How will Durkon overcome the vampire?

[pendell]

So based on 946 it's obvious that Durkon is not, as he is dismissed, "of no concern". Somehow he has to overcome this predicament, at some point in the future.

But how?

So far as I can tell, his "soul" is bound hand and foot. He cannot move or take any action. His mouth is free but nothing else is.

Call on Thor to assist him? I don't think this will work. If Thor was not willing to intervene to stop the vampirization in the first place, it is unlikely he will just step in now. OOTS seems to have a covenent between the gods in that they cannot directly interfere on the mortal plane but must act through mortal servants.

Thus, if Durkon is freed , it must be by his own hands, the hands of his friends, or perhaps the high priest of Thor. The gods may act through a mortal instrument to help him, but they will not help him directly.

What are his options?

1) Directly contest the vampire-spirit and take his body back? It happened in Kingdom Hearts : Birth by Sleep (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyUYTxDvv7E), but that's not D&D.

2) Misinform the Vampire-spirit with true-but-misleading information as he did Miko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0264.html), thereby blowing the Vampire-spirit's cover at a critical moment? Is that even possible?

3) Pull an O-chul? Bide his time and wait for the moment, then either break free or at last fight the creature on the inside? If this occurs at a critical moment, the Vampire may be distracted by internal turmoil, giving some external power the ability to finish him off.

Are there other options?

And this raises another question: Why didn't the lizard-shaman do these things while the vampire possessed Malack's body? Or did it, and was singularly ineffectual?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Rakoa]

Call on Thor to assist him? I don't think this will work. If Thor was not willing to intervene to stop the vampirization in the first place, it is unlikely he will just step in now. OOTS seems to have a covenent between the gods in that they cannot directly interfere on the mortal plane but must act through mortal servants.


Normally I would agree with you, but it can be inferred that Hel has overstepped her bounds by inserting one of her own spirits into Durkon's vampire body. I don't think this whole thing is typical of all vampires, and so Thor may be well within his rights to act directly, in the same way that Hel did by imprisoning Durkon's soul. If he finds out about it, that is. And gives a crap enough to do something about it.

[AKA_Bait]

There is the possibility that Durkon simply will not overcome the vampire. It may be that it is simply not possible, which would explain the shaman's lack of change.

I think a better explanation for the shaman would be Malack's lack of breaking out is that we have no particular reason to think that he'd want to. The Shaman may well have been evil aligned to begin with and its soul would have been perfectly happy to coexist with, or somehow merge with, the vampire spirit in exchange for the power boost/ eternal life granted by becoming a vampire.

[RNGgod]

Not only might the shaman have been evil to begin with, imagine being in Durkon's position for centuries.


I find it extremely likely that the shaman eventually gave up.

[pendell]

Not only might the shaman have been evil to begin with, imagine being in Durkon's position for centuries.


I find it extremely likely that the shaman eventually gave up.

Indeed. If "misinformation to blow his cover" is the only option open to the shaman, the point of that was lost some centuries ago. The only thing the mortal soul has that the vampire doesn't is recall of events previous to becoming a vampire -- both parties know equally everything that happened from vampirization onward. When everyone of Malack's generation died, so too did the mortal soul's leverage.


Speculation: Perhaps the shaman did exactly that, blowing the vampire's cover in front of his family. Which is why the family was killed. Although that might have happened in any case.



Normally I would agree with you, but it can be inferred that Hel has overstepped her bounds by inserting one of her own spirits into Durkon's vampire body.


My read of the dialog from 946 is that what happened is entirely in accord with divine procedure -- when a victim is vampirized, a spirit from the lower planes takes over the dead body and imprisons the original soul. Since Durkon was a dwarf, the evil spirit had to come from Hel's domain. All proper and correct. So Thor cannot directly stop this from happening, though he can of course motivate mortal followers to do the necessary.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[RMS Oceanic]

I have a feeling that there will be an external factor that begins Durkon's resistance.

How I see the struggle beginning is establishing that Durkon attempts to resist Durkula's probes for information are pretty much futile. But then something happens: A spell, an artifact, or even a chance encounter with a character, either creates a crack or weakness in Durkula's hold that Durkon can begin to chip away at, or it gives Durkon an idea for how to change his approach. That will be the turning point. However any chance Durkon has to overcome the vampire will be narrative-dependent: The higher the stakes, the more likely Durkon can finally at least stay the Vampire's hand, if not either reveal the switch or seize control.

I could be wrong, but I don't see Durkon ending up having absolutely no agency in rescuing himself. That would be disappointing.

[AKA_Bait]

My read of the dialog from 946 is that what happened is entirely in accord with divine procedure -- when a victim is vampirized, a spirit from the lower planes takes over the dead body and imprisons the original soul. Since Durkon was a dwarf, the evil spirit had to come from Hel's domain..

I agree. That it was just a lucky break for Hel is why she calls the HPH her "serendipitous servant."

[Kornaki]

My read of the dialog from 946 is that what happened is entirely in accord with divine procedure -- when a victim is vampirized, a spirit from the lower planes takes over the dead body and imprisons the original soul. Since Durkon was a dwarf, the evil spirit had to come from Hel's domain. All proper and correct. So Thor cannot directly stop this from happening, though he can of course motivate mortal followers to do the necessary.

Malack seemed to think that Durkon would be relatively unchanged by his vampirism, so it's not clear if this is regular procedure.

[theinsulabot]

Normally I would agree with you, but it can be inferred that Hel has overstepped her bounds by inserting one of her own spirits into Durkon's vampire body. I don't think this whole thing is typical of all vampires, and so Thor may be well within his rights to act directly, in the same way that Hel did by imprisoning Durkon's soul. If he finds out about it, that is. And gives a crap enough to do something about it.

why do people keep saying this is probably non-standard in OOTS? it doesn't seem very logical or backed by any evidence.

[Kish]

Beats me.

That said, I'm not placing any bets where the High Priest of Hel is concerned for a while.

[Amphiox]

Malack seemed to think that Durkon would be relatively unchanged by his vampirism, so it's not clear if this is regular procedure.

The new soul could easily have been created using the old soul as a template, a kind of warped copy. That, along with access to the old soul's memories, would mean that to an outside observer there wouldn't be much change.


My guess to the question in the OP is that it will be with a massive bad-ass assertion of willpower. Durkon will simply break those spirit bonds and take back control at an appropriately dramatic moment.

[Cikomyr]

Hylgia's true love for him will redeem him :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

The new soul could easily have been created using the old soul as a template, a kind of warped copy. That, along with access to the old soul's memories, would mean that to an outside observer there wouldn't be much change.
That would seem unlikely to result in the new soul referring to the old soul's accent as "ridiculous" and needing to consciously and with some effort fake it, though.

[Roland Itiative]

That would seem unlikely to result in the new soul referring to the old soul's accent as "ridiculous" and needing to consciously and with some effort fake it, though.

I'd say what Amphiox said may be true to a "regular" vampire (so Malack's soul was based on the shaman's, and thus identifies himself as the same being, abeit changed), and the difference with Durkon being the fact Hel pulled some godly strings to insert a soul with a previous identity, thus creating this conflict. Just speculation, of course, and there isn't any evidence to back it up, but it could be a good explanation for why Durkon would be able to break out from the other soul's control (assuming he will).

[Keltest]

why do people keep saying this is probably non-standard in OOTS? it doesn't seem very logical or backed by any evidence.

Because HPH is getting a lot more divine attention that logically applies. There has to be some sort of special circumstance about it, and so far the only thing we know about that may or may not violate any sort of rule is Durkon's soul being trapped.

[pendell]

My guess to the question in the OP is that it will be with a massive bad-ass assertion of willpower. Durkon will simply break those spirit bonds and take back control at an appropriately dramatic moment.


Okay. Mechanically speaking, how would you do this? OOTS won't care about it, as it runs on rule of drama. And there aren't rules in SRD so we'd have to house rule it. But , DM readers, who would you model Durkon's attempt to break free? An opposed check versus will? Circumstance bonuses?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[RMS Oceanic]

Okay. Mechanically speaking, how would you do this? OOTS won't care about it, as it runs on rule of drama. And there aren't rules in SRD so we'd have to house rule it. But , DM readers, who would you model Durkon's attempt to break free? An opposed check versus will? Circumstance bonuses?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

The most obvious parallel would be a Will Save, but that's just to stop assaults on the mind such as the memory collection, and would translate pretty weird if Durkula forgets one in every twenty things he's supposed to be doing. To go on the offensive, I figured an epic level application of Concentration or Autohypnosis would be more applicable.

[Knight.Anon]

Pushups. Lots and Lots of Pushups. When he's ready Durkon will be able to bench-press something 150 yards away.

[Porthos]

Malack seemed to think that Durkon would be relatively unchanged by his vampirism, so it's not clear if this is regular procedure.

I keep seeing this assertion, but I see little evidence to back it up. In fact most of the evidence I've seen equally works well for a 'spirit birthed into the mortal realm and getting used to things'.

[AKA_Bait]

DM readers, who would you model Durkon's attempt to break free? An opposed check versus will? Circumstance bonuses?


I'd model it after the opposed control check mechanics used for a Sphere of Annihilation, with an inherent bonus given to the vampire and default control slipping "toward" the vampire if neither is successful in the check. Probably something like a successful opposed control check gives control for x rounds.



Because HPH is getting a lot more divine attention that logically applies. There has to be some sort of special circumstance about it, and so far the only thing we know about that may or may not violate any sort of rule is Durkon's soul being trapped.

Not necessarily. He could just be casting a commune spell, which would permit him to consult his deity.

[Kish]

I keep seeing this assertion, but I see little evidence to back it up. In fact most of the evidence I've seen equally works well for a 'spirit birthed into the mortal realm and getting used to things'.
Indeed, Malack clearly did think Durkon would be changed such that he wouldn't respond to being released from thralldom with, "Where were we? Oh yeah, die you treacherous snake!"

That said, he also thought who Durkon was would matter such that he wanted to turn Durkon into a vampire by preference to Belkar or anyone else. (Let me add that it makes his "affection" for Durkon beyond creepy that apparently he knew, not just that he would be denying his "friend" the death he wanted, but also that Durkon would be--for, if Malack got his way, the rest of eternity--chained up in his own mind.)

[AKA_Bait]

(Let me add that it makes his "affection" for Durkon beyond creepy that apparently he knew, not just that he would be denying his "friend" the death he wanted, but also that Durkon would be--for, if Malack got his way, the rest of eternity--chained up in his own mind.)

Perhaps Malack believed that eventually Durkon would come to terms with the HPH? Malack was inclined to think in long timelines and something like that might have occurred with his own transformation.

[Vladier]

Not necessarily. He could just be casting a commune spell, which would permit him to consult his deity.

Hel's use of "Well" would imply that her plan for her High Priest was in motion for some time already, which would imply that the dark spirit existed already by the time Durkon died and became a vampire. He couldn't possibly commune with her if he was only created at Durkon's vampirisation as Durkon more than likely didn't prepare the spell (there is no reason - gods won't help them on their quest). So I'd assume that Durkon's case is more or less unique.

My theory: when a vampire creates his spawn, part of Negative Energy Plane creates some kind of parasite which traps the Positive Energy soul and uses its memories and considers itself the original person with a vampire template on top. That would explain why Malack spoke of himself as a shaman who was turned and whose first victims were "his" family and why he was sure that vampire Durkon would again become his friend post-vampirisation. However, due to the creation of the dwarves being supervised by the Northern pantheon, dead dwarves belong to Hel unless they died honourably and are fought for by Thor himself. Since Durkon's soul didn't depart his body due to vampirisation, he and his body still belong to Hel and she used this technicality to send her minion instead of usual Negative Plane soul-substitute.

[Kish]

Problem with your theory: Durkon died in battle, very unambiguously. The only reason Hel has any say here, is that she's the evil deity in charge of all dwarf-related evil-deity things.

[Porthos]

Indeed, Malack clearly did think Durkon would be changed such that he wouldn't respond to being released from thralldom with, "Where were we? Oh yeah, die you treacherous snake!"

That said, he also thought who Durkon was would matter such that he wanted to turn Durkon into a vampire by preference to Belkar or anyone else. (Let me add that it makes his "affection" for Durkon beyond creepy that apparently he knew, not just that he would be denying his "friend" the death he wanted, but also that Durkon would be--for, if Malack got his way, the rest of eternity--chained up in his own mind.)

There is that, yes. On the flip, however, there was the whole Durkon that was business, which suggests different people (as does the 'complicated way of destroying me). Plus, he was perfectly willing to turn Belkar into a vampire when he got all wistful about children before Durkon came wandering back. For all we know, he didn't vamp Belkar as well because of the promise he made to Durkon.

Or he only wanted to deal with one new kid at a time. :smallwink:

Personally, I think some of us might be looking at this a bit too much of a binary fashion. We have extremely limited information about what is happening here. And it isn't helped with the tendency of one of our primary sources to speak metaphorically and philosophically.

For all we know, the 'malign spirit' might pick up some/most of the attitudes and mannerisms of the host, albeit in a warped manner. And I'm not talking about accents and the like. Or maybe after a while, it absorbs the host creating some sort of unholy warped fusion of the two. An unsettling prospect.

Or maybe this is some special case due to Whatever. I'm open to the possibility. I just don't really think it is more likely than not. Mostly because we simply don't know enough about what is really happening. Well, that and drawing from a sample size of two probably isn't a great idea. :smalltongue:

===

I suspect we might get an answer one way or another whenever someone with enough ranks in Knowledge: Religion takes a good look at the 'new and improved' Durkon. Their (eventual) reaction could prove telling.

Be kinda ironic if that was the way Hilgya returned to the comic. And perhaps far preferable to the Baby Daddy stuff that keeps coming up. :smallsigh:

[hamishspence]

Personally, I think some of us might be looking at this a bit too much of a binary fashion. We have extremely limited information about what is happening here. And it isn't helped with the tendency of one of our primary sources to speak metaphorically and philosophically.

For all we know, the 'malign spirit' might pick up some/most of the attitudes and mannerisms of the host, albeit in a warped manner. And I'm not talking about accents and the like. Or maybe after a while, it absorbs the host creating some sort of unholy warped fusion of the two. An unsettling prospect.


Does seem like an interesting, and plausible, possibility.

[King of Nowhere]

A moral constant in oots has been that even evil have loved ones, so I would be surprised if malak inverted this. therefore I'd think it's pretty safe to assume that malak wouldn't have vampirized durkon if he hadn't thought he'd come to terms with his new template.
So either durkon's soul and the new vampire soul will merge with each other with time, or dukon's soul being trapped is something exceptional. It has to be one of those two, unless I'm missing some other option that would make malak still believe he wasn't doing too much harm to durkon in vampirizing him.

[Porthos]

It has to be one of those two, unless I'm missing some other option that would make malak still believe he wasn't doing too much harm to durkon in vampirizing him.

Again, Malack wasn't so fussy in regards to Belkar. Furthermore, he showed regret over what happened to Durkon. Well, to a degree at least.

Finally he didn't 'love' Durkon so much as to withdraw from the battlefield. No matter who you fault there, his affection for Durkon clearly had limits.

[Kornaki]

Everything here is obviously very circumstantial and sketchy as evidence, but going back to Malack for a second; he keeps Durkon under thrall because

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html

"[releasing you] now would be... confusing". The spirit currently controlling Durkon's body had absolutely no problem being released from thralldom, he just cleaned up the linear guild and seamlessly integrated himself into the OOTS again. That suggests the malevolent spirit that comes pre-equipped with plans of world domination/dwarven genocide is not standard. I think it can go either way but I definitely think there is some evidence that this is a special event.

[pendell]

(Let me add that it makes his "affection" for Durkon beyond creepy that apparently he knew, not just that he would be denying his "friend" the death he wanted, but also that Durkon would be--for, if Malack got his way, the rest of eternity--chained up in his own mind.)


The reason restraining orders exist is because some people have really strange ideas of what it means to 'love' someone else, as any psychiatrist or police officer can attest.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The Recreator]

A moral constant in oots has been that even evil have loved ones, so I would be surprised if malak inverted this. therefore I'd think it's pretty safe to assume that malak wouldn't have vampirized durkon if he hadn't thought he'd come to terms with his new template.
So either durkon's soul and the new vampire soul will merge with each other with time, or dukon's soul being trapped is something exceptional. It has to be one of those two, unless I'm missing some other option that would make malak still believe he wasn't doing too much harm to durkon in vampirizing him.

I think Malack's desire for a brother outweighed his desire to preserve Durkon's soul. He considered Durkon's vampirism to be a tragedy, and yet he skill killed Durkon in cold blood (quite literally). To me that suggests that Malack knew he was causing harm to Durkon somewhere along the way.

Whether or not Malack hoped Durkula would be the friend that Durkon once was may not matter. That friendship died when the two clerics found themselves on opposite sides. In fact, Malack might have hoped for a chance to start fresh with Durkula. A new vampire buddy is better than a dead buddy - or an ex-buddy that's trying to kill you, for that matter.

So it's entirely possible that Malack knew that Durkula wouldn't be Durkon and simply didn't care. Evil sometimes needs friends, but Evil doesn't have to be sentimental about it.

[pendell]

"[releasing you] now would be... confusing". The spirit currently controlling Durkon's body had absolutely no problem being released from thralldom, he just cleaned up the linear guild and seamlessly integrated himself into the OOTS again. That suggests the malevolent spirit that comes pre-equipped with plans of world domination/dwarven genocide is not standard. I think it can go either way but I definitely think there is some evidence that this is a special event.


Not necessarily. Suddenly moving from the depths of the abyss to the prime material plane might very well be disorienting. The spirit may need time to adjust to its new circumstance, get a handle on its new body, access the memories of the soul trapped in it. This may be normal, which could be why Malack expected disorientation to occur and was prepared to teach the new vampire basics such as "stay out of daylight." This isn't Malack's first vampire child, after all. Nothing that happened suggested that Durkula was different from any other newly sired vampire Malack had encountered or created.

Wait ... if Malack is his sire and Hel is his mother, then that would ... never mind. Suffice it to say I'm glad crack pairings is gone.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[zimmerwald1915]

the depths of the abyss
Wouldn't a spirit such as this come from the Negative Energy Plane?

[rbetieh]

At this point, if Durkon were to search for himself, he wouldn't even be able to find himself in the mirror. I am pretty sure Durkon is out for a while.

[pendell]

Wouldn't a spirit such as this come from the Negative Energy Plane?

In this particular case, the spirit was born in Hel's Dark Halls. I don't know where exactly that would be located on the Great Wheel, but regardless it's not the negative energy plane. No doubt the negative energy plane is where the spirit draws the power to move the body around, but it doesn't seem to originally hail from there.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[zimmerwald1915]

In this particular case, the spirit was born in Hel's Dark Halls. I don't know where exactly that would be located on the Great Wheel, but regardless it's not the negative energy plane. No doubt the negative energy plane is where the spirit draws the power to move the body around, but it doesn't seem to originally hail from there.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Is there some reason Hel's hall cannot be located on the Negative Energy Plane? Or the Plane of Shadow, which "overlaps" with the Negative Energy Plane in complicated ways and from which negative energy spirits can also hail?

Had I not felt constrained by the phrasing of your original statement, I probably would have phrased my rejoinder "isn't this more likely to be a negative energy spirit rather than a demon?" because claiming a being is from "the depths of the Abyss" implies the latter. Unless I'm totally wrong and negative energy spirits can hail from the Abyss, in which case...:smallredface:

[pendell]

Is there some reason Hel's hall cannot be located on the Negative Energy Plane? Or the Plane of Shadow, which "overlaps" with the Negative Energy Plane in complicated ways and from which negative energy spirits can also hail?

Had I not felt constrained by the phrasing of your original statement, I probably would have phrased my rejoinder "isn't this more likely to be a negative energy spirit rather than a demon?" because claiming a being is from "the depths of the Abyss" implies the latter. Unless I'm totally wrong and negative energy spirits can hail from the Abyss, in which case...:smallredface:

I think it likely that Hel's hall is located in an outer plane which might overlap the negative energy plane or the plane of shadow, but it's not necessary to the hypothesis.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Warren Dew]

Are there other options?
He could wait until the rest of the order comes across a raise or resurrection and decides to stake Durkula, like so many people were already advocating.

[Gift Jeraff]

Might Hel's domain be in one of Baator's layers?

Compare the cave wall seen in all Hel scenes to the layer behind V's soul's forehead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0897.html). The colouring is off because of the yellow tinge everything in that panel has (look at the table V is strapped to).

[hamishspence]

Layer 3 of Baator is marshy, Layer 4 is very fiery.

In the Great Wheel cosmology, Hel's realm of Niflheim is in the Gray Waste of Hades.

While The Giant might not use the D&D version of Hel - I do think it would fit in this case.

[roko10]

With great difficulty.

I think that Durkula will be staked by the Order, and then get rezzed. No immer fight or something.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Durkon will overwhelm the vampire by slowly discovering the vampire's weaknesses, and will overwhelm before he can do something traumatic

Or he'll fail to do that and he'll have to be resurrected.

[Kish]

I think "the Order is helped by a vampire who actually has Durkon's personality in control" is a ship that's sailed.

[factotum]

Or he'll fail to do that and he'll have to be resurrected.

Except he can't be resurrected while vamp-Durkon still exists, and if he doesn't overcome the dark spirit currently occupying his body, there's no reason for the vampire to *cease* to exist.

[Reddish Mage]

I'd note the notion of a malevolent negative energy spirit controlling Durkon's body is sourced in RAW ad there's no mechanism in RAW for a PC to overcome that spirit.

[AngryHobbit]

For some reason, Durkon traped soul reminds me of Kimblee-Pride and Ling-Greed in FMA. Maybe he is going to break-out like Kimblee? And Durkula and Durkon both die in the process.
EDIT: Oh, and if I remember correctly, Malack's vampire body turned to dust, and I don't remember anyone casting Desintegrate, so anyway, I don't think Durkon will get out of this one alive.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Except he can't be resurrected while vamp-Durkon still exists, and if he doesn't overcome the dark spirit currently occupying his body, there's no reason for the vampire to *cease* to exist.
Sorry, my statement wasn't very clear. By "have to get resurrected", I meant "in order for Durkon to be in control again, the Order will have to find out that Durkon is no longer "in charge", kill the High Priest of Hel, and find some way to resurrect him.

[Tathum]

Hylgia's true love for him will redeem him :smallbiggrin:

I said this in another thread. I agree...

A priestess of Loki will step forth with a child, and the soul of Durkon, bound by honor and tradition to do his duty to his new family and offspring, will gather the strength and will to break free of the vampire's bindings.

Even though he doesn't like it.

ESPECIALLY because he doesn't like it.

[Kish]

EDIT: Oh, and if I remember correctly, Malack's vampire body turned to dust, and I don't remember anyone casting Desintegrate, so anyway, I don't think Durkon will get out of this one alive.
You do realize that if Vaarsuvius hadn't cast Gust of Wind and someone had cast Resurrection on the dust of disintegrated Kubota, it would have worked.

[pendell]

I'd note the notion of a malevolent negative energy spirit controlling Durkon's body is sourced in RAW ad there's no mechanism in RAW for a PC to overcome that spirit.

Mechanically speaking, I argue that throwing off the vampire spirit should be no easier than for a thrall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) to overcome domination.



A vampire can crush an opponent’s will just by looking onto his or her eyes. This is similar to a gaze attack, except that the vampire must use a standard action, and those merely looking at it are not affected. Anyone the vampire targets must succeed on a Will save or fall instantly under the vampire’s influence as though by a dominate person spell (caster level 12th). The ability has a range of 30 feet.

Dominate Person

You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind.

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description).

Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.

By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject, though it still can’t communicate with you. You can’t actually see through the subject’s eyes, so it’s not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what’s going on.

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

If you don’t spend at least 1 round concentrating on the spell each day, the subject receives a new saving throw to throw off the domination.

Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect neither prevents the establishment of domination nor dispels it.


So .. the fact that Hel even has to ask implies that Durkon does have some potential to break free -- perhaps one saving throw a day?

But given that the vampire just came from Hel's domain, and that Durkon is a high-level cleric, why didn't Durkon overthrow the domination near instantly?

Perhaps that is what those few seconds of motionlessness were about when Malack was destroyed -- the Vampire was attempting to assert control of the now-masterless being and an internal battle of wills was occurring. Durkon failed his will save, and is under control of the vampire-spirit -- for the rest of the day at least.

Again, how can a newly-born vampire spirit dominate a high-level cleric? My guess is that the rules are somewhat different -- perhaps it's an offshoot of the same power that allows the lower planes to turn high-level souls into Lemures rather, than , say, be conquered by them (their inevitable fate when Belkar finally gets down there). I suggest that the vampire-spirit has access to all of living Durkon's memories, powers, and abilities. Therefore Durkon has to win this battle when, at worst, he has nothing save his own will to draw on while the Vampire has all the assets which were formally his. At best, it would be an even battle save that the vampire has as much power he does as well as whatever inherent power such a spirit possesses -- a being specifically created, perhaps, to dominate mortals.

It makes me wonder if some high-level magic could bind the vampire and allow Durkon to retake control of his vampire body without the need for stake and resurrection -- none in existence now, perhaps, but it might be researched.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Brookshw]

3) Pull an O-chul? Bide his time and wait for the moment, then either break free or at last fight the creature on the inside? If this occurs at a critical moment, the Vampire may be distracted by internal turmoil, giving some external power the ability to finish him off.



I'd guess this. Or he'll get by with a little help from his friends :smalltongue:

[Lexible]

1) With help from the Bardic Song of Freedom (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0890.html)

2) Through the Power of Love (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NMph943tsw)

3) By the Power of Greyskull (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8h8snfYidg)

4) Using the Power to Believe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmoq_oxvkDs)


Something like that. . .

[RadagastTheBrow]

It makes me wonder if some high-level magic could bind the vampire and allow Durkon to retake control of his vampire body without the need for stake and resurrection -- none in existence now, perhaps, but it might be researched.



You could, but the moment Durkon experiences a moment of pure happiness afterwards, we're all screwed. :smalltongue:

[Anarion]

I think "the Order is helped by a vampire who actually has Durkon's personality in control" is a ship that's sailed.

Very much so.

Personally, I'd be surprised if the Durkon spirit ever "takes over" at any point in time. I think the best he'll be able to do might be to give a sign to the Order that there's something wrong. Perhaps in the same manner as Roy's Ghost being able to see the spirits chained to Vaarsuvius, some future events will enable one or more members of the order to "see" the real Durkon spirit chained within the vampire, prompting them to try and free his soul.


You do realize that if Vaarsuvius hadn't cast Gust of Wind and someone had cast Resurrection on the dust of disintegrated Kubota, it would have worked.

With the caveat that Rich is on record as using the whole disintegrate thing as a marker for "this character is not coming back, please don't start asking."

[Vladier]

It makes me wonder if some high-level magic could bind the vampire and allow Durkon to retake control of his vampire body without the need for stake and resurrection -- none in existence now, perhaps, but it might be researched.


I wonder if Magic Jar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicJar.htm) would work. Would someone hijacking Durkon's body displace only the High Priest of Hel, leaving Durkon alone but still bound to the will of a current owner of his body (who maybe would then be able to free Durkon) or trap both the HPoH and Durkon who is bound to him?

[DaveMcW]

Somehow he has to overcome this predicament, at some point in the future.

No he doesn't.

The remaining members of the OOTS will overcome the vampire for Durkon. But Durkon himself is of no concern.

[RMS Oceanic]

No he doesn't.

The remaining members of the OOTS will overcome the vampire for Durkon. But Durkon himself is of no concern.

Most times in fiction, saying someone is of no concern guarantees they will be of concern in the future, and I think it's that premise this thread is operating on. Now will Rich defy expectations and give Durkon no agency in his rescue? Maybe. But I'd prefer if Durkon had a hand, even if it's just revealing the switch.

[Mastikator]

Durkon won't overcome the vampire. But the Order of the Stick might, though, based on how stupid everyone but Belkar is about Durkula, I doubt it. Frankly they have bigger fish to fry and Durkon was the only one strong willed enough to that his "friend" is an evil undead bloodsucking monster that is a threat to every living being and needs to be destroyed. There can be no parley or compromise.

My prediction is that since Belkar is the only one who is on to Durkula, Durkula will murder Belkar and make up a lie about how Belkar tried to kill him, and the rest will believe it.

[factotum]

Frankly they have bigger fish to fry and Durkon was the only one strong willed enough to that his "friend" is an evil undead bloodsucking monster that is a threat to every living being and needs to be destroyed. There can be no parley or compromise.


The Giant has said that Durkon didn't kill Malack purely because he was a vampire, but because he was already in the process of hurting someone who might well be an innocent. (OK, the person in question was Belkar, but Malack had no way to know he wasn't innocent). If Malack had not been doing that, and then revealed his master plan to turn the Western Continent into a food farm for vampires, Durkon wouldn't have tried to kill him, vampire or not.

[pendell]

Most times in fiction, saying someone is of no concern guarantees they will be of concern in the future, and I think it's that premise this thread is operating on. Now will Rich defy expectations and give Durkon no agency in his rescue? Maybe. But I'd prefer if Durkon had a hand, even if it's just revealing the switch.

Correct. The mere fact that Durkon "is of no concern" indicates that he will have some agency in overcoming the evil spirit possessing his body. In fact, I would go so far as to say the entire reason the Giant would invent this entirely new for m of Vampirism, which bears little resemblance to Dracula or Twilight or Anne Rice or even Buffy, is precisely to set up this conflict.

If anything, it reminds me of O-chul's captivity, during which he endured great torment before finally seizing an opportunity to make things right and escape. I can well see Durkon doing something similar.

Although exactly what he can do and the best way to do it I am uncertain of. Possibly the Giant will reveal more of what Durkon is capable of while being totally bound by the spirit possessing him.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Anarion]

Correct. The mere fact that Durkon "is of no concern" indicates that he will have some agency in overcoming the evil spirit possessing his body. In fact, I would go so far as to say the entire reason the Giant would invent this entirely new for m of Vampirism, which bears little resemblance to Dracula or Twilight or Anne Rice or even Buffy, is precisely to set up this conflict.

If anything, it reminds me of O-chul's captivity, during which he endured great torment before finally seizing an opportunity to make things right and escape. I can well see Durkon doing something similar.

Although exactly what he can do and the best way to do it I am uncertain of. Possibly the Giant will reveal more of what Durkon is capable of while being totally bound by the spirit possessing him.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That reveal demonstrates that Durkon's spirit is present in the vampire. It could be of concern because the reveal that the spirit is present could be the information that leads to Roy destroying that vampire.

I don't think that one-liner ensures that Durkon's spirit will try to take over from the vampire somehow.

[pendell]

No, but I think he will do something more than play damsel-in-distress. Some degree of agency in his own freedom. But how?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Rodin]

My bet is that the vampire will successfully dupe everyone and get a good backstab in at a critically important moment. However, when the Order later fights him, Durkon will demonstrate that he's learned how to yank on those bindings in such a way as to paralyze the vampire briefly, allowing Roy to smite it with his anti-Undead sword.

[Mith]

Problem with your theory: Durkon died in battle, very unambiguously. The only reason Hel has any say here, is that she's the evil deity in charge of all dwarf-related evil-deity things.

Another reason for this could also be that Vampires could be seen as the greatest disease in the OOTSverse. As such, they are within Hel's domain.

[happyman]

That reveal demonstrates that Durkon's spirit is present in the vampire. It could be of concern because the reveal that the spirit is present could be the information that leads to Roy destroying that vampire.

I don't think that one-liner ensures that Durkon's spirit will try to take over from the vampire somehow.

It reveals one more important thing:

Hel felt it necessary to ask what Durkon's status was. This in turn implies that it may be a problem for the HPoH. We don't know much about Vampirism in OotS, and it is a safe bet that Hel knows more. So take it as a weak hint that Durkon might be able to affect the flow of events from inside.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Another reason for this could also be that Vampires could be seen as the greatest disease in the OOTSverse. As such, they are within Hel's domain.

However, Durkon died before he became a Vampire, so if his soul hadn't been trapped behind, Thor probably would have gotten it.

I think that when Hel says that Dwarves fall under her domain, she means that if a Dwarf is turned into a vampire, she gets to pick which spirit takes over, not that she would get the soul of whoever was in that body.

[Anarion]

It reveals one more important thing:

Hel felt it necessary to ask what Durkon's status was. This in turn implies that it may be a problem for the HPoH. We don't know much about Vampirism in OotS, and it is a safe bet that Hel knows more. So take it as a weak hint that Durkon might be able to affect the flow of events from inside.

This is a good point. The comic says that the Vampire is drawing upon Durkon's memories, so perhaps because of the deception, he's being forced to open himself up to Durkon's spirit in a way that might allow Durkon to give some sign of his presence in the future.

[konradknox]

I'm afraid that the only way to beat the vampire may end up being intervention from outside, be it staking the vamp or finding some form of artifact that can deal with spirits.
:smallfrown:

[Anarion]

I'm afraid that the only way to beat the vampire may end up being intervention from outside, be it staking the vamp or finding some form of artifact that can deal with spirits.
:smallfrown:

Why are you afraid of that? I think it would be highly appropriate for the Order, especially Roy, to take a hand in the vampire's defeat.

[RadagastTheBrow]

It occurs to me... No, it'd be too crazy for something silly to point out the difference to the Order, but maybe...

Vampire Spirit doesn't know about the whole "Tree Hating" thing, does he? Why would he? Tree-hating comes from the Dwarven culture of which he's not part. He has to call upon Durkon for memories, and why would he expend the effort on something as ubiquitous and non-threatening as the scenery? Which would be doubly appropriate, as Vamp Spirit does have reason to fear trees. You know, on account of the staking.

[LordRahl6]

It occurs to me... No, it'd be too crazy for something silly to point out the difference to the Order, but maybe...

Vampire Spirit doesn't know about the whole "Tree Hating" thing, does he? Why would he? Tree-hating comes from the Dwarven culture of which he's not part. He has to call upon Durkon for memories, and why would he expend the effort on something as ubiquitous and non-threatening as the scenery? Which would be doubly appropriate, as Vamp Spirit does have reason to fear trees. You know, on account of the staking.

We don't know how much "free-will" Durkon has to interrupt the access the vampire has to his memories. The best that we can hope for at the moment is that one of the OotS will catch one of the vampire's slips and spot it for what it is. Haley would be my bet with what happened with Elan and Nale in Cliffport and the aftermath, but its a longshot still with that.

[MrMercury]

Personally, I think Durkon has the ability to at least resist the vampire. Why else would Hel ask about "The Dwarf's spirit?"
I don't think Durkon is strong enough to fully overcome the vampire. If we take the shot of Durkon being bound as a metaphor, all Durkon can really do is talk- or resist talking. Since Durkula has to call upon Durkon's memories and experiences, I think that Durkula will be revealed by Durkon resisting giving him a vital piece of information at some stage in time. Who knows, he might have successfully hidden information already. That's mere speculation, as we have yet to see how much Durkula knows. But based on Hel's question (and I think we can all agree that Hel will probably know all about vampires), I believe that Durkon can at least resist in some way. In fact, that's almost beyond refute. The question/speculation now falls to how much can Durkon influence (what ways he can resist) and how hard is it for Durkon to resist Durkula
EDIT: Either way, we cannot draw a solid conclusion- or even really speculate- as we have yet to see how Durkula acts. Basically we need more information. So my entire post is not my final speculation, and I will be changing my guesses in the next few strips that feature Durkula

[ManuelSacha]

Durkon will overcome the vampire with the help of that one blonde chick with a cross necklace and a wooden stake in OotPCs, whose specialty wasn't liches.

I mean, her vampires pretty much work the same way as these do, so... :smalltongue:

[Coat]

If anything, it reminds me of O-chul's captivity, during which he endured great torment before finally seizing an opportunity to make things right and escape. I can well see Durkon doing something similar.


Hmmm. Talking to the enemy - or, at least to the monster in the darkness - was an important part of O-Chul's escape.

The only part of Durkon that is not bound is his mouth. That might not mean that he is out of options...

[RadagastTheBrow]

We don't know how much "free-will" Durkon has to interrupt the access the vampire has to his memories. The best that we can hope for at the moment is that one of the OotS will catch one of the vampire's slips and spot it for what it is. Haley would be my bet with what happened with Elan and Nale in Cliffport and the aftermath, but its a longshot still with that.

That's the brilliance of it! Durkon could beat the vampire by sheer neglect.

:smallfurious: "Curses! You never said anything about the trees!"
:durkon: "Och, must'a forgot to mention it." :smallbiggrin:

[Bedinsis]

My thinking lies somewhere around the following:

While HPoH might have access to all of Durkon's memories, Durkon's emotions regarding those memories might be harder to reach. Sure, looking through all the memories relating to whatever HPoH wants to find out about might reveal what Durkon thought of the situation but time could be of the essence, so HPoH could simply assume what Durkon felt about the situation, and be dead wrong, and reveal himself that way.

The scenario I imagined would be a reencounter with Hylgia where HPoH would assume Durkon to have no emotions whatsoever for her(due to what he yelled at her), when in fact he did let out a tear after having told her off. Though that tree scenario sounded better.

Of course this assumes the memories are seen as if they were video clips and Durkon's emotions aren't accessible, which might not be the case.

[factotum]

The scenario I imagined would be a reencounter with Hylgia where HPoH would assume Durkon to have no emotions whatsoever for her(due to what he yelled at her), when in fact he did let out a tear after having told her off.

How would that reveal anything? No-one saw Durkon's single shed tear after he chased Hilgya away, and as far as we know he never even mentioned meeting her when he rejoined the rest of the team, so him showing no emotion on meeting her again would be entirely expected by everyone involved. :smallconfused:

[Bedinsis]

Because the Order knows Durkon. And they'd have a hard time believing he could completely shake off a feeling of love due to the loved one's backstory. His chief characteristic is his sense of duty, something he upholds even if it makes him miserable(ESPECIALLY if it makes him miserable), but that doesn't mean he is emotionally stoic regarding these choices. And the order knows this, unlike HPoH.

Something like that.

[Anarion]

If anything, I think it might end up being an act of hubris from the HPoH. He says in there that he draws upon Durkon's memory from time to time. So, what would probably happen is that circumstances would require that the HPoH draw deeply upon information that Durkon has. Maybe he really wants to push a certain type of plan, or he starts relying on Durkon for interactions with Roy when they start getting closer than intended, and he ends up drawing too deeply, given the real Durkon an opportunity to make his presence known to others and blowing the HPoH's cover.

[factotum]

Because the Order knows Durkon. And they'd have a hard time believing he could completely shake off a feeling of love due to the loved one's backstory.

You're missing the point by such a margin it's in a different country. I'm saying that the rest of the Order *never knew about Durkon's dalliance with Hilgya*. They don't know he was ever in love with her, they don't even know she's still alive--for all they know, she died when she fell over the edge into the pit of out-of-date creatures. Since they don't know he was in love with her, seeing him not showing any sort of loving reaction will not be any sort of hint this is not the real Durkon!

[gerryq]

You could, but the moment Durkon experiences a moment of pure happiness afterwards, we're all screwed. :smalltongue:

Fortunately, he's a dwarf, so he wouldn't want to.

[Bedinsis]

You're missing the point by such a margin it's in a different country. I'm saying that the rest of the Order *never knew about Durkon's dalliance with Hilgya*. They don't know he was ever in love with her, they don't even know she's still alive

If she reappears the subject would probably be brought up. If it comes out that they slept together one thing could lead to the next and the whole story could come out. In which "Durkon" shows inconsistent behaviour with how they know him, and, well, I've already said what I've imagined.

[Kish]

I think "the Order learns of the way Durkon interacted with Hilgya, observes the way the High Priest of Hel interacts with Hilgya, and observes a suspicious inconsistency there" has a few too many moving parts.

A significantly shorter chain, involving Hilgya realizing that the creepy thing now directing her ex-lover's movements is not her ex-lover, would be more plausible.

[Wayson]

Belkar is going to find out. Belkar is going to go up against Durkula alone, without the chance to tell Roy or anyone else. He'll try to stake Durkula, sort of because it's the right thing to do, sort of because he knows his team can't afford an infiltrator with ulterior motives who will likely (if not already) sabotage them, and mostly because for the lolz.

Belkar is then going to die. Painfully. Slowly. And messily.

At this point I could see Durkon breaking free, Roy and company showing up as Durkula finishes off Belkar, or Durkula getting away scot free. What I don't see happening is Durkula losing to anyone except Roy.

[factotum]

A significantly shorter chain, involving Hilgya realizing that the creepy thing now directing her ex-lover's movements is not her ex-lover, would be more plausible.

Yeah, I can definitely agree with that...I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's actually what happens. Of course, even if Hilgya does smell a rat, will she be able to convince the rest of the Order given that she was trying to kill them when they last saw her?

[Codex]

I expect Yeerkon, (that's what I call him, due to the similarities with Animorphs Yeerks) will be defeated by something minor. As in he fights member of the Order, beats him/her senseless, but Durkon's spirit stops Yeerkon from killing him/her. This leads to a big chain reaction of events that eventually foils his plan.

[factotum]

As in he fights member of the Order, beats him/her senseless

Er...under what circumstances would he ever do that? Whatever he's doing requires the help of the Order, and he'll lose that quite quickly if he starts randomly beating them up. :smallconfused:

[Metahuman1]

Hylgia's true love for him will redeem him :smallbiggrin:

Or at the very least she'll be party to breaking him free of the Vampire Spirit, what with being a high level cleric and able to rebuke undead unless I'm very much mistaken.

[Codex]

Er...under what circumstances would he ever do that? Whatever he's doing requires the help of the Order, and he'll lose that quite quickly if he starts randomly beating them up. :smallconfused:

That was a theoretical situation. Who knows what will happen.

[BenjCano]

There is the possibility that Durkon simply will not overcome the vampire. It may be that it is simply not possible, which would explain the shaman's lack of change.

I think a better explanation for the shaman would be Malack's lack of breaking out is that we have no particular reason to think that he'd want to. The Shaman may well have been evil aligned to begin with and its soul would have been perfectly happy to coexist with, or somehow merge with, the vampire spirit in exchange for the power boost/ eternal life granted by becoming a vampire.



This. Also, "nobody kills Durkula. He lives," to paraphrase something else.

[Kish]

I think "Durkon remains indefinitely imprisoned within his own mind by the vampire" is...somewhere Rich is not going to go.

This isn't Song of Ice and Fire.

[PsyBomb]

Not sure HOW it will go, though meeting up with Hilgya again is likely now that they're going through the Dwarven Lands... but I know when.

It will be on or near strip 1010. If you want to know why, look at the first panel of strip 910, Haley says it

[oppyu]

I think "Durkon remains indefinitely imprisoned within his own mind by the vampire" is...somewhere Rich is not going to go.

This isn't Song of Ice and Fire.
But think of the vitally important character development he would get from being trapped inside his corpse and slowly going insane from the isolation and guilt. This story can't end without Durkon going through character development.

[zimmerwald1915]

Not sure HOW it will go, though meeting up with Hilgya again is likely now that they're going through the Dwarven Lands... but I know when.
I have yet to see any justification for the prediction that the Order will meet Hilgya in the Dwarven lands that goes beyond "she's a dwarf." Hilgya ran away from the Dwarven lands because she did not fit in with their culture. Why would she go back? Because Durkon told her to? I see nothing he did that would convince her to accept his romantic, idealized view of Dwarfishness. If anything, the fact that he, from her perspective, used and rejected her would repulse her even more, both from him personally and from the Dwarven culture for which he had held himself out as an exemplar.


It will be on or near strip 1010. If you want to know why, look at the first panel of strip 910, Haley says it
The last time we got a prediction involving a specific number of strips was Durkon's "thirty" back in strip 732 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0732.html). There's some fuzziness about where "the current plotline" he was talking about ended, but if it was with the Order winging their way to the Windy Canyon, it ended with strip 818 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0818.html). Based on this, I'd predict a resolution of the hostage-Durkon plot around strip 1200, not 1000.

[factotum]

The last time we got a prediction involving a specific number of strips was Durkon's "thirty" back in strip 732 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0732.html).

Also, the #910 prediction was for a number of "pages", not strips, so wouldn't take account of double- or even triple-length strips.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Durkon will simply break those spirit bonds and take back control at an appropriately dramatic moment.

Durkon is dead. While he may stop the evil spirit from controlling his body, I doubt he will resume control of it.

[Kish]

Durkon is dead.
So was Roy.
Without being Rich there's no way to prove whether he will or won't get resurrected.

[rodneyAnonymous]

So was Roy.

Unless he somehow resurrects himself, that would not be Durkon overcoming the vampire, which is the thread topic. I don't mean he will never be back, I mean if he does come back it probably won't involve him wresting control from anyone.

Lemme 'lone! :)

[ChristianSt]

Unless he somehow resurrects himself, that would not be Durkon overcoming the vampire, which is the thread topic. I don't mean he will never be back, I mean if he does come back it probably won't involve him wresting control from anyone.

Lemme 'lone! :)

Maybe Durkon has still somehow access to Macebook (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0739.html) and is able to join the group Need a Rez? :smallbiggrin:

[ReaderAt2046]

He could go the route of John Berryman in Animorphs and just lecture the Vampire spirit 24/7 until it goes crazy and stakes itself just to get him to SHUT UP!!

[BenjCano]

I think "Durkon remains indefinitely imprisoned within his own mind by the vampire" is...somewhere Rich is not going to go.

This isn't Song of Ice and Fire.

I dunno. A number of characters have met pointless or tragic deaths, and a message of a previous character's arc is, essentially, not everyone gets a chance at redemption.

We may have to deal with the fact that Durkon is Lucy in this particular vampire story, not Mina.

Now I'm picturing Durkon in Victorian period dress, with a high corset and parasol. Lovely.

[Rakoa]

He could go the route of John Berryman in Animorphs and just lecture the Vampire spirit 24/7 until it goes crazy and stakes itself just to get him to SHUT UP!!

No, no, wait, even better. He lectures the spirit 24/7 until it converts to Thor and the two spirits meld into one and happily rejoin the Order to save the world.

[lunar2]

so, there are a few pieces of evidence that durkon will have a hand in overcoming the vampire in some way.

1. according to rich, the purpose of vamping durkon was to give him character development. this obviously is not the development of HPoH, since durkon still exists as a character separate from the HPoH. so durkon is going to have some actual interaction with HPoH, and will not just be sitting there silently for the next book.

2. HPoH said durkon is of no concern, and can't resist him. i don't think even rich is brave enough to ignore the trope he walked into with that one. durkon has some ability to resist, and it is a concern.

[Loreweaver15]

I dunno. A number of characters have met pointless or tragic deaths, and a message of a previous character's arc is, essentially, not everyone gets a chance at redemption.

We may have to deal with the fact that Durkon is Lucy in this particular vampire story, not Mina.

Now I'm picturing Durkon in Victorian period dress, with a high corset and parasol. Lovely.

Just a nitpick: That character's arc message is that you must attempt redemption, admit that you could have been wrong, or redemption will pass you by. She had quite a few chances at it, actually, and refused each one.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

so, there are a few pieces of evidence that durkon will have a hand in overcoming the vampire in some way.

1. according to rich, the purpose of vamping durkon was to give him character development. this obviously is not the development of HPoH, since durkon still exists as a character separate from the HPoH. so durkon is going to have some actual interaction with HPoH, and will not just be sitting there silently for the next book.
I'm pretty sure that all Rich said was that Durkon was not being used enough and that he had plans to change that. I'm having difficulty finding any exact quote about character development.

[BenjCano]

Just a nitpick: That character's arc message is that you must attempt redemption, admit that you could have been wrong, or redemption will pass you by. She had quite a few chances at it, actually, and refused each one.

A minor nitpick. Come on, you know there's going to be a "I know you're in there somewhere, you gotta fight him," scene. And wouldn't it be perfectly tragic if Durkon did fight against the High Priest...and lost?

[multilis]

Just a nitpick: That character's arc message is that you must attempt redemption, admit that you could have been wrong, or redemption will pass you by. She had quite a few chances at it, actually, and refused each one.
The message is whatever you want to make it. Miko wasn't given that much time and not a clear picture of world situation. In past when someone (Durkon) was willing to help her she showed some potential to change opinion. Later Miko was given info that left impression Roy and her boss were working together in way that might to doom the world.

Roy just smashed a gate which could have risked much more damage than Miko ever did because he did not have clear picture just as Miko didn't in past... The IIFC was willing to spend 1/3 of their "chips" to help Roy smash the gate.

Roy is currently fairly unquestioningly (perhaps as gullible/shortsighted as the worst of Miko) helping a vampire fake Durkon on a mission that may do much more damage than anything Miko ever did... because he does not have a clear picture of world.

Roy was given clearer picture when he went back for kidnapped Elan. He wasn't believing Elan and friends were likely up to destroying world.

V by any measure is being given *lots* more time and info to redeem self then Miko was ever given and a clearer picture of world.

"quite a few chances at it" depending on how you measure, others may have more chances than Miko ever did before they redeem selves.

...

In this case, for Durkon... is redemption even an issue? Durkon hasn't really done anything wrong, just been killed trying to save his friends from being dominated, then trapped by evil which he resists as best he can.

The usual trope is Durkon will find some way to make a little difference from the inside, so that OOTS from the outside realise the truth. Usual trope is Belkar will once again be first to figure it out as he did with Nale, and will be killed as result.

[BenjCano]

In this case, for Durkon... is redemption even an issue? Durkon hasn't really done anything wrong, just been killed trying to save his friends from being dominated, then trapped by evil which he resists as best he can.

It's a staple of just about every modern vampire story, whether the vampire develops a soul or free will or just grows as a person, he or she will eventually regret and torment him/herself over the evil he or she did.

[multilis]

It's a staple of just about every modern vampire story, whether the vampire develops a soul or free will or just grows as a person, he or she will eventually regret and torment him/herself over the evil he or she did.
Is a staple of *some* vampire stories, so far OOTS is following the other convention where old Durkon is clearly good and vampire is clearly evil with no conscience. I could go through a long list of similar stories: many of the Dracula versions, Fright night and Salem's lot follow this. Closest we have to idea for vampire redemption is... Malack. (Malack tried to not vamp Durkon, let Belkar live, did not reveal OOTS to Nale's team... a long way from "redemption")

Edit: just read this comment on a "salem's lot" vampire at window scene at youtube, thought it was funny as a "response" to quote above
W Leon3 months ago (edited)

That crap that is 'Twilight' has destroyed the portrayal of vampires. This is how vampires should be portrayed, pure evil, with no essence of humanity about them. Instead, what we have with 'Twilight', is a lot of slicked-back gelled hair, and pretty boy, pretty girl imagery.

It is absolutely ridiculous, how a series like 'Twilight' has decimated the way a whole new generation of people see vampires now, as nothing more than MODELS trying to play at being evil. Take us back to the days of Salem's Lot, when vampires WERE vampires in the true sense of the word.

[Loreweaver15]

The message is whatever you want to make it. Miko wasn't given that much time and not a clear picture of world situation. In past when someone (Durkon) was willing to help her she showed some potential to change opinion. Later Miko was given info that left impression Roy and her boss were working together in way that might to doom the world.

I've counted no fewer than three times Miko jumped to irrational conclusions and screwed things up for everyone because they were easier than admitting that she might be wrong. The point at which she heard info that left her with the "impression" of which you speak was one of those. One of the explicit things Soon tells her as she dies is that she had the chance to redeem herself, but that she refused to do anything but assume that she was in the right.

So, uh, no, there's really not a single way in which Rich tries to justify the things Miko does :P

[Kish]

A minor nitpick.
The fact that you consider the difference between needing redemption, and not doing anything to need redemption for but being turned into a monster against your will, a "minor nitpick" establishes more clearly than anything else could that we will never understand each other here...

It's a staple of just about every modern vampire story, whether the vampire develops a soul or free will or just grows as a person, he or she will eventually regret and torment him/herself over the evil he or she did.
...as does the fact that you think that's a reason for Rich to do it rather than not to do it, for that matter. I am pretty confident that the vampire--that is, the American-accented dark soul born in Hel's hall, who refers to Durkon as the dwarf with the ridiculous accent--will never regret the evil that it did, and the fact that even with the difference being sold as hard as it is in the last strip, you're not making a distinction between it and Durkon, is beyond baffling.

[BenjCano]

...as does the fact that you think that's a reason for Rich to do it rather than not to do it, for that matter. I am pretty confident that the vampire--that is, the American-accented dark soul born in Hel's hall, who refers to Durkon as the dwarf with the ridiculous accent--will never regret the evil that it did, and the fact that even with the difference being sold as hard as it is in the last strip, you're not making a distinction between it and Durkon, is beyond baffling.

Dude, that's the premise of Angel.

[oppyu]

Dude, that's the premise of Angel.
Angel is different; the soul had control of the body by default. Vampire!Angel only came out to play whenever Angel experienced a moment of true happiness (aka 'boned someone he loves', which is just the dumbest stipulation on a gypsy curse ever).

What you're suggesting would be equivalent to Darla, Drusilla or pre-Season 7 Spike regretting the evil they did and turning to the light. And don't give me 'Spike had already turned to the light', he just wanted to bone Buffy and since he had the brain chip and everything, he figured he may as well try to make the 'evil vegetarian vampire' thing work.

[BenjCano]

Angel is different; the soul had control of the body by default. Vampire!Angel only came out to play whenever Angel experienced a moment of true happiness (aka 'boned someone he loves', which is just the dumbest stipulation on a gypsy curse ever).

What I'm saying is that Angel spends a significant amount of time tormenting himself because of all the evil things Angelus did. Despite the fact that canon in the Whedonverse draws bright, fiery lines between a vampire and the person they once were. "You're not looking at your friend anymore, you're looking at the thing that killed him." Clean-cut, end of story: a vampire is a demon that has the memories of the human whose body it's using, but no conscience. Personalities are generally on a limited spectrum, and the only emotions that are really expressed are evil ones.

And yet Angel feels guilty about the centuries of horror Angelus is responsible for.

[oppyu]

What I'm saying is that Angel spends a significant amount of time tormenting himself because of all the evil things Angelus did. Despite the fact that canon in the Whedonverse draws bright, fiery lines between a vampire and the person they once were. "You're not looking at your friend anymore, you're looking at the thing that killed him." Clean-cut, end of story: a vampire is a demon that has the memories of the human whose body it's using, but no conscience. Personalities are generally on a limited spectrum, and the only emotions that are really expressed are evil ones.

And yet Angel feels guilty about the centuries of horror Angelus is responsible for.
True, and Durkon will probably feel terrible about all the people his animated corpse is going to murder. But the High Priest of Hel isn't looking like he's going to be feeling any regret anytime soon.

[BenjCano]

True, and Durkon will probably feel terrible about all the people his animated corpse is going to murder. But the High Priest of Hel isn't looking like he's going to be feeling any regret anytime soon.

That's my point. If we can have an entire show dedicated to a character that feels guilty for the actions the vampire did, then it's a bit evasive to say that Durkon isn't going to go through the redemption storyline because Durkon has nothing to redeem himself for.

[Morty]

"Something like that happened in a completely different story that shares some common themes" strikes me as a very weak basis for predicting what will happen in any given ongoing work of fiction.

[BenjCano]

"Something like that happened in a completely different story that shares some common themes" strikes me as a very weak basis for predicting what will happen in any given ongoing work of fiction.

The fact that tvtropes exists suggests that there are recognizable patterns, tools, and trends within media.

[Loreweaver15]

The fact that tvtropes exists suggests that there are recognizable patterns, tools, and trends within media.

Ones that Rich has made a point of subverting and inverting as often as possible.

Rich does not like TVTropes :P

[oppyu]

Ones that Rich has made a point of subverting and inverting as often as possible.

Rich does not like TVTropes :P
*cough* There are like six full pages of tv tropes that Rich has adhered to in his narrative :smalltongue:

[Kish]

Dude, that's the premise of Angel.
If Rich Burlew was Joss Whedon, that wouldn't be a complete non-sequitur. I didn't say, "No one could possibly imagine what you obviously imagine."

But this is pointless. I'm not even sure what you're arguing for now; it started as "that the High Priest of Hel will still be controlling Durkon's body at the end of the story" and now appears to have arrived at, "Durkon should feel guilty about the things his body does while he's not piloting it." The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that I disagree with every keystroke you've posted in this thread.

[Morty]

The fact that tvtropes exists suggests that there are recognizable patterns, tools, and trends within media.

What it doesn't suggest, despite how much its editors want it to, is that a given work of fiction is obliged, or even likely, to follow these patterns.


Ones that Rich has made a point of subverting and inverting as often as possible.

Rich does not like TVTropes :P

It's less that he doesn't like them or intentionally subverts them. He just knows not to put the cart before the horse.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Belkar in a fit of fury and anger at the vampire will smash the necklace...

[BenjCano]

If Rich Burlew was Joss Whedon, that wouldn't be a complete non-sequitur. I didn't say, "No one could possibly imagine what you obviously imagine."

But this is pointless. I'm not even sure what you're arguing for now; it started as "that the High Priest of Hel will still be controlling Durkon's body at the end of the story" and now appears to have arrived at, "Durkon should feel guilty about the things his body does while he's not piloting it." The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that I disagree with every keystroke you've posted in this thread.

In the interest of civil conversation, I'm going to assume that you genuinely want to know my opinion on the matter, and I'll state it clearly.

It's possible, and it would serve a narrative function, that Durkon never overcomes the vampire as the original poster asked. That would make Durkon's story a tragic one, in which he tried to redeem himself of the evil that (presumably) the vampire will do in the future, but that he ultimately fails.

[Kish]

...Whether it would involve a failure of redemption is a matter of opinion, Joss Whedon's apparent agreement with you aside. But that is still less than clear. Are you arguing that the story may end (two books from now) with the High Priest of Hel, having outlived Xykon, still driving Durkon's body while Durkon looks out helplessly from behind his eyes?

[BenjCano]

Are you arguing that the story may end (two books from now) with the High Priest of Hel, having outlived Xykon, still driving Durkon's body while Durkon looks out helplessly from behind his eyes?

That's a really, really good question, and no, it wasn't what I was implying at all. I meant that Durkon's particular story arc may end (whenever it does) with the vampire in control and Durkon failing to redeem himself and dying tragically, having witnessed the destruction of his homeland by his own (vampire) hand.

But it's a really good question, and I thought about it. I think it's most likely that no, Durkon/Dukula will die either before or contemporaneously with Xykon. Because for all the Order of the Stick lampshades the tropes of high fantasy, it is still itself a high fantasy story, and it's not trying to deconstruct the genre the way The First Law series did.

The other possibility, which you suggest, is very intriguing to me, though. When he wrote The Neverending Story, Michael Ende had a thing, where there's a bit at the end of every chapter that describes some character or terrain feature or monster or something that was just featured, and he alluded to what would happen to it later, always with the words, "But that's another story." Peter S. Beagle did the same thing, to a lesser extent, in The Last Unicorn, and it's a thematic element in The Wheel of Time as well.

In this view, the bits that we're reading about are just part of a much, much larger story. The story will go on after the protagonists we've just read about are dead and gone. "There are no happy endings," said Schmendrick the Magician, "because nothing ever ends."

The idea that Durkon, the evil vampire priest of Hel, could be the villain in another story is really, really appealing to me. It's not without precedent in the Order of the Stick, either. Rich does have a habit of killing off secondary villains (see Samantha and her father, and Daimyo Kubota), but there's two notable exceptions: Leeky Windstaff and Pompey. They get away with it, start up a new partnership, and there's no indication that they're going to come back. They went off and had adventures that had nothing to do with the main narrative of Order of the Stick, but that's another story.


Once I seriously considered your question, I had this idea for an ending to the comic. What if Xykon is defeated, but Durkon the evil vampire survives. What if Roy, having completed his goal, abandons hope of a happy life with Celia in order to hunt his one time friend and finally lay him to rest. That would be a bittersweet ending for Roy and Celia, and it could also juxtapose an ending of Haley and Elan's finding romantic bliss.

It'd be an interesting way to end the comic, and I would enjoy reading it very much. Do I think it's how Rich is going to end it? No, not really. I mean, I don't have a way to know what he has planned this far in advance (at least, not until THE DEVICE is completed), but like I said earlier, he tends to play the tropes of fantasy literature fairly straight, even while he's lampshading them, even while painting complex and interesting characters on both sides of the 'tagonist" divide.

So at the end of the day, I think that the High Priest of Hel is probably going to be defeated, and Durkon may or may not overcome the vampire and redeem himself in the process.

[Morty]

I'm not sure why you keep using the word "redeem". There's nothing Durkon needs to redeem himself for. He's the victim here. His body is being hijacked by an evil parasitic spirit.

[BenjCano]

I'm not sure why you keep using the word "redeem". There's nothing Durkon needs to redeem himself for. He's the victim here. His body is being hijacked by an evil parasitic spirit.

Same deal with Angel. He did nothing he needs to redeem himself for, but guilt and the pursuit of redemption are central character elements.

[Kish]

Look, "Joss Whedon sez so" is the purest kind of Argument from Authority fallacy. If you cannot come up with a better argument for why Durkon would need to "redeem" himself than "there's a TV series based around the premise that a blameless person who gets possessed by an evil spirit has to seek redemption for what the spirit did," then you have no argument. Durkon is currently the equivalent of tied up, watching an evil vampire deceive his friends: a situation with plenty of horror involved, but no reason for more guilt than Roy felt at failing to destroy Xykon.

Also, your proposed ending reminds me of this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15874733&postcount=61), and Rich's other posts in that thread, for some reason.

[Morty]

Same deal with Angel. He did nothing he needs to redeem himself for, but guilt and the pursuit of redemption are central character elements.

I've never seen the show in question, so I'm just going to hold out for some actual proof of Durkon feeling guilty over what the dark spirit inhabiting his body does. The only image we have of Durkon inside the vampire-controlled Durkon-puppet looks more angry than guilty.

[Loreweaver15]

Whedon is quite good at what he does, but what he does is his own thing, not Rich's.

[BenjCano]

Look, "Joss Whedon sez so" is the purest kind of Argument from Authority fallacy. If you cannot come up with a better argument for why Durkon would need to "redeem" himself than "there's a TV series based around the premise that a blameless person who gets possessed by an evil spirit has to seek redemption for what the spirit did," then you have no argument. Durkon is currently the equivalent of tied up, watching an evil vampire deceive his friends: a situation with plenty of horror involved, but no reason for more guilt than Roy felt at failing to destroy Xykon.


I don't understand why you can accept that an unreasonable guilt complex is an acceptable character trait for Angel, but object to the idea that Durkon might feel the need to redeem himself for the evil the High Priest does. If the situations were different, them I could understand deflecting the comparison, but Durkon and Angel are highly analogous.

Maybe I should ask you whether or not you feel Angel was in need of redemption. If not, then would you say the character premise is flawed?


Also, your proposed ending reminds me of this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15874733&postcount=61), and Rich's other posts in that thread, for some reason.

The ending that I described earlier says a lot about me, I know. I'm the kind of person that thinks Unforgiven is the best Western, Watchmen is my favorite graphic novel, and A History of Violence is my favorite action movie. I prefer Hamlet to Henry VIII.

In the link you sent, which I had not read prior to this, Rich commented on the bleakness of Game of Thrones, which you say I put you in mind of. I'm not describing a nihilistic ending though, just a bittersweet one.

[Kish]

Maybe I should ask you whether or not you feel Angel was in need of redemption. If not, then would you say the character premise is flawed?

I thought I had made it pretty clear that my answers would be "no" and "yes," in that order, but if I didn't spell that out, let me rectify that now. No, Angel was not in need of redemption for being turned into a vampire. Yes, the series premise was fundamentally flawed from the word go; Whedon even seemed to realize it to some extent, and dealt with it by gradually transforming Angel from a pure-hearted hero who felt horrible guilt about what his body had done when he wasn't in control of it to a dark anti-hero who had plenty to repent for even considering only what happened when he was in control of his body.

But Durkon is not a dark anti-hero, nor do I expect Rich to paper over fallacious premises by having Durkon regain control of his body and then kill Belkar anyway because what are you talking about Durkon was always the kind of person who would do that.



Also, your proposed ending reminds me of this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15874733&postcount=61), and Rich's other posts in that thread, for some reason.

The ending that I described earlier says a lot about me, I know. I'm the kind of person that thinks Unforgiven is the best Western, Watchmen is my favorite graphic novel, and A History of Violence is my favorite action movie.
The point, is that I don't think you're on the same page as Rich any more than the people who compared him to GRRM are.

(I could be wrong. He's surprised me before, most notably with the revelation that apparently vampires really are all monsters and nothing more in his world. But obviously I don't think I am.)

Edited in response to your edit: Excuse me? "Durkon remains, possibly forever, trapped in the body of a monstrously evil vampire" is not a nihilistic ending--is "bittersweet" rather than, "bitter, bitter, and some more bitter"? I'd hate to see what you would call "nihilistic."

[Loreweaver15]

I still think that you're wrong about that, incidentally, but time will tell. Malack seemed to expect Durkon-but-evil, blah blah blah we've danced this dance a half dozen times already.

why isn't it march thirty-first yet

[BenjCano]

I thought I had made it pretty clear that my answers would be "no" and "yes," in that order, but if I didn't spell that out, let me rectify that now. No, Angel was not in need of redemption for being turned into a vampire. Yes, the series premise was fundamentally flawed from the word go; Whedon even seemed to realize it to some extent, and dealt with it by gradually transforming Angel from a pure-hearted hero who felt horrible guilt about what his body had done when he wasn't in control of it to a dark anti-hero who had plenty to repent for even considering only what happened when he was in control of his body.

Tell you what. Why don't we put a pin in this conversation and pick it up again at a future time, if and when Durkon ever regains control of himself and we can see for ourselves how he reacts to what the High Priest did.


The point, is that I don't think you're on the same page as Rich any more than the people who compared him to GRRM are.

For some reason I had a long, hard time thinking of a way to respond to this. On the same page with Rich seems to imply that I don't understand what he's doing.

Suggesting ways the story could unfold and analyzing how it did with ideas for differences often only comes when you know the work and the genre in question. Storytelling is like baking. A lot of times people will go, "Oh, Harry Potter is really successful, so I should write a novel about a little boy who lives under the stairs." Which is looking at the ingredients but not understanding what each part is.

Suggesting ways a story could go differently is like when you go into the kitchen and you discover that you're missing an ingredient. You can shuffle the recipes around as long as you understand what each ingredient is supposed to do.

Just because Rich bakes the cake differently than I would have doesn't mean I don't enjoy what comes out of his kitchen, nor does it mean that I can't appreciate how the ingredients are working together as I enjoy nummy cake.

[Loreweaver15]

I'm gonna have to side with Kish on this one; "Durkon is stuck inside a vampire's body forever" is plenty bitter, but there's no sweetness there.

[pendell]

Look, "Joss Whedon sez so" is the purest kind of Argument from Authority fallacy. If you cannot come up with a better argument for why Durkon would need to "redeem" himself than "there's a TV series based around the premise that a blameless person who gets possessed by an evil spirit has to seek redemption for what the spirit did," then you have no argument. Durkon is currently the equivalent of tied up, watching an evil vampire deceive his friends: a situation with plenty of horror involved, but no reason for more guilt than Roy felt at failing to destroy Xykon.

Also, your proposed ending reminds me of this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15874733&postcount=61), and Rich's other posts in that thread, for some reason.

Durkon could reasonably feel guilt because the current situation IS his fault, to a certain extent. No, he is not responsible for the vampire's actions. However , a vampire would not now be piloting his body if he had not got into a battle of choice with Malack even when Malack repeatedly offered him the chance to walk away.

In hindsight, the best solution would have been for Durkon to take Belkar, then both he and Malack withdraw from the battle. This deprives both teams of their clerics, and on a cost-benefit analysis that is a better outcome than an outcome which results in Team Tarquin adding a cleric while the OOTS loses one.

But that's hindsight. Durkon had no way of knowing he would lose that fight, thought he must have been aware it was a possibility. He reacted not as a dispassionate gamemaster, carefully calculating the odds of victory versus the potential loss, but as a passionate warrior, which he is.

So an argument can be made that the current circumstances are directly due to his actions, and therefore they are his fault. Yet at the same time, I hardly think attacking an evil vampire ,even without hope of success, could be construed as anything other than a lawful good action. Nor do I see how Durkon could have done anything else and still be Durkon.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

[...]
Yet at the same time, I hardly think attacking an evil vampire ,even without hope of success, could be construed as anything other than a lawful good action. Nor do I see how Durkon could have done anything else and still be Durkon.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Yeah, I was gonna say.

I don't think Durkon feeling guilt because he refused to abandon the Order in the pyramid at the urging of his treacherous undead "friend" is in the cards. Any more than Roy felt guilt about having engaged Xykon solo, even as he was heading toward the ground; regret that he hadn't found a more efficient way to attack Xykon? Yes, and I'm sure Durkon regrets that he lost the fight with Malack. Guilt? No.

[Anarion]

I just finished reading through this, and I have to agree with Kish here. Any interpretation that involves Durkon feeling guilt here just utterly disregards everything we ever learned about Durkon as a character. His utmost value was duty, and his desire was to serve his whole life, die nobly, and be buried with his ancestors. The only emotion he's feeling now is unbridled rage at being trapped, helpless and forced to watch his friends be deceived.

I continue to stand by my opinion from a few pages back that Durkon alone is not likely to take back control of his body and overcome the vampire. But if, at any point, Durkon gains the ability to communicate with the outside world, you can bet that he'll do everything in his power to see the vampire destroyed.

[orrion]

In the interest of civil conversation, I'm going to assume that you genuinely want to know my opinion on the matter, and I'll state it clearly.

It's possible, and it would serve a narrative function, that Durkon never overcomes the vampire as the original poster asked. That would make Durkon's story a tragic one, in which he tried to redeem himself of the evil that (presumably) the vampire will do in the future, but that he ultimately fails.

Redeem himself of what? He wasn't in control and he didn't do anything, and actively fought and is fighting against the spirit controlling him.


Same deal with Angel. He did nothing he needs to redeem himself for, but guilt and the pursuit of redemption are central character elements.

Except it isn't the same thing. Angel was in fact the person that did those things. Angel and Angelus aren't two separate entities. The only difference is the presence or absence of a conscience.


Tell you what. Why don't we put a pin in this conversation and pick it up again at a future time, if and when Durkon ever regains control of himself and we can see for ourselves how he reacts to what the High Priest did.

Still wouldn't be redemption. Redemption is atoning for a fault or mistake. Durkon wasn't at fault and didn't make a mistake.

Besides, what would such an undertaking change about Durkon? One of the reasons V's story is compelling is because events are actively changing and adjusting his worldview. A redemptive quest for Durkon wouldn't change his worldview all that much.

[Kornaki]

Durkon's redemption, should he choose to undertake one, should be recognizing that he wasn't responsible for his actions and doesn't need to do any atoning. This will clash with his strict dwarves morals and cause him to question whether strictly LG is really the right alignment for him.

[BenjCano]

Except it isn't the same thing. Angel was in fact the person that did those things. Angel and Angelus aren't two separate entities. The only difference is the presence or absence of a conscience.

I refer you to the Buffy episode "Amends," in which Angel is being tormented by the First Evil, who is appearing as two of his previous victims, Daniel and Jenny.


DANIEL: I was to be married that week. But then, as I recall, you knew that.

ANGEL: It wasn't me.

JENNY: It wasn't you?

ANGEL: A demon isn't a man. I was a man once.

I refer you to the Angel episode Lullaby, in which the vampire hunter Holtz, who lost his family to Angelus and Darla, discovers that his enemy has a soul and confronts the demon that tried to get him to kill Angel.


Holtz: "You knew. You knew and you didn't tell me."

Sahjhan: "Okay! So I left out one teeny weeny little detail. It didn't seem all that important."

Holtz: "Not important? Angelus with a soul?"

Sahjhan: "It doesn't mean anything!"

Holtz: "It means everything."

Sahjhan: "See? This is *why* I didn't mention it. So Angel has a soul. Big whoop! So did Attila the Hun! Not to mention a heart as big as all outdoors when it came to gift giving. He is *still* a vampire! Angel, not Attila."

Holtz: "He's not the same vampire."

Sahjhan: "Of course he is! His hair is a little shorter, a little spikier. He's using product. But it's the same guy."

Holtz: "No. He's changed. He's - different."

I refer you to the Angel episode "Orpheus," in which Faith goes into Angelus' mind and interacts with both Angel and Angelus. Every time Faith and Angelus look at one of Angel's memory, they always refer to Angel as "he" and not "you" or "me."

"He drank the blood of that doughnut store clerk, and he feels guilty about it."

"He hasn't eaten anything but rats for twenty years now."

"He's hiding from what he is."

Becoming a vampire in that series isn't a simple process of losing your conscience. There's also the part being inhabited by a demon. In essence, becoming a vampire is a process of dying, and then the vampire demon gives birth to a new vampire demon inside your body, which develops a personality based on the memories and knowledge downloaded from your mind. It is NOT the original person - conscience.

[orrion]

I refer you to the Buffy episode "Amends," in which Angel is being tormented by the First Evil, who is appearing as two of his previous victims, Daniel and Jenny.



I refer you to the Angel episode Lullaby, in which the vampire hunter Holtz, who lost his family to Angelus and Darla, discovers that his enemy has a soul and confronts the demon that tried to get him to kill Angel.



I refer you to the Angel episode "Orpheus," in which Faith goes into Angelus' mind and interacts with both Angel and Angelus. Every time Faith and Angelus look at one of Angel's memory, they always refer to Angel as "he" and not "you" or "me."

"He drank the blood of that doughnut store clerk, and he feels guilty about it."

"He hasn't eaten anything but rats for twenty years now."

"He's hiding from what he is."

Becoming a vampire in that series isn't a simple process of losing your conscience. There's also the part being inhabited by a demon. In essence, becoming a vampire is a process of dying, and then the vampire demon gives birth to a new vampire demon inside your body, which develops a personality based on the memories and knowledge downloaded from your mind. It is NOT the original person - conscience.

For the record, I didn't say becoming a vampire in the Buffyverse was that.

The ultimate point is that the situations aren't the same. There was no entity struggling in the back of Angelus' head after the demonic entity took control of Liam's corpse.

[RadagastTheBrow]

Same deal with Angel. He did nothing he needs to redeem himself for, but guilt and the pursuit of redemption are central character elements.

Angel had himself voluntarily vamped in the culmination of a lifetime of drunkenness and irresponsibility. No, he wasn't personally the monster of two hundred years, but that monster was his responsibility. Hence, he became "Guilty O'Guilt-Fest" upon restoring his soul.

Durkon was involuntarily desecrated and defiled after dying to defend his friends and the very fabric of reality in a badass and honorable manner. He has nothing to be ashamed of. Durkon did nothing morally wrong. Tactically unsound, maybe. Maybe- I honestly don't know how he could've better fought that fight, but I'm not an optimizer. He can and probably will feel bad about failing to kill Malack- but not for trying. His was a failure of ability, not character.

If you want to really stretch it, he bit off more than he could chew and suffered the sin of hubris which led to his downfall. Embarrassing, and with dire consequences. But that's all. Durkon will probably beat himself up for his failure, probably more than is necessary. Maybe we'll get a "Self-Forgiveness" arc out of it. But not a "Terrible Person Atones for Terrible Things" arc.

[multilis]

A situation like his can commonly go *many* different directions, not including the unexpected. So I think don't put too much faith in any single possible direction/plot option.

Examples:

Vampire could slip up perhaps partially thanks to Durkon distraction.

Durkon could overcome his hate of undead enough to "work with" vampire against common greater enemy... eg Hel's plan may require vampire self sacrifice and vampire may not want to die. In other cases is matter of tricking the evil spirit.

Sabine, Hilgya, etc may find way to work with Durkon against common enemy. Loki may not agree with Hel chaos, etc.

Belkar or Malack from the evil afterlife could influence events.

Durkon under some situation could fight for and overcome vampire control of body, like girl genius fight for Agatha and now Gil's body.

So many other things are possible including vampire *not* being in end pure evil as Malack wasn't.

So far we have hints of Durkon playing a role (Hel asks about his risk), and Belkar playing a role (only suspicious guy). One trope option is for Belkar to find way to talk to inner Durkon, and no one else believes him.

[orrion]

So far we have hints of Durkon playing a role (Hel asks about his risk), and Belkar playing a role (only suspicious guy). One trope option is for Belkar to find way to talk to inner Durkon, and no one else believes him.

Belkar doesn't even know there is an "inner Durkon," so he wouldn't be looking for a way to do it.

[factotum]

Angel had himself voluntarily vamped in the culmination of a lifetime of drunkenness and irresponsibility. No, he wasn't personally the monster of two hundred years, but that monster was his responsibility. Hence, he became "Guilty O'Guilt-Fest" upon restoring his soul.

Durkon was involuntarily desecrated and defiled after dying to defend his friends and the very fabric of reality in a badass and honorable manner.

+1. This describes the essential disconnect between Angel and Durkon perfectly--in Angel's case, it was his own fault he became a vampire; Durkon didn't have any choice in the matter, and unless he knows he could have fought better (which seems doubtful), he has no reason to feel guilt about it or require to atone for anything.

[screwtape]

I refer you to the Buffy episode...

Do you realize that Angel and Buffy involve a (sort of) novel take on vampires? In the same way 28 Days involves a novel take on zombies. Part of the appeal of them was that they were breaking what had up to that point been a paradigm.

Using Angel as your reference material for all things vampire is ignoring most of the tradition of vampire. At least if you use Dracula (the novel) as your basis, you have over a 100 years of zeitgeist supporting you.

[rbetieh]

Belkar doesn't even know there is an "inner Durkon," so he wouldn't be looking for a way to do it.

Extremely liberal interpretations of wild empathy check combined with another shojo dream sequence? Wackiest thing I can think of.

[pendell]

So many other things are possible including vampire *not* being in end pure evil as Malack wasn't.



Remember that Malack planned to build a continent-wide empire in which a thousand would be sacrificed every day to honor the god of death (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html). While I held out longest for the possibility of him being neutral rather than evil, there is a strong argument that Malack is Lawful Evil, and not just in the deep end of the alignment pool, but multiple kilonazis deep in it.

His friendship with Durkon doesn't necessarily make him not-evil. Evil can have friends. His dietary restrictions to prisoners may be an artifact of him being lawful evil and intelligent, rather than stupid evil. I don't think he would have survived and forged a working relationship with a living man if he didn't understand the need to observe the human social conventions.

So if any part of your argument depends on Malack NOT being pure evil , I would consider revising it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Anarion]

Remember that Malack planned to build a continent-wide empire in which a thousand would be sacrificed every day to honor the god of death (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html). While I held out longest for the possibility of him being neutral rather than evil, there is a strong argument that Malack is Lawful Evil, and not just in the deep end of the alignment pool, but multiple kilonazis deep in it.

His friendship with Durkon doesn't necessarily make him not-evil. Evil can have friends. His dietary restrictions to prisoners may be an artifact of him being lawful evil and intelligent, rather than stupid evil. I don't think he would have survived and forged a working relationship with a living man if he didn't understand the need to observe the human social conventions.

So if any part of your argument depends on Malack NOT being pure evil , I would consider revising it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Just to expand on this. Malack was an evil intellectual. He drew pleasure from good conversation and was a religious being who enjoyed the companionship of another faithful cleric. I doubt he would ever have harmed Durkon had they not been in direct conflict, and he tried very hard even to avoid that.

But, like Tarquin, in fact even worse than Tarquin, Malack placed no value on sentient life in the abstract. If a person was not valuable to Malack on a personal level, that person was beneath notice or a potential sacrifice to Nergal.

The HPoH may be even more single-minded. He's in direct contact with his god and appears to be very faithful, so he has not demonstrated any goals or personal desires distinct from his service to his deity. He may, in the future, show some personality quirks that conflict with his overarching goals, though, and it would be quite interesting if he takes a genuine liking to one or more of the party members.

[lunar2]

I'm pretty sure that all Rich said was that Durkon was not being used enough and that he had plans to change that. I'm having difficulty finding any exact quote about character development.

that may be true. however, durkon not being used enough still supports my position. HPoH and durkon are separate characters. so for durkon to be used more, it is durkon, not HPoH, who has to get the screentime. so either way, we end up with durkon getting a lot of meaningful interaction with someone, even if it is just HPoH.

[BenjCano]

Angel had himself voluntarily vamped in the culmination of a lifetime of drunkenness and irresponsibility.

Here is the scene in the episode of Buffy, "Becoming," in which we see through flashbacks how Angel met Darla and the circumstances leading up to Angel's vamping.



Angel: Oh... But you're a pretty thing. Where are you from?

Darla: (smiles) Around. Everywhere.

Angel: I never been anywhere myself. Always wanted to see the world,
but...

Darla: I could show you. (smiles)

Angel: Could you, then?

Darla: Things you've never seen, never even heard of.

Angel: Sounds exciting.

Darla: It is. And frightening.

Angel: I'm not afraid. Show me. Show me your world.

Darla: (closes her eyes) Close your eyes.

That's it. Can you read those lines and tell me that Angel gave anything even approaching informed consent to becoming a vampire? Because I can't. In order for there to be informed consent, a person has to make a decision based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action.

Darla said, "I could show you [the world.] But it might be a little frightening." Angel said that he was not afraid. And that was it. Nowhere in there is there anything that could possibly lead a reasonable person to conclude that they would incubate a demon in their body that would wreak as much misery and harm upon the world as possible. Durkon at least knew when he was battling Malack that the other person in the situation was a vampire, and a vampire eager to make more offspring. That's way, way, WAAAAY more information than Angel had when he met Darla in that alley.

You know, when I was reading this script for the exact quote, I got hit with a parallel between Durkon and Angel. Durkon's last thought before being made into a vampire was, "Finally, I get to go home." Angel's last thought before being made into a vampire was, "Finally, I get to leave home."


Do you realize that Angel and Buffy involve a (sort of) novel take on vampires?

No it didn't.

Barnabas Collins goes back to the 60s and depicts vampires as poetic tragic heroes rather than as the traditional embodiment of evil. Anne Rice carried on that tradition in the 70s, and Chelsea Quinn Yarbro did the same, and the tradition was well underway by then to merge convergence of traditional Gothic ideas with modern transgressive sexualities. The vampire as the Byronic romantic hero instead of the embodiment of pure evil goes back at least 50 years before Buffy.

[Loreweaver15]

No it didn't.

Barnabas Collins goes back to the 60s and depicts vampires as poetic tragic heroes rather than as the traditional embodiment of evil. Anne Rice carried on that tradition in the 70s, and Chelsea Quinn Yarbro did the same, and the tradition was well underway by then to merge convergence of traditional Gothic ideas with modern transgressive sexualities. The vampire as the Byronic romantic hero instead of the embodiment of pure evil goes back at least 50 years before Buffy.

You, uh, do know that screwtape was referring to the way vampires work--i.e. that they were a demon that took over the body and not the corrupted soul of the turned human--and not that Angel was a hero?

[BenjCano]

You, uh, do know that screwtape was referring to the way vampires work--i.e. that they were a demon that took over the body and not the corrupted soul of the turned human--and not that Angel was a hero?

That makes even less sense. Here's a quote from Dracula:



"Before we do anything, let me tell you this; it is out of the lore and
experience of the ancients and of all those who have studied the powers
of the Un-Dead. When they become such, there comes with the change the
curse of immortality; they cannot die, but must go on age after age
adding new victims and multiplying the evils of the world; for all that
die from the preying of the Un-Dead becomes themselves Un-Dead, and prey on their kind. And so the circle goes on ever widening, like as the
ripples from a stone thrown in the water. Friend Arthur, if you had met
that kiss which you know of before poor Lucy die; or again, last night
when you open your arms to her, you would in time, when you had died,
have become _nosferatu_, as they call it in Eastern Europe, and would
all time make more of those Un-Deads that so have fill us with horror.
The career of this so unhappy dear lady is but just begun. Those
children whose blood she suck are not as yet so much the worse; but if
she live on, Un-Dead, more and more they lose their blood and by her
power over them they come to her; and so she draw their blood with that
so wicked mouth. But if she die in truth, then all cease; the tiny
wounds of the throats disappear, and they go back to their plays
unknowing ever of what has been. But of the most blessed of all, when
this now Un-Dead be made to rest as true dead, then the soul of the poor
lady whom we love shall again be free. Instead of working wickedness by
night and growing more debased in the assimilating of it by day, she
shall take her place with the other Angels. So that, my friend, it will
be a blessed hand for her that shall strike the blow that sets her free.
To this I am willing; but is there none amongst us who has a better
right? Will it be no joy to think of hereafter in the silence of the
night when sleep is not: 'It was my hand that sent her to the stars; it
was the hand of him that loved her best; the hand that of all she would
herself have chosen, had it been to her to choose?' Tell me if there be
such a one amongst us?"

No, he doesn't say, "demon possessed" but that's a very fine hair to split considering that he's talking about an unholy abomination roaming the night growing in power and evil until it is slain and the soul within set free.

[multilis]

...
So if any part of your argument depends on Malack NOT being pure evil , I would consider revising it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
As stated before, Malack tried to let Durkon live, allowed Belkar to live, didn't give away entire OOTS party hiding behind an illusion. *Pure* evil may not have done any of that. *Pure* as in 100% evil, evil all the time, every action evil.

We don't yet even know exactly what Malack's long term plan was in order to judge how evil it was. Killing action by itself is not "pure evil', otherwise Elan pressing self destruct button on first dungeon = pure evil. Eg Goblins comics has a Psi-Max who thinks life is suffering and love=destroying them. Malack might think he is helping people because afterlife is better world, he might kill criminals, etc. Just as Elan "stupid" reduces the "evil' of destroying a dungeon of perhaps thousands of intelligent beings, Malack "crazy"/etc might reduce the evil of the acts.

I take pure evil as meaning enjoys causing harm to others all the time. Malack at least sometimes did not. Durkon's vampire might be pure evil, we don't know him well yet.

If he is pure evil but obsessed with self-preservation ("GIVE ME MY STAFF") then good Durkon might find common ground if Hel's plan puts him personally at risk. If he is not pure evil then Durkon might find other common ground. (Sometimes trope is evil and good "working together" while the both try to betray/outsmart each other)

[orrion]

As stated before, Malack tried to let Durkon live, allowed Belkar to live, didn't give away entire OOTS party hiding behind an illusion. *Pure* evil may not have done any of that. *Pure* as in 100% evil, evil all the time, every action evil.

If that's your definition of pure evil you're going to have a tough time proving that anything has ever been pure evil.

Manifestations of pure evil - IE the Dark One in The Wheel of Time - don't even fit that definition.



We don't yet even know exactly what Malack's long term plan was in order to judge how evil it was. Killing action by itself is not "pure evil', otherwise Elan pressing self destruct button on first dungeon = pure evil. Eg Goblins comics has a Psi-Max who thinks life is suffering and love=destroying them. Malack might think he is helping people because afterlife is better world, he might kill criminals, etc. Just as Elan "stupid" reduces the "evil' of destroying a dungeon of perhaps thousands of intelligent beings, Malack "crazy"/etc might reduce the evil of the acts.

What? Yes we do. Malack's long term plan was to turn Tarquin's eventual empire into a vampire restaurant, followed by sacrificing 1000 people a day to his god, Nergal.

It doesn't matter what Malack himself thinks of that plan. It's still evil.

[RadagastTheBrow]

That's it. Can you read those lines and tell me that Angel gave anything even approaching informed consent to becoming a vampire? Because I can't. In order for there to be informed consent, a person has to make a decision based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action.


You know, when I was reading this script for the exact quote, I got hit with a parallel between Durkon and Angel. Durkon's last thought before being made into a vampire was, "Finally, I get to go home." Angel's last thought before being made into a vampire was, "Finally, I get to leave home."




Huh. It's been a really long while, so I'd forgotten those details. I figured that, since there's a whole mutual-blood drinking ritual involved, it was voluntary. It's easy to forget that, while the audience knows that vampires are a thing in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the characters themselves might now.

Still, the point stands that Angel was tricked, and made a bad, uninformed, foolish decision. Durkon was dragged kicking and screaming into vampirism, as it were. The situations are definitely more similar than I'd originally thought, so there may well be some parallels.

Although things are also different on account of Durkon living in a setting where vampires are definitely known to exist and be evil bloodsucking fiends and Durkon's a high-level, respectable cleric capable of magically helping to rebuild once this is all over.

So, not only will he have less to "atone" for, but also he'll have a more successful job of it. Angel had to try to manipulate an obscure prophecy to become human again; if Durkon's soul somehow gains control of his vampire body, worst case scenario for becoming a healthy dwarf again is to train a cleric to kill and resurrect him.

[pendell]

Thread's not quite dead yet .

Okay, based on 948, I think we have our answer.

Fact: The vampire cannot simply take Durkon's memories. Durkon has to surrender them.

Fact: Durkon has no choice but to surrender information -- the vampire is able to compel him.

Speculation: This may be why Durkula just stood there after Malack was destroyed -- the vampire needed information to know how to interact with the LG, and Durkon was fighting him every step of the way.

Hypothesis: If that delay was due to Durkon's struggle, the vampire is lying to Durkon now, "speed of thought" or not.

Useful scientific fact, which I'm sure the Giant wasn't considering: The speed of thought is measurable (http://discovermagazine.com/2009/dec/16-the-brain-what-is-speed-of-thought), "faster than a bird but slower than sound."

Of course, the Giant is telling a story, not a science lesson. If he should choose to step in and clarify, I'd appreciate it.But I'm going to assume that "speed of thought" is instantaneous in OOTSworld even if it's not in the real world.

At any rate, there is one more fact:
While Durkon must answer truthfully, he has the ability to choose how MUCH information he reveals, either very little or very much.

Speculation: The vampire can force Durkon to answer any question truthfully, but he is not able to determine whether the memory-picture he receives in response is sufficient. I further speculate this is similar to being imprisoned in a permanent zone of truth.

Thus, I hypothesize:
Durkon will, at the appropriate time, feed the vampire a true-but-misleading image, and so the vampire will give the wrong answer. Done at just the right time and place, this will blow its cover.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[ReaderAt2046]

I speculate that Durkon is hoping his memories of his family, and the emotions derived from them, will prove infectious, that the vampire will grow to care for Dwarfdom at least a shade. Even the slightest hesitation at the critical moment could change the fate of the world.

[kalkyrie]

Thus, I hypothesize:
Durkon will, at the appropriate time, feed the vampire a true-but-misleading image, and so the vampire will give the wrong answer. Done at just the right time and place, this will blow its cover.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

On that note, has Durkon ever sworn in the comic before?
Belkar seems to be looking cynically at the HPoH in the last panel, so Durkon may be gettting through to one of the OOTS.

Albeit the least trusted one, who already had a reasonable grasp of what was happening anyway, but hey, it's a start!

[zimmerwald1915]

On that note, has Durkon ever sworn in the comic before?
Belkar seems to be looking cynically at the HPoH in the last panel, so Durkon may be gettting through to one of the OOTS.

Albeit the least trusted one, who already had a reasonable grasp of what was happening anyway, but hey, it's a start!
Many times, including by Thor's taint and duodenum.

[schmunzel]

I have a feeling that there will be an external factor that begins Durkon's resistance.

How I see the struggle beginning is establishing that Durkon attempts to resist Durkula's probes for information are pretty much futile. But then something happens: A spell, an artifact, or even a chance encounter with a character, either creates a crack or weakness in Durkula's hold that Durkon can begin to chip away at, or it gives Durkon an idea for how to change his approach. That will be the turning point. However any chance Durkon has to overcome the vampire will be narrative-dependent: The higher the stakes, the more likely Durkon can finally at least stay the Vampire's hand, if not either reveal the switch or seize control.

I could be wrong, but I don't see Durkon ending up having absolutely no agency in rescuing himself. That would be disappointing.

I do very much like this idea!

My bet is on Belkar throwing the amulet around HPoHs Neck - it will protect Durkon from the Vampires Evil and give him some options.
(Assuming the Death and Destruction Prophecy is already fulfilled - which some people argue that it has)

sch