more inclined to accept heart transplants than brain transplants. You want to be the donor of a brain transplant, not the recipient. In fact, better to call such a thing a body transplant.

If a soul transplant, like a heart transplant, could allow the continuation of one's mental functioning, then it could be desirable as a means of preserving oneself. It's if it led to the cessation of one's mental functioning, like a brain transplant, that it would be undesirable.

Then again, maybe not. There are people who would not regard their minds in matter other than their brains to be themselves, as the brain being the self is the current popular superstition. (This is silly, because in that case, you could achieve self-preservation just by having your brain frozen. Not in order to be revived in the future, but just to keep it intact, because hey, your brain is "you", so as long as it exists, "you" persist! But it is intuitively obvious that that doesn't count, because it's what the brain does that's important. QED, my friends. Cue. Eee. Dee.)