Vampire question settled?

[theinsulabot]

So with the HPoH identifying the usual pattern for how the stage coaching vampire bit works, have we finally put an end to whether or not this is some sort of anomaly in the vampire creation process or are we still gonna have some die-hards hanging in there about it?

[Daywalker1983]

So with the HPoH identifying the usual pattern for how the stage coaching vampire bit works, have we finally put an end to whether or not this is some sort of anomaly in the vampire creation process or are we still gonna have some die-hards hanging in there about it?

The implications are interestimg: If Durkon manges to overcome this evil spirit, he would be piloting an undead body...and then he'd really be the thing he hates most. I wonder what the giant is going to do with this.

Also: Is Belkar on to him? The swearing seemd over the top...

[Kornaki]

Also: Is Belkar on to him? The swearing seemd over the top...

Belkar has been onto him the whole time, including literally stabbing him in the chest with a dagger not too long ago.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

So with the HPoH identifying the usual pattern for how the stage coaching vampire bit works, have we finally put an end to whether or not this is some sort of anomaly in the vampire creation process or are we still gonna have some die-hards hanging in there about it?

I think that the question is resolved, even if those who supported the other answer will be unhappy about it. At least it will stop more threads popping up about it.

[KillianHawkeye]

At least it will stop more threads popping up about it.

LOL, you must be new here. :smallwink::smallsigh:

[Jaxzan Proditor]

LOL, you must be new here. :smallwink::smallsigh:

I also realized, literally right after I made that post, that this thread is also about that topic. I am new indeed. :smalltongue:

[Heksefatter]

To me, it seems like the vampire question has been settled. (And I am on the losing "team" btw). The position was more or less that Hel took advantage of some special circumstance, and now it seems that the usual circumstances apply.

[SavageWombat]

Also clarifies that Malack is "Vampire that absorbed Malack's memories long ago" as we'd suspected.

[Obscure Blade]

Actually we still don't know for sure that this is how it always works; we just know now that it isn't unique. The process might be different for someone evil-aligned, or who wants to become a vampire.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Actually we still don't know for sure that this is how it always works; we just know now that it isn't unique. The process might be different for someone evil-aligned, or who wants to become a vampire.

More than that, we know that this process is how it works usually, because the High Priest of Hel uses usually when describing the it, showing that it is the normal mode. However, by arguing that it is different for these unusual circumstances weakens the hypothesis that Malack is different even further, now we must assume that Malack was some kind of anomally from the usual, rather than the other way around.

[Ramble]

More than that, we know that this process is how it works usually, because the High Priest of Hel uses usually when describing the it, showing that it is the normal mode. However, by arguing that it is different for these unusual circumstances weakens the hypothesis that Malack is different even further, now we must assume that Malack was some kind of anomally from the usual, rather than the other way around.


But this process may not be specific to vampires, it could be normal for any sort of possession and Durkon being turned just gave the High Priest an opening to take control.

Alternatively it could be the process is different depending on which pantheon the character falls under, so Hel uses this process on Durkon as he is a dwarf and Malack is different because Nerghal has his own way of doing it.

[Loreweaver15]

Welp!

Looks like it's shorts-eatin' time.

That's weird as hell and I'm not sure I buy it, but we've got an on-screen statement that this is not a unique case.

white text

[Kornaki]

I agree that it sounds like this is probably normal for vampires, all he really says is that 'the process of squeezing every last drop of someone's memories out of them takes a couple of months usually', without reference to whether that is how vampires do it or if there is some other thing he is drawing on to make that statement

[Keltest]

I agree that it sounds like this is probably normal for vampires, all he really says is that 'the process of squeezing every last drop of someone's memories out of them takes a couple of months usually', without reference to whether that is how vampires do it or if there is some other thing he is drawing on to make that statement

The statement by itself certainly doesn't disprove nearly as much as one would think at first glance. If HPoH was some sort of mental parasite that could, say, be inflicted on a soulless corpse like a vampire (im just making things up, in case it wasn't clear.)

[Jaxzan Proditor]

But this process may not be specific to vampires, it could be normal for any sort of possession and Durkon being turned just gave the High Priest an opening to take control.

Alternatively it could be the process is different depending on which pantheon the character falls under, so Hel uses this process on Durkon as he is a dwarf and Malack is different because Nerghal has his own way of doing it.

But why would Nergal have a special way of doing things? Why would there be multiple ways in which vampires are formed. We know that Durkon is not an oddity, so why should we assume that Malack is?

[Keltest]

But why would Nergal have a special way of doing things? Why would there be multiple ways in which vampires are formed. We know that Durkon is not an oddity, so why should we assume that Malack is?

because we want to?

were working with a sample size of two and almost no conclusive data. Not to mention D&D settings are often somewhat inconsistent with how their vampirism works anyway, depending on the author. Rich almost definitely knows whats going on, but that doesn't mean that he wont tease us every step of the way until the reveal. So until then (and after then, knowing these forums) people will continue to try and fit theories around the data.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

because we want to?

were working with a sample size of two and almost no conclusive data. Not to mention D&D settings are often somewhat inconsistent with how their vampirism works anyway, depending on the author. Rich almost definitely knows whats going on, but that doesn't mean that he wont tease us every step of the way until the reveal. So until then (and after then, knowing these forums) people will continue to try and fit theories around the data.

Well, they are welcome to do whatever they want. Still, sometimes it makes so frustrated that I feel like gnawing on my shorts along with Loreweaver over there.

[Keltest]

Well, they are welcome to do whatever they want. Still, sometimes it makes so frustrated that I feel like gnawing on my shorts along with Loreweaver over there.

We reserve the right to be improvably wrong for as long as we want. You cannot make us submit to Occam's Razor!

[Jaxzan Proditor]

We reserve the right to be improvably wrong for as long as we want. You cannot make us submit to Occam's Razor!

That's what this forum really needs. A good shaving!

[Kornaki]

But why would Nergal have a special way of doing things? Why would there be multiple ways in which vampires are formed. We know that Durkon is not an oddity, so why should we assume that Malack is?

No, the whole point is that we don't know that Durkon is an oddity. All we know is that people have had their memories squeezed from them before, and it takes a couple months. We don't know those people were vampirized when that was happening.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

No, the whole point is that we don't know that Durkon is an oddity. All we know is that people have had their memories squeezed from them before, and it takes a couple months. We don't know those people were vampirized when that was happening.

However, we have seen no other process take place that would cause people to have their memories used like this. As far as we know, vampirization is the only way for this to happen. We haven't seen any other creatures posses bodies like this, nor have we seen anyone else use this technique. So, it seems likely that the usually refers to the vampirization process as well as possession.

[Reddish Mage]

Actually we still don't know for sure that this is how it always works; we just know now that it isn't unique. The process might be different for someone evil-aligned, or who wants to become a vampire.

The process works according to how these sorts of undead are described in Core to the letter, with the addition that the negative energy being that hijacked Durkon's body happens to be Hel's servant already, I'm not sure about the memory bit. Assuming the Giant sticks to D&D RAW I don't know of any mechanism by which the original soul regains control, nor cases where vampires are created by other means or possess their original soul. However, there are certainly those reading this forum who knows the books inside and out.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Shocking. Who could have foreseen this?

[Kornaki]

The process works according to how these sorts of undead are described in Core to the letter, with the addition that the negative energy being that hijacked Durkon's body happens to be Hel's servant already, I'm not sure about the memory bit. Assuming the Giant sticks to D&D RAW I don't know of any mechanism by which the original soul regains control, nor cases where vampires are created by other means or possess their original soul. However, there are certainly those reading this forum who knows the books inside and out.

Where in the monster manual does it say anything describing what happens to the soul of the original creature, and what kind of spirit is controlling the new body?

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

Where in the monster manual does it say anything describing what happens to the soul of the original creature, and what kind of spirit is controlling the new body?

I don't remember anything like that, but we can make a couple of inferences based on some of the rules surrounding it:

- The personality of a vampire character is completely different from whoever died to make it; such characters are, "always evil," and become NPCs if the original characters were PCs to begin with.
- While a character's body is a vampire, the soul is nowhere else to be found - they can't be raised or resurrected until the creature is destroyed.
- Once the vampire is destroyed, if the original character is resurrected, it retains its original identity, not that of the vampire character.

So, regardless of the in-character mechanism by which it happens, a vampire is treated as a different entity that holds the original soul hostage. The nature of the undead spirit is kind of left up in the air, though.

Since the Malack is dead, we'll probably never know how it worked for him; it doesn't matter to the story anymore.

[factotum]

- While a character's body is a vampire, the soul is nowhere else to be found - they can't be raised or resurrected until the creature is destroyed.


That applies to *any* undead creature, though, including mindless ones like zombies and skeletons, and it would seem odd that the soul would be trapped in such a thing (especially since it's entirely possible for the undead creature to be created long after the original person has died and gone to their reward, unlike the case with vampires). Just saying that all undead must therefore trap the person's original soul seems highly suspect to me, therefore. (Plus we have a counter-example in the strip itself, where Roy's corpse was turned into a bone golem while Roy's soul was happily elsewhere--and no, I don't follow that "Well, that must mean a bone golem isn't really undead", because that begs the question "Why did the bone golem still being active prevent Roy being resurrected, then?").

[zimmerwald1915]

That applies to *any* undead creature, though, including mindless ones like zombies and skeletons, and it would seem odd that the soul would be trapped in such a thing (especially since it's entirely possible for the undead creature to be created long after the original person has died and gone to their reward, unlike the case with vampires). Just saying that all undead must therefore trap the person's original soul seems highly suspect to me, therefore. (Plus we have a counter-example in the strip itself, where Roy's corpse was turned into a bone golem while Roy's soul was happily elsewhere--and no, I don't follow that "Well, that must mean a bone golem isn't really undead", because that begs the question "Why did the bone golem still being active prevent Roy being resurrected, then?").
The bone golem isn't undead because its existence and activity didn't imprison Roy's soul, the bone golem isn't undead because it has the construct type instead of the undead type.

Keep in mind that people can elide the distinctions between different spells and how the body being undead affects them. Raise dead works on an intact, recently killed corpse. Resurrection works on any part of a potentially long-dead corpse. And true resurrection works without the need for a corpse at all. Raise dead cannot affect "a creature who has been turned into an undead creature." Resurrection and true resurrection can affect "someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed." What this means is that while all the spells require a free soul, raise dead cannot rebuild a mutilated body and needs that body to have been untainted by undeath, resurrection can purge the taint of undeath from the body it rebuilds, and resurrection just creates a new body from scratch and doesn't care how the old one was abused or whether it's still up and walking around.

For example, true resurrection failed bring back Lirian not because her body was being used as a zombie, but because she had been the subject of soul bind. The spell would have built her a new body.

Conversely, however, true resurrection cannot resurrect Human!Xykon or Dwarf!Durkon or Lizardfolk!Malack, because their souls aren't wandering the afterlife.

[Nilehus]

(Plus we have a counter-example in the strip itself, where Roy's corpse was turned into a bone golem while Roy's soul was happily elsewhere--and no, I don't follow that "Well, that must mean a bone golem isn't really undead", because that begs the question "Why did the bone golem still being active prevent Roy being resurrected, then?").

That one, at least, has a solid answer. They needed the body. It was hard enough to find a cleric that could cast Resurrection, let alone True Resurrection.

Cur people asking if True Resurrection would have worked in 3, 2...

Edit: Damnit, zimmerwald!

[Kish]

A bone golem is a construct, not fake undead, never mind really undead. Grubwiggler explicitly promised not to create undead, remember?

Whether it would have been possible to resurrect Roy from one of the golem's toes and leave the golem intact is, alas, something no one in the comic bothered to test, but as far as I know by D&D RAW and as far as what seems pretty clearly implied by Rich's writing goes, the answer is "Yes, most certainly."

[Loreweaver15]

(Plus we have a counter-example in the strip itself, where Roy's corpse was turned into a bone golem while Roy's soul was happily elsewhere--and no, I don't follow that "Well, that must mean a bone golem isn't really undead", because that begs the question "Why did the bone golem still being active prevent Roy being resurrected, then?").

D&D magic runs on technicalities, and, technically, while the bone golem was up and about, it wasn't remains, let alone Roy's remains. :P

[brionl]

I don't remember anything like that, but we can make a couple of inferences based on some of the rules surrounding it:

- The personality of a vampire character is completely different from whoever died to make it; such characters are, "always evil," and become NPCs if the original characters were PCs to begin with.

Does a Helm of Opposite Alignment cause a character to be possessed by some other spirit? It's still the same person only eviller. Or gooder if they were already evil



- While a character's body is a vampire, the soul is nowhere else to be found - they can't be raised or resurrected until the creature is destroyed.


Because their soul isn't free in the afterlife, it is still attached to their body.



- Once the vampire is destroyed, if the original character is resurrected, it retains its original identity, not that of the vampire character.

So, regardless of the in-character mechanism by which it happens, a vampire is treated as a different entity that holds the original soul hostage. The nature of the undead spirit is kind of left up in the air, though.

Since the Malack is dead, we'll probably never know how it worked for him; it doesn't matter to the story anymore.

There is nothing in any of the rules to suggest that this is the "standard" mechanism for vampirization.

Now, it's Rich's story and he can make it work however he wants, but I'm also free to consider this just another one of his non-standard D&D house rules.

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

Does a Helm of Opposite Alignment cause a character to be possessed by some other spirit? It's still the same person only eviller. Or gooder if they were already evil.... There is nothing in any of the rules to suggest that this is the "standard" mechanism for vampirization.

Fair enough, and in fact I think that most campaigns act under the assumption that the spirit controlling a vampire is still the original one, given the same information.

Really, I'm just as confused as to how the helm is supposed to work in that regard. Is it the magical equivalent of years of torture and brainwashing? A series of post-hypnotic suggestions? Doing all of the drugs?

[Everyl]

Fair enough, and in fact I think that most campaigns act under the assumption that the spirit controlling a vampire is still the original one, given the same information.

I think that the assumption a DM makes upon reading the RAW rules depends on their background in vampire stories. I've never been that interested in them, but most of the ones I've read and seen have been of the Anne Rice/Vampire: the Masquerade school of thought, where a vampire's soul/mind/whatever is the same as before, but with some unpleasant additional urges and appetites. I tend to assume that D&D vampires work the same way. However, many people on this forum seem to be fans of Buffy, which I've never seen. From forum discussions, I've gathered that Buffy vampires are very similar to OOTS vampires, except that the victim's soul moves on to the afterlife instead of being trapped - the evil possessing spirit gets access to their memories, but it is not the same person anymore. People with that fandom in their background would be more likely to interpret the RAW D&D rules in a manner similar to the way Rich did, assuming that "always evil" stems from vampires not technically being the same person anymore.

Also, from what I've gathered reading way too many threads about vampirism on these forums, non-core D&D books that go into greater detail about the way that vampires (and other forms of contagious undead) work support the way it works in OOTS. I haven't read those books personally, though.

[Skorj]

The implications are interestimg: If Durkon manges to overcome this evil spirit, he would be piloting an undead body...and then he'd really be the thing he hates most. I wonder what the giant is going to do with this.

Also: Is Belkar on to him? The swearing seemd over the top...

Swearing? Lightning just struck the boat with Thor's (god of lightning) likely highest level priest on it (seemingly): seems appropriate for Durkon to exclaim "Thor is nuts!". Wouldn't seem suspicious to me at all.

But I expect we'll see something more along the lines of "Mr Spock, you pointy-eared half-blood freak!", or whatever Kirk thought when he had a similar problem. It's not like Durkon is going to give up.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Swearing? Lightning just struck the boat with Thor's (god of lightning) likely highest level priest on it (seemingly): seems appropriate for Durkon to exclaim "Thor is nuts!". Wouldn't seem suspicious to me at all.

Based on the context of where the High Priest got that expression from, it looks like the "'s" is showing possession and is not a contraction. The nuts of Thor. It also fits more inline with some of the other curses dwarves apparently have.

[TheOtherErnie]

Does a Helm of Opposite Alignment cause a character to be possessed by some other spirit? It's still the same person only eviller. Or gooder if they were already evil
All very good questions. And, as you point out later, 100% the responsibility of the DM to consider PRIOR to including such items in his game.

There is nothing in any of the rules to suggest that this is the "standard" mechanism for vampirization.

Now, it's Rich's story and he can make it work however he wants, but I'm also free to consider this just another one of his non-standard D&D house rules.
And I'd agree. Each DM has to consider the mechanics behind these events BEFORE throwing them at their players. Because you know that your players WILL try to work it to their best advantage. Personally, I'd never allow a player to become a vampire because of questions such as the ones raised here.

The only alignment changes I allow are the ones I rule based off of how the player plays his/her character.

[factotum]

The only alignment changes I allow are the ones I rule based off of how the player plays his/her character.

That seems overly restrictive to me. Things like Helms of Opposite Alignment are really there as a roleplaying challenge, in my mind; can the player take the character they've worked on and make them act the opposite to how they normally do, while still being more or less the same person?

Of course, this is one of the areas where what works well for a D&D campaign probably doesn't work so well as a story, and I think this is why the Giant chose to represent Durkon's vampirisation as being the result of an evil spirit piloting his undead body--it neatly explains how he can act so differently, he's a different person! I would personally have liked to see this being treated in the *other* way (e.g. Durkon is still essentially a good person but has an uncontrollable urge to drink the blood of the living), but I'm not going to criticise the Giant's choice based on my personal preferences.

[Kish]

Fair enough, and in fact I think that most campaigns act under the assumption that the spirit controlling a vampire is still the original one, given the same information.

Really, I'm just as confused as to how the helm is supposed to work in that regard. Is it the magical equivalent of years of torture and brainwashing? A series of post-hypnotic suggestions? Doing all of the drugs?
A relic of an edition (1ed) written with the idea that alignment wasn't fundamentally different from anything else you might put on your character sheet. A curse that cut your Strength in half was fair game; a curse that turned you from an elf into a halfling was fair game; and so a curse that turned you from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil was fair game (and could be assumed to mean only that your character would be somewhat impaired as s/he continued on the same adventure with the same companions, not that your character's loyalties would abruptly change).

(The first stage of character creation was rolling 3d6 for each of your stats, in order. If you rolled a 5 or lower the sixth time, congratulations: your class had been decided for you--assassin--and since it happened to be one with an alignment requirement, it had also been decided for you that this character was going to be evil.)

[Falbrogna]

Why are people still confused by this? It seems clear to me that Durkon's case is a special one, as in, "Hel sending one of her dark spirits to take over someone's body" and not how vampires generally work. Remember how Malack mentioned Durkon being "confused" by his new condition and hence keeping him under thrall? Why would he do that if he knew that the one inside wouldn't be Durkon anyway?
This new "Durkula" spirit seems pretty fine and comfortable with being an undead, no signs of confusion or anything, which tells me that Malack was expecting Durkon to be Durkon once he released his thrall.

[Kish]

Aaaaand there is the answer to the question in the thread title.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Why are people still confused by this? It seems clear to me that Durkon's case is a special one, as in, "Hel sending one of her dark spirits to take over someone's body" and not how vampires generally work. Remember how Malack mentioned Durkon being "confused" by his new condition and hence keeping him under thrall? Why would he do that if he knew that the one inside wouldn't be Durkon anyway?
This new "Durkula" spirit seems pretty fine and comfortable with being an undead, no signs of confusion or anything, which tells me that Malack was expecting Durkon to be Durkon once he released his thrall.

Just let it go... it's time to move on with your life.

[Peelee]

That one, at least, has a solid answer. They needed the body. It was hard enough to find a cleric that could cast Resurrection, let alone True Resurrection.

Cur people asking if True Resurrection would have worked in 3, 2...

Edit: Damnit, zimmerwald!

I'd ask to sig the "dammit, zimmerwald" portion of it wouldn't lose all context that makes it hilarious. Alas....

[Keltest]

I'd ask to sig the "dammit, zimmerwald" portion of it wouldn't lose all context that makes it hilarious. Alas....

Ive seen people with sigs that link to the source quote if people want context. Im too green to the ways of the forums to know how to do that though.

[Loreweaver15]

Why are people still confused by this? It seems clear to me that Durkon's case is a special one, as in, "Hel sending one of her dark spirits to take over someone's body" and not how vampires generally work. Remember how Malack mentioned Durkon being "confused" by his new condition and hence keeping him under thrall? Why would he do that if he knew that the one inside wouldn't be Durkon anyway?
This new "Durkula" spirit seems pretty fine and comfortable with being an undead, no signs of confusion or anything, which tells me that Malack was expecting Durkon to be Durkon once he released his thrall.

I was a diehard proponent of "Hel interfered"--hell, probably the biggest proponent--but we got a quote in 948, the current comic, that it's not a unique situation.

I'll be quite happy if we get another turnaround, though!

[Gift Jeraff]

Ive seen people with sigs that link to the source quote if people want context. Im too green to the ways of the forums to know how to do that though.

The arrow by the name in the quote box automatically links to the post.

[Keltest]

The arrow by the name in the quote box automatically links to the post.

right, im aware of that. Im just not sure how to carry that over to a sig. Does it just automatically do that if you copy-paste the quote from the edit screen?

[Loreweaver15]

right, im aware of that. Im just not sure how to carry that over to a sig. Does it just automatically do that if you copy-paste the quote from the edit screen?

Yup! Code's the same.

[Gift Jeraff]

right, im aware of that. Im just not sure how to carry that over to a sig. Does it just automatically do that if you copy-paste the quote from the edit screen?

Yeah, as long as you keep the number part. e.g. Keltest;17276388

[Keltest]

Yeah, as long as you keep the number part. e.g. Keltest;17276388

well, theres my daily dose of learning painlessly done.

[mikeejimbo]

From what I recall from Bram Stoker.Mina was the same person while she was going through the transition, ecxept she'd get sick and weak and van Helsing would give her a blood transfusion, which seemed to stave off the progression of the disease. Occasionally she would "sleepwalk" and entice children, but would have no memory of the duration.

Dracula himself was evil before he was a vampire, however.

[Amphiox]

Also clarifies that Malack is "Vampire that absorbed Malack's memories long ago" as we'd suspected.

It doesn't completely rule out the possibility that Malack is the orginial lizard folk shaman who fought and conquered the usurping vampire spirit long ago.

Or that, instead of fighting the two came to an amicable agreement and merged, because both were lawful evil entities.

[Keltest]

It doesn't completely rule out the possibility that Malack is the orginial lizard folk shaman who fought and conquered the usurping vampire spirit long ago.

Or that, instead of fighting the two came to an amicable agreement and merged, because both were lawful evil entities.

Or that HPoH is a memory leech that Hel sent that is not normally a part of vampirism.

[Amphiox]

I was a diehard proponent of "Hel interfered"--hell, probably the biggest proponent--but we got a quote in 948, the current comic, that it's not a unique situation.

Even if it normal procedure for Hel to have provided the vampire spirit due to her dominion over dwarves, it is unlikely normal procedure for the newly created spirit to be automatically elevated to High Priest. So Hel still had to have interfered in some respect, whether it was to recruit the vampire spirit, or manipulate its thoughts and feelings on creation in such a way as to ensure its loyalty to her. A generic evil vampire cleric dwarf spirit isn't guaranteed to be a worshiper of Hel, after all. It could easily have chosen Loki, for example.

[hamishspence]

Hel says "Your dark spirit was birthed in my hall"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html

(as well as "The dwarves fall under my purview")

It may be that whenever a being is sired by a vampire, a negative energy spirit is dispatched from the realm of whatever deity "has purview".

[Toper]

Raise dead works on an intact, recently killed corpse. Resurrection works on any part of a potentially long-dead corpse. And true resurrection works without the need for a corpse at all. Raise dead cannot affect "a creature who has been turned into an undead creature." Resurrection and true resurrection can affect "someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed." What this means is that while all the spells require a free soul, raise dead cannot rebuild a mutilated body and needs that body to have been untainted by undeath, resurrection can purge the taint of undeath from the body it rebuilds, and resurrection just creates a new body from scratch and doesn't care how the old one was abused or whether it's still up and walking around.

For example, true resurrection failed bring back Lirian not because her body was being used as a zombie, but because she had been the subject of soul bind. The spell would have built her a new body.
Is this really right? I read True Resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm) somewhat differently. Like Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm), it has a Target of "Dead creature touched". Then, as an additional clause, it can resurrect "creatures whose bodies have been destroyed", but it doesn't seem to me that this changes the spell's Target in other cases.

So I tend to think the existence of a body elsewhere (not rotted away or walking around undead) would prevent True Resurrection from working. If the corpse exists, you need access to it. But I could be wrong.

[Falbrogna]

Just let it go... it's time to move on with your life.

This is the first and last post I did on the matter, I've been absent from the forums for months.
All of my points seems valid to me, feel free to point me some counterpoints or whatever if they exist.


I was a diehard proponent of "Hel interfered"--hell, probably the biggest proponent--but we got a quote in 948, the current comic, that it's not a unique situation.

I'll be quite happy if we get another turnaround, though!

I don't see how the contents of your post has anything to do with mine. :smallconfused: I never said an inch about it being unique, nor does it matter at all.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Is this really right? I read True Resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm) somewhat differently. Like Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm), it has a Target of "Dead creature touched". Then, as an additional clause, it can resurrect "creatures whose bodies have been destroyed", but it doesn't seem to me that this changes the spell's Target in other cases.

So I tend to think the existence of a body elsewhere (not rotted away or walking around undead) would prevent True Resurrection from working. If the corpse exists, you need access to it. But I could be wrong.
I think that if the spell can restrict things without the body, it can do so in any situation, regardless of whether the body has been destroyed or not.

[Kish]

Yeah, I don't think the High Priest's devout worship of Hel is indicative of anything other than that the High Priest's dark spirit was created as a funhouse-mirror version of a soul that fundamentally always believed "Service is me sole purpose." And I don't think the High Priest's status as the High Priest is indicative of anything but Durkon being really high-level (possibly not even that; if Hel has no other worshipers a first-level priest of Hel might also be the High Priest).

'Course, I was wrong about the High Priest actually being Durkon, so what do I know?

[Falbrogna]

Yeah, I don't think the High Priest's devout worship of Hel is indicative of anything other than that the High Priest's dark spirit was created as a funhouse-mirror version of a soul that fundamentally always believed "Service is me sole purpose." And I don't think the High Priest's status as the High Priest is indicative of anything but Durkon being really high-level (possibly not even that; if Hel has no other worshipers a first-level priest of Hel might also be the High Priest).

'Course, I was wrong about the High Priest actually being Durkon, so what do I know?

Huh, what?

[Keltest]

Huh, what?

I think hes saying "evil spirits don't have complete free will" and "Durkon is high priest because hes the only priest" respectively, although im not entirely sure on the latter.

[Shale]

The first part is (correct me if I'm wrong) that the only reason the HPOH is so devoted to Hel might be because he was created as an evil version of Durkon, who is every bit as devoted to Thor.

[Kish]

Yes. So that if a chaotic good dwarven cleric of a chaotic good deity was converted to a vampire, the resulting dark spirit (birthed in Hel's hall) might agree to serve Loki as a secondary concern to fulfilling her/his personal desires, or might well just shrug, "**** all the gods, I don't need any of them to give me power," but would be real unlikely to sincerely tell Loki or Hel or anyone any variation on, "I exist solely to serve you."

Being a dwarf is about doing your duty, especially if it makes you miserable. Being a vampire dwarf with the same philosophy...is about doing your destructive duty, even if it leads to great annoyance (misery inapplicable due to being composed entirely of Negative Energy).

[137beth]

Agreed. Although I think part of the reason HPOH ended up in Durkon's body was partly a special result of Hel's meddling. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html) But a lot of it could just be the fact that he is an evil version of a high level cleric.

[Corneel]

Agreed. Although I think part of the reason HPOH ended up in Durkon's body was partly a special result of Hel's meddling. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html) But a lot of it could just be the fact that he is an evil version of a high level cleric.
Serendipitous servant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html). Serendipitous servant. Serendipitous servant. Serendipitous servant.

That means that Hel lucked out that a high level dwarven cleric got vampirized. Meddling by Hel would contradict the words used by Hel herself to describe her new servant in circumstances where there is no logical reason for her to lie about it.
Probably never before such circumstances were united (Vampirization+Dwarf+High Level Cleric), and that makes about all what makes -Durkon unique.

[Keltest]

Serendipitous servant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html). Serendipitous servant. Serendipitous servant. Serendipitous servant.

That means that Hel lucked out that a high level dwarven cleric got vampirized. Meddling by Hel would contradict the words used by Hel herself to describe her new servant in circumstances where there is no logical reason for her to lie about it.
Probably never before such circumstances were united (Vampirization+Dwarf+High Level Cleric), and that makes about all what makes -Durkon unique.

no it wouldn't. She may have lucked out on having Durkon vamped, but that doesn't mean she couldn't immediately take advantage of the situation and tamper with it. Were talking about a god here, after all.

[Kish]

One day, after enough threads on the subject have been started, Rich will post on one of them and say, "No, really, this is how vampires work in my writing."

That, and that only, will bring the vampire question close to being settled. Nothing the characters say will stop the argument.

[Shale]

Even that strikes me as optimistic.

[Keltest]

One day, after enough threads on the subject have been started, Rich will post on one of them and say, "No, really, this is how vampires work in my writing."

That, and that only, will bring the vampire question close to being settled. Nothing the characters say will stop the argument.

you think word of Giant is enough to stop the OOTS forums?

[Kish]

I said close. Someone will still pop up and say, "I bet [some name for the High Priest of Hel] is uniquely different from every other vampire, with most vampires having only their original souls!" occasionally, like someone pops up and says that Belkar isn't evil or that Familicide was a carelessly well-intentioned spell spoiled by Vaarsuvius' failure to take into account that it might hit part-humans. They will be pointed to the Word of the Author on the subject. They will disappear, delete OotS from their bookmarks and blacken Rich's name to the far corners of the Internet. (Possibly not those last two.)

[Falbrogna]

I said close. Someone will still pop up and say, "I bet [some name for the High Priest of Hel] is uniquely different from every other vampire, with most vampires having only their original souls!" occasionally, like someone pops up and says that Belkar isn't evil or that Familicide was a carelessly well-intentioned spell spoiled by Vaarsuvius' failure to take into account that it might hit part-humans. They will be pointed to the Word of the Author on the subject. They will disappear, delete OotS from their bookmarks and blacken Rich's name to the far corners of the Internet. (Possibly not those last two.)

You should quite stop at trying to paint people with different opinions than yours as guillible fools.
Some people might get offended, expecially if they brought valid points that have yet to be refuted.

All this passive-aggressiveness of yours is just detrimental of people taking you seriously.

[zimmerwald1915]

All this passive-aggressiveness of yours is just detrimental of people taking you seriously.
This gets brought up fairly often, but unless you're Kish's publicist and he's paying you to manage his image, how he conducts himself is none of your business.

[Porthos]

Serendipitous servant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html). Serendipitous servant. Serendipitous servant. Serendipitous servant.

That means that Hel lucked out that a high level dwarven cleric got vampirized. Meddling by Hel would contradict the words used by Hel herself to describe her new servant in circumstances where there is no logical reason for her to lie about it.
Probably never before such circumstances were united (Vampirization+Dwarf+High Level Cleric), and that makes about all what makes -Durkon unique.

That she said serendipitous is not up to debate. WHY she said it, and what she meant by it, very much is. :smallsmile:

As for Malack expecting Durkon to be Durkon, but slightly different post-vamping, I don't think we can say that with certainty. It's certainly a valid stance to hold. But it's not the only logical one to hold.

For one thing, Malack speaks metaphorically all the time. Secondly, he contradicts himself when it comes to his condition (cue the famous debate about 'resurrection being a fancy way of destroying me').

Beyond that though, I think FAR too much attention is paid to what Malack said about Durkon, and not nearly enough attention paid to the fact that Malack was in the process of vamping Belkar before he was interrupted.

Belkar.

Let me repeat: Belkar.

You know, the guy he had no special attachment to? For all that Malack waxed philosophical about having a friend and an equal, he was more than willing to vamp Belkar with barely a hesitation. Now maybe he viewed Durkon as a better candidate for vamping, when the position was forced. On the other hand, he could have easily killed Durkon and left him behind to rot. Maybe Malack thought that whatever came about of Durkon's vamping would be 'close enough' to Durkon to satisfy him. There is that line about confusion, after all. I don't think we know enough about the process of vampirization in OotSWorld to really say one way or the other.

However, IMO, if preponderance of the evidence is taken into account, I do think the scales tilt to one side more than the other. On one side you have Malack waxing philosophic about what he's looking for in a vampire. On the other hand, you have most of his other statements, his own actions, and the actions/statements of the HPoH.

So, maybe not definitive yet. But I think it's a harder road to say that the HPoH is unique than to say that he isn't.

Finally, when people say "X had no reason to lie" it ignores the possibility of someone lying to themselves. As the famous phrase goes, Denial Ain't Just a River in Egypt.

[Keltest]

This gets brought up fairly often, but unless you're Kish's publicist and he's paying you to manage his image, how he conducts himself is none of your business.

In the interests of rational and productive discussion, we are allowed to inform fellow posters when their posting habits get in the way of that. We cant tell him to stop, but we can tell him that we think he should.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

One day, after enough threads on the subject have been started, Rich will post on one of them and say, "No, really, this is how vampires work in my writing."

That, and that only, will bring the vampire question close to being settled. Nothing the characters say will stop the argument.

Honestly, this is why I keep abandoning this subject. Everyone has already formed their opinions, and only Word of God will change them (possibly, although knowing these forums that is a somewhat optimistic hope to hold).

I look at the first post and it seems like we have determined the answer to it's question: no, and it will never be.

[Kish]

Oh jeez. In the interests of the thread not getting derailed further, let me say that I am unaware of anything Falbrogna said that in any way addresses--even acknowledges--the High Priest of Hel saying, "Usually, the process takes a few months, but it's not a problem if you want to start your eternal dormancy early." That leaves the possibility of Durkon's vampirism being different from standard in some way; it is my opinion that the likelihood of that is at -5 hit points and bleeding, but I would never dream of saying "now we have proof that the High Priest is a totally bog-standard vampire." I will say that "Most vampires have only their original souls" is off the table as far as I can tell as of the latest strip (and only as of the latest strip).

Nothing I said prior to this post was intended to be addressed to Falbrogna; s/he is not the only person I have seen express the belief that the dual-souled Durkon-vampire is the only dual-souled vampire in the history of the OotS universe, even after the last strip went up, nor did I believe, even for a second, that the High Priest's words would put the idea of the possessing spirit applying only to one vampire in the history of the OotS-universe's vampirism to rest.

[Falbrogna]

This gets brought up fairly often, but unless you're Kish's publicist and he's paying you to manage his image, how he conducts himself is none of your business.

It was a polite and veiled warning that his post offended me, maybe next time I'll say it in big bold letters since you seem unable to read between lines.


In the interests of rational and productive discussion, we are allowed to inform fellow posters when their posting habits get in the way of that. We cant tell him to stop, but we can tell him that we think he should.

This, also. His behaviour already generated confusion in the thread as to what he actually meant with all that talk about high priests, confusion which was kind of unnecessary and could have easily been avoided with less passive-aggressiveness.

[Kish]

Ah. So, "Huh, what?" was supposed to indicate, "I don't know who you mean by 'the High Priest'." I kind of wondered.

[Falbrogna]

No, it was supposed to mean "Huh, I didn't get a thing he said" :smalltongue:

No hard feelings thogh

[King of Nowhere]

Well, i'd say that the option "this is the standard procedure" got a boost after 948.
However, I would not call the argument settled. A few things don't add up. Namely
1) why did sel call durkon "serendipitous" servant, and
2) why would the high preist of nergal raise a cleric of higher level than him and would belong to a rival deity.

I call an argument definitely settled if either
a) everything fits, or
b) we have word of god

NEither is the case here.

[Kish]

I'm not sure why your 1) doesn't oppose what you're using it as support for. Of course it's serendipitous if Hel suddenly and unexpectedly got a new high priest with an epic-level ECL!

[Shale]

And one who's perfectly positioned to swing the battle for the gates to whichever side would benefit her, to boot.

[King of Nowhere]

could be. I'm not arguing against that particular opinion, I'm just arguing that the data at hand is insufficient to draw sure conclusions. Another inconsistency I see is that malack clearly expected to get a vampire that was like durkon. but durkula is nowhere near cclose to durkon's personality. he's only faking to be durkon for the sake of infiltration. if durkula had stayed with malack, he'd had no reason to not display his real personality.

I offer an alternate possible explanation: what happened to durkon is what happens with good or neutral people who get vamped. evil people will keep control of their body. It explains everything: why all vampires are evil (they were before, or they get a new soul), why durkula talk about the process as if it is commonplace, why malack was expecting to vampirize "his" durkon (if malack was evil before death, he would have kept his soul, and would not know it was different for durkon).

I'm not sure how much I believe that. Seems both contrived and arbitrary.
Still, I don't find very likely that malack would have vamped durkon if he knew what would happen. if a new soul is created for the vampire, he could have vampirized just about anybody instead of durkon, and he would have been unlikely to gift a rival deity with an epic ecl cleric. That's why I have trouble buying the "a new soul is always created for vampires".

Basically, the only theory that 948 really shot down is that durkula is a oonce-in-a-lifetime occurrence. it has happened before to someone else who got campirized. We can consider that to be a certainty. However, that do not proof that it always happened before like that.

[Kish]

I'm real unclear on why you think 1) Nergal, or 2) Malack, was hostile to Hel.

I mean, I could see arguing that Malack must have thought his new "brother" would worship Nergal; I wouldn't agree, but I'd understand. Or I'd see arguing that Malack expected his new "brother" to still be his friend Durkon, who worshiped Thor, a god with far less in common with Nergal than Hel has. But I don't get arguing both at once. Either worshiping any god other than Nergal is an extinction-level failing in Malack's eyes or it is not.

And that was an implied question, but let me make it an explicit one. Why do you consider Hel calling her new High Priest "my serendipitous servant" indicative of something not-standard-for-vampires having happened?

[jere7my]

could be. I'm not arguing against that particular opinion, I'm just arguing that the data at hand is insufficient to draw sure conclusions. Another inconsistency I see is that malack clearly expected to get a vampire that was like durkon. but durkula is nowhere near cclose to durkon's personality. he's only faking to be durkon for the sake of infiltration. if durkula had stayed with malack, he'd had no reason to not display his real personality.

The process of memory absorption appears to be standard. If that's the case, it would make sense for the evil spirit to become more and more like the original being, until the original personality wastes away and the vampire more or less "is" the original being (albeit a bloodthirsty, evil version).

[Falbrogna]

It all seems kind of simple to me.
What's an undead? A dead character reanimated by negative energy.
Durkon died, was reborn as an undead, only that instead of the natural raw negative energy he would have had (with Durkon's souls still in control) Hel interfered and put her own negative energy spirit "born into her hall" which wrested control from him.

The alternative, Malack being not really Malack but just some poseur invader, is far too detrimental to his character to really consider.

[jere7my]

It all seems kind of simple to me.
What's an undead? A dead character reanimated by negative energy.
Durkon died, was reborn as an undead, only that instead of the natural raw negative energy he would have had (with Durkon's souls still in control) Hel interfered and put her own negative energy spirit "born into her hall" which wrested control from him.

What she said, specifically, was "The dwarves fall under my purview. Your dark spirit was birthed in my hall." The implication there is that whenever a dwarf is vampirized, a dark spirit from Hel's hall gets plugged into the body.

Durkula says "Usually, the process takes a few months," which suggests that this is the normal way of things.


The alternative, Malack being not really Malack but just some poseur invader, is far too detrimental to his character to really consider.

I'm not sure what could be more detrimental to Malack's character than the revelation that he wanted to sacrifice millions of sentient beings, but whatever. The guy was brutally evil, and it's a fine fine thing that he's ash.

But my point is this: the Malack we met is the Malack we met, regardless of the process by which he was vampirized. We never met the long-dead lizardman; whatever Malack was, he was (by his own words) not the same as he once was. There is no difference between "really Malack" and "some poseur invader"—they are one and the same.

[Shale]

I think Malack would be fine with Durkon worshipping Hel but less fine with him running off to another continent to fulfill her mission.

[SavageWombat]

One day, after enough threads on the subject have been started, Rich will post on one of them and say, "No, really, this is how vampires work in my writing."

That, and that only, will bring the vampire question close to being settled. Nothing the characters say will stop the argument.

So, in other words - we need to start more threads?

[Skorj]

Based on the context of where the High Priest got that expression from, it looks like the "'s" is showing possession and is not a contraction. The nuts of Thor. It also fits more inline with some of the other curses dwarves apparently have.

Sure, that's why I was making a joke about it. But then, while Durkula clearly intended "the nuts of Thor", and Durkon clearly intended to trick Durukla into an out-of-character exclamation, Durkon's clever plan could fail because "Thor is nuts" actually makes sense in context. I really might resolve the ambiguity in favor of "Thor is nuts" right after lightning struck the ship carrying a powerful priest of the god of lightning.

If Thor were sober, of course, this could be a deliberate message to all that Durkula is not Durkon, and Thor is unhappy. But what are the odds of Thor sobering up long enough to notice?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Sure, that's why I was making a joke about it. But then, while Durkula clearly intended "the nuts of Thor", and Durkon clearly intended to trick Durukla into an out-of-character exclamation, Durkon's clever plan could fail because "Thor is nuts" actually makes sense in context. I really might resolve the ambiguity in favor of "Thor is nuts" right after lightning struck the ship carrying a powerful priest of the god of lightning.

If Thor were sober, of course, this could be a deliberate message to all that Durkula is not Durkon, and Thor is unhappy. But what are the odds of Thor sobering up long enough to notice?

"Thor's nuts!" is an out-of-character exclamation?

[Kish]

I heard a rumor that Durkon never used to swear.

[Falbrogna]

What she said, specifically, was "The dwarves fall under my purview. Your dark spirit was birthed in my hall." The implication there is that whenever a dwarf is vampirized, a dark spirit from Hel's hall gets plugged into the body.
No, the implication of what she said is what she said:
a) dwarfs fall under her purview
b) she can create dark spirits

That is all.


Durkula says "Usually, the process takes a few months," which suggests that this is the normal way of things.
Regarding possession, not necessarily vampirization. It may be a houseruled Stranger With The Burning Eyes ability of Hel's for all we know. The fact that it happened before doesn't mean that it always happens.


I'm not sure what could be more detrimental to Malack's character than the revelation that he wanted to sacrifice millions of sentient beings, but whatever. The guy was brutally evil, and it's a fine fine thing that he's ash.
I didn't care about morality, I was speaking about the complexity and depth of his character.
"Malack who felt his life was more complete as a vampire" is much better than "Good poor Malack got corrupted by EVUL spirit".
Even Buffy ditched that thing, making it so they simply lost their souls rather than having "demons" planted into their bodies.


But my point is this: the Malack we met is the Malack we met, regardless of the process by which he was vampirized. We never met the long-dead lizardman; whatever Malack was, he was (by his own words) not the same as he once was. There is no difference between "really Malack" and "some poseur invader"—they are one and the same.
Their values as a character are completely different, see above.

[asphias]

i have a problem with the theory that all vampires get possessed. namely, there is absolutely no reason for the spirit to impersonate the original soul.
The HPOP currently has a reason. it's because he wants to keep travelling with the OOTS, without giving away he's not durkon. in any other situation though, the spirit has absolutely no reason to impersonate the former soul.

should we accept the theory that all vampires work this way, then Malack would've known that Vamping durkon would mean letting a spirit enter his body(seeing as malack is an evil spirit himself), and thus the spirit(HPOH or otherwise) would have no reason to conceal his identity to malack. thus, no reason to impersonate durkon.
so why would Malack want to vamp durkon specifically, when its just a random spirit who will enter the body?

besides that, in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html malack says that "releasing durkon would be confusing for him". why would it be confusing if durkon is just a trapped soul and the dark spirit is in control? the HPOH doesn't seem the least bit confused to me.

therefor i think that Malack did not expect the HPOH to enter Durkon, and this spirit process is not the normal way of things.

[Kish]

i have a problem with the theory that all vampires get possessed. namely, there is absolutely no reason for the spirit to impersonate the original soul.
The HPOP currently has a reason. it's because he wants to keep travelling with the OOTS, without giving away he's not durkon. in any other situation though, the spirit has absolutely no reason to impersonate the former soul.

should we accept the theory that all vampires work this way, then Malack would've known that Vamping durkon would mean letting a spirit enter his body(seeing as malack is an evil spirit himself), and thus the spirit(HPOH or otherwise) would have no reason to conceal his identity to malack. thus, no reason to impersonate durkon.
so why would Malack want to vamp durkon specifically, when its just a random spirit who will enter the body?

besides that, in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html malack says that "releasing durkon would be confusing for him". why would it be confusing if durkon is just a trapped soul and the dark spirit is in control? the HPOH doesn't seem the least bit confused to me.

therefor i think that Malack did not expect the HPOH to enter Durkon, and this spirit process is not the normal way of things.
How does this theory explain the High Priest of Hel saying, "Usually, the process takes a few months, but it's not a problem if you want to start your eternal dormancy early."?

[Keltest]

How does this theory explain the High Priest of Hel saying, "Usually, the process takes a few months, but it's not a problem if you want to start your eternal dormancy early."?

hes not a unique memory parasite and/or hes an old one. Its actually laughably easy to rationalize that away since the way its phrased specifically doesn't mention under what circumstances it has happened before.

[theinsulabot]

oh good lord.




...it aint just a river in Egypt huh?

[Gift Jeraff]

I'm just going to assume that this is how OOTS vampirization normally works because...well, why not?

Everything Malack said about his identity and the thrall is consistent with multiple interpretations of vampirism, because it was intentionally ambiguous to maintain the mystery of the vampire dwarf.

The idea that some vampires work differently seems needlessly complex.

[Falbrogna]

How does this theory explain the High Priest of Hel saying, "Usually, the process takes a few months, but it's not a problem if you want to start your eternal dormancy early."?

That its "Hel's possessing agents" that work that way, not vampires.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Occam's Razor says that the way we've seen vampires work is the way that vampires work. Enough said.

[Gift Jeraff]

so why would Malack want to vamp durkon specifically, when its just a random spirit who will enter the body?

He didn't want to vamp Durkon specifically. He was going to vamp Belkar at first. Then Durkon turned their duel into a melee fight, making grapple + blood drain Malack's best option.

And I imagine most vampires would want to absorb the host's memories for reasons other than impersonation: better understanding of the world around them, learning how to use their class skills, basic etiquette for being around the living, wanting a sense of identity, an inclination for the pursuit of knowledge in general, etc.

[gsilverfish]

Just throwing this in because I haven't seen it mentioned yet. One of my favorite lines:


Oh you poor dumb elf! Be a vampire, or a ghost, or an immortal with a paint-by-numbers portrait in the rec room. Hell, even a brain-in-a-jar in a pinch. Anything to avoid the Big Fire Below. So what you're telling me is--you're channeling the "raw unlimited energies" of two chumps who didn't have the balls to stay in the game!

This is totally up to interpretation, but I see Xykon saying that these are all favorable alternatives to dying. Maybe also preferable to an eternity of torture, but being an extremely independent character who hates being controlled, I think Xykon would view being controlled by an invading spirit to be as bad as death (and worse than being unable to taste awful coffee again), and yet there's Vampire at the top of his list (way above the lovable Brain-in-a-Jar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_von_Klempt)!), and if anyone in the comic knows how vampires works, I'm betting it's Xykon.

Or maybe it was just a cool-sounding line that we weren't meant to pick over. :)

[Shale]

I would honestly be a little surprised if Xykon did know how vampires work. He's never been one, he hasn't been shown to make one (not without reason; the buggers would be a royal pain to clean up if they got free will), and if he did find one to ask, what would they say, "oh, no, I'm not the original inhabitant of this body, I'm a malign intelligence holding the soul prisoner and siphoning its memories - thanks for asking!"?

[Falbrogna]

Occam's Razor says that the way we've seen vampires work is the way that vampires work. Enough said.
That only works when the theory at hand doesn't have contradicting evidence.

[jere7my]

No, the implication of what she said is what she said:
a) dwarfs fall under her purview
b) she can create dark spirits

That is all.

So, she was just making conversation? They were two random statements that had nothing to do with each other or the situation at hand? Are you familiar with the term "implication"?

The obvious implication is that she was explaining how dwarf vampirization works (really, for the benefit of the audience). The obvious implication of Durkula's "usually" is that he was explaining to the audience how vampirization works, because folks like you were still confused after 946. I get that you want to cling to an outdated interpretation of Malack for some reason, but I don't think Rich could've been much plainer.

This is a story; it's not going to be more complicated than it needs to be. There is absolutely no reason for Rich to postulate multiple methods of vampirization. It needlessly complicates the story for no benefit whatsoever.


Their values as a character are completely different, see above.

They can't be different; they're the same being. The only Malack we've ever had any contact with is the one who was vampirized. The old, dead shaman is old and dead; we never met him. What we met was the spirit that ate his memories and took his place.

[Falbrogna]

So, she was just making conversation? They were two random statements that had nothing to do with each other or the situation at hand?
How did you even get this from my words? :smallconfused:
She was obviously talking about the possession process, which still doesn't mean all vampires work the same.


Are you familiar with the term "implication"?
Enough to know the difference between that and jumping to conclusions, like "whenever a dwarf is vampirized, a dark spirit from Hel's hall gets plugged into the body."


They can't be different; they're the same being. The only Malack we've ever had any contact with is the one who was vampirized. The old, dead shaman is old and dead; we never met him. What we met was the spirit that ate his memories and took his place.
When I say "value as a character" I mean from a writing perspective. Nothing of what you said here matters.

[jere7my]

How did you even get this from my words? :smallconfused:
She was obviously talking about the possession process, which still doesn't mean all vampires work the same.

And the fact that she draws an explicit parallel between the dark spirit from her hall and "Nergal's snake"? "Nergal's snake may have sired you, but the dwarves fall under my purview." In other words, the spirit occupying Malack's body fell under Nergal's purview; the spirit occupying Durkon's body falls under hers. The process is the same; the source of the spirit is different. The fact that she feels the need to point out that the dwarves are hers implies that lizardfolk are Nergal's, and lizardfolk vampire spirits are birthed in Nergal's dark hall. This is not complicated.

I can't stop you from misreading what happened, but Rich is wielding a mighty big cluehammer in the dialogue here. If he got any plainer he'd have to start with "As you know, Bob."

[Falbrogna]

And the fact that she draws an explicit parallel between the dark spirit from her hall and "Nergal's snake"? "Nergal's snake may have sired you, but the dwarves fall under my purview."

Or, "Nergal's snake may have sired you," (implying raw negative energy undead) "but the dwarves fall under my purview." (implying He'ls negative energy spirit possession).

See?


I can't stop you from misreading what happened, but Rich is wielding a mighty big cluehammer in the dialogue here. If he got any plainer he'd have to start with "As you know, Bob."
Except contradicting statements doesn't make this nearly as certain as you may think.

[jere7my]

Or, "Nergal's snake may have sired you," (implying raw negative energy undead) "but the dwarves fall under my purview." (implying He'ls negative energy spirit possession).

No, that doesn't follow from what she says. If she were trying to draw a distinction between "normal" vampirization and what she'd done, she might've said "A vampire may have sired you, but the dwarves fall under my purview." Then it would be clear that she was doing something unusual. But she didn't. She specifically drew a contrast between the dark spirit she commands and "Nergal's snake." She was telling the audience, "Since Malack worshipped Nergal, you may be wondering why Nergal isn't the one sitting here, sending his own dark spirit in to animate Durkon's corpse. Well, I'll tell you: Durkon was a dwarf, and dwarf vampires are mine. Them's the rules."

When we're looking at expository lines of dialogue that are clearly being used by the author to let the audience in on the rules of the universe, there's generally not a lot of profit in looking for double-blinds and gotchas and needless complications. If that makes Malack a less interesting character for you, so be it.


Except contradicting statements doesn't make this nearly as certain as you may think.

You keep saying there is counterevidence, but you keep not telling us what it is.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I would honestly be a little surprised if Xykon did know how vampires work. He's never been one, he hasn't been shown to make one (not without reason; the buggers would be a royal pain to clean up if they got free will), and if he did find one to ask, what would they say, "oh, no, I'm not the original inhabitant of this body, I'm a malign intelligence holding the soul prisoner and siphoning its memories - thanks for asking!"?

Also, Xykon has a bad track record hen it comes to knowing things about undead. Originally, he had no idea what a lich was until Redcloak told him. He seems to lack knowledge when it comes to things undeath.

[Kish]

and if anyone in the comic knows how vampires works, I'm betting it's Xykon.
Knowledge (Religion) is so far from being a class skill for him, it almost isn't funny.

[Keltest]

Knowledge (Religion) is so far from being a class skill for him, it almost isn't funny.

Why would it have to be Religion?

[Shale]

Because that's the Knowledge skills that tells you how the undead work (presumably because it's tied up with knowing what happens to people after death).

[King of Nowhere]

Occam's Razor says that the way we've seen vampires work is the way that vampires work. Enough said.

Three thousands years ago, occamm's razor told people that the world was flat with the sun and the start going around. they didn't have enough experimental data to realize that was wrong.

This is a similar situation: we really don't have enough experimental data to call the argument "settled". and there are many problems with malack's behaviour if we accept the simplest theory.

I agree that at the moment it is the most likely theory. However, in my job as a researcher, I've never seen a case where what appeared to be the most likely theroy at the beginning wasn't shot down by further experiments. I just don't like drawing conclusions until I have the full picture.

[Falbrogna]

No, that doesn't follow from what she says.
It does, actually. Sure she could have used a different wording (like the one you proposed) but my interpretation still stands.


You keep saying there is counterevidence, but you keep not telling us what it is.
I already did, more than once, in this very thread. I suggest you re-read it.

[Rodin]

"Thor's nuts!" is an out-of-character exclamation?

Quite possibly. It's the first time we've seen him say it, I believe. Even someone who curses a lot will have a preferred subset that they go off (Brian Blessed comes to mind), and going off that with a typically un-used one could raise a red flag.

Not a very big one, perhaps, but Durkon will be doing the same thing every time the spirit asks for memory information. Create enough little inconsistencies, and the rest of the party may just start to wonder...

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Quite possibly. It's the first time we've seen him say it, I believe. Even someone who curses a lot will have a preferred subset that they go off (Brian Blessed comes to mind), and going off that with a typically un-used one could raise a red flag.

Not a very big one, perhaps, but Durkon will be doing the same thing every time the spirit asks for memory information. Create enough little inconsistencies, and the rest of the party may just start to wonder...

At one point, every curse that Durkon has uttered was new. It fits his pattern of calling things Thor's X", and he has used curses before that we haven't seen him use again.

[Keltest]

At one point, every curse that Durkon has uttered was new. It fits his pattern of calling things Thor's X", and he has used curses before that we haven't seen him use again.

It may have something to do with "Nuts" not translating into Durkon's accent well, even more so than "GIVE ME MY STAFF!"

[Cuthalion]

Not sure if anyone's suggested this (they probably have) but does this then mean that if Malack had Resurrection cast on him he probably would've been raised? Or does the evil spirit in control make the decisions?

[Kish]

Not sure if anyone's suggested this (they probably have) but does this then mean that if Malack had Resurrection cast on him he probably would've been raised? Or does the evil spirit in control make the decisions?
...huh?

The evil spirit in control of the vampire lizardfolk we saw was Malack. If someone (level 20 or higher, since you can only Resurrect someone who died no more than 10 years/caster level ago) had cast Resurrection on his ashes after he burned up, the original lizardfolk shaman would have had a choice to come back. Malack would have remained gone. If someone had cast Resurrection on the undead Malack, it would have either done nothing, or potentially destroyed him, the same way Durkon's Heal hurt him.

[Falbrogna]

...huh?

The evil spirit in control of the vampire lizardfolk we saw was Malack. If someone (level 20 or higher, since you can only Resurrect someone who died no more than 10 years/caster level ago) had cast Resurrection on his ashes after he burned up, the original lizardfolk shaman would have had a choice to come back. Malack would have remained gone. If someone had cast Resurrection on the undead Malack, it would have either done nothing, or potentially destroyed him, the same way Durkon's Heal hurt him.

We can assume that if Malack worked the same way as Durkon and some evil spirit absorbed his memories, then "Malack" was indeed the original lizardfolk shaman's name, complete with family and all.
We never got any indication that he assumed an alias after becoming a vampire (or rather, being born a vampire, if the "memory eating parasite" counted for him too).

[Keltest]

We can assume that if Malack worked the same way as Durkon and some evil spirit absorbed his memories, then "Malack" was indeed the original lizardfolk shaman's name, complete with family and all.
We never got any indication that he assumed an alias after becoming a vampire (or rather, being born a vampire, if the "memory eating parasite" counted for him too).

IIRC, Malack has explicitly stated that "Malack" was not his birth name. If not him, then The Giant did it. and if not him, then someone made it up and spread it as truth.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

We can assume that if Malack worked the same way as Durkon and some evil spirit absorbed his memories, then "Malack" was indeed the original lizardfolk shaman's name, complete with family and all.
We never got any indication that he assumed an alias after becoming a vampire (or rather, being born a vampire, if the "memory eating parasite" counted for him too).

That's not necessarily so. The High Priest of Hel is being called "Durkon", by the Order, but that doesn't make it his actual name. For all we know, he has his own name that he would go by if he didn't need to pretend to be Durkon. It'd be kind of odd if the spirit has the same name of the person who's body they are taking over.

[Kish]

We can assume that if Malack worked the same way as Durkon and some evil spirit absorbed his memories, then "Malack" was indeed the original lizardfolk shaman's name, complete with family and all.
We never got any indication that he assumed an alias after becoming a vampire (or rather, being born a vampire, if the "memory eating parasite" counted for him too).
You mean, other than when Durkon said "tha livin' Malack" and Malack immediately said "I had a different name when I was alive, two hundred years ago. I was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists"?

[Everyl]

You mean, other than when Durkon said "tha livin' Malack" and Malack immediately said "I had a different name when I was alive, two hundred years ago. I was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists"?

Reference link (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html). See panel #2.

[137beth]

One day, after enough threads on the subject have been started, Rich will post on one of them and say, "No, really, this is how vampires work in my writing."

That, and that only, will bring the vampire question close to being settled. Nothing the characters say will stop the argument.
That's outlandish. Recall what happened when The Giant explained (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?234374-Familicide-Mega-Thread/page36&p=12856280#post12856280) how familicide worked? Did that end the debate? Nope! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?287767-How-Did-Familicide-Stop/page4) Or what about when he said that Familicide was Evil? Did that end it? Naw. Nothing can stop the forumites!
For example,


We can assume that if Malack worked the same way as Durkon and some evil spirit absorbed his memories, then "Malack" was indeed the original lizardfolk shaman's name, complete with family and all.
We never got any indication that he assumed an alias after becoming a vampire (or rather, being born a vampire, if the "memory eating parasite" counted for him too).



You mean, other than when Durkon said "tha livin' Malack" and Malack immediately said "I had a different name when I was alive, two hundred years ago. I was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists"?
While you might think that Malack declaring his name while alive was different would end the discussion, there is a precedent for (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?331229-Did-Malack-draw-his-cleric-powers-from-Evil-instead-of-Nergal&p=16993718&viewfull=1#post16993718) forum theories which postulate everything Malack says is a lie. No matter how ridiculous they are, forum theories are unstoppable!
:smalltongue:

[factotum]

While you might think that Malack declaring his name while alive was different would end the discussion

So the only possible reason for him to change his name was because the spirit inhabiting him was different? Who's driving Meat Loaf around, then? :smallsigh:

[ti'esar]

Who's driving Meat Loaf around, then? :smallsigh:

That is indeed a good question.

But the "discussion" that quote was meant to end wasn't whether Malack operated under the same rules as the HPoH or not (I personally think that speech slightly indicates that he wasn't), it was whether ""Malack" was indeed the original lizardfolk shaman's name, complete with family and all."

[Falbrogna]

That's not necessarily so. The High Priest of Hel is being called "Durkon", by the Order, but that doesn't make it his actual name. For all we know, he has his own name that he would go by if he didn't need to pretend to be Durkon. It'd be kind of odd if the spirit has the same name of the person who's body they are taking over.
That's not what I meant though. Obviously they couldn't coincidentally have the same name.

You mean, other than when Durkon said "tha livin' Malack" and Malack immediately said "I had a different name when I was alive, two hundred years ago. I was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists"?

Yeah forgot that bit, though the part about "*I* was the ignorant barbarian shaman" makes it seem like he indeed was the "Malack" of that time, not some random spirit who took over someone else's body.
His speech clearly indicates that he feels about his youth, back when he was still alive, his brothers, something that would make no sense if he was merely a negative energy hijacker.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

That's not what I meant though. Obviously they couldn't coincidentally have the same name.

Then why would Malack? :smallconfused:

[Everyl]

Yeah forgot that bit, though the part about "*I* was the ignorant barbarian shaman" makes it seem like he indeed was the "Malack" of that time, not some random spirit who took over someone else's body.
His speech clearly indicates that he feels about his youth, back when he was still alive, his brothers, something that would make no sense if he was merely a negative energy hijacker.

Take that quote in context - he was trying to talk Durkon out of staking and resurrecting him. Of course he wasn't going to say, "The original inhabitant of the corpse I now pilot was the ignorant shaman of a tribe that no longer exists." That would both spoil most of the big reveal at the end of the book and be counterproductive to his immediate aims. It seems to me there's no real reason for a vampire to ever openly admit that they are under the control of a different entity from the original soul of the body. Referring to the pre-vampirism mortal as "I" when speaking to the living is short, simple, and far less likely to inspire attempted stakings than wearing their true nature on their sleeve would be.

Personally, I interpret Malack's reference to vampire-Durkon being confused if he were to be released early was actually talking to the vampire spirit he knew was inhabiting the body. The HPoH may have had some experience or existence before Durkon was turned, there's no way to say for certain from what we've seen, but it's pretty likely that he knew little or nothing about Durkon or the situation he was in pre-death. Had he been free-willed from the get-go, he would have been immediately scrambling to sort through enough of Durkon's memories to make sense of who he was supposed to be, where he was, what Durkon had been doing there before death, who the snakey vampire guy over there was, etc. Keeping him thralled probably gave him time to rifle through Durkon's memories without the distractions of free will, and also gave Malack the chance to attempt to plant the seeds of a new friendship with vampire Durkon instead of risking him running off on other business immediately.

You say that Malack loses all value as a character if he's not the same person both before and after vampirization, Falbroga, but I disagree. I find the idea of an inherently evil spirit created to serve the god of Death and Destruction but is nonetheless a generally pleasant person to be around (as long as you're neither a convict nor an enemy) to be interesting in its own right.

[Falbrogna]

Then why would Malack? :smallconfused:

Never said that, why are you asking me?


Take that quote in context -
I do take it in context - I simply don't buy that Malack was actually talking of some "unrelated shaman with brothers whose body I stole".


You say that Malack loses all value as a character if he's not the same person both before and after vampirization, Falbroga, but I disagree. I find the idea of an inherently evil spirit created to serve the god of Death and Destruction but is nonetheless a generally pleasant person to be around (as long as you're neither a convict nor an enemy) to be interesting in its own right.

It completely alienates the character to me. Instead of "low-level lizardfolk who becomes a vampire and finds his true purpose of life in undeath, becoming an all-mighty vampire cleric" we get "lizardfolk who dies, <Evil> gets the body and starts doing <Evil> things".

It removes lots of depth from Malack's supposed "growth" if he's not even the same dude.

[Keltest]

It completely alienates the character to me. Instead of "low-level lizardfolk who becomes a vampire and finds his true purpose of life in undeath, becoming an all-mighty vampire cleric" we get "lizardfolk who dies, <Evil> gets the body and starts doing <Evil> things".

It removes lots of depth from Malack's supposed "growth" if he's not even the same dude.

Not to mention, it makes his comment about resurrection being a complicated way of destroying the person he is to be very strange. If they were literally two different people it wouldn't be complicated at all. It wouldn't be removing something Malack considers to be a fundamental aspect of his being, one that he has integrated into his life. It would just be killing evil spirit Malack and retrieving living shaman not-Malack.

[Kish]

Who--what--"supposed 'growth'"? Who said Malack was supposed to have growth?

[JennTora]

Not to mention, it makes his comment about resurrection being a complicated way of destroying the person he is to be very strange. If they were literally two different people it wouldn't be complicated at all. It wouldn't be removing something Malack considers to be a fundamental aspect of his being, one that he has integrated into his life. It would just be killing evil spirit Malack and retrieving living shaman not-Malack.

This. *stake* bye malack, hello ignorant barbarian shaman. What exactly is complicated about that?

[jere7my]

I do take it in context - I simply don't buy that Malack was actually talking of some "unrelated shaman with brothers whose body I stole".

I think you're underestimating the degree to which our memories define who we are. Once Malack finished absorbing all of the shaman's memories, he remembered everything that happened to the shaman as if it had happened to him. He remembered playing with the shaman's childhood friends, having dinner with his family, going to lizardfolk prom. Even if he knew, intellectually, that he was never that shaman, after hundreds of years it's a reasonable shorthand to say "I did those things," particularly if "Nergal's snake" had no memories of its own before being implanted. Then again, he might consider, rightly or wrongly, that absorbing someone's memories creates a merged being, and that "he" is the result of two merged histories.

Imagine having no memories of your own before age 18, but a full set of perfectly vivid memories of someone else's life. Even if you knew they weren't "yours," would you be able to keep that straight after a few hundred years? Would it matter to you? How would you refer to the things that other being had done that you remember?

Google [memories define who we are] to find more information than you want on the behaviorist notion that we are the sum of our memories. Even if you don't buy that personally, it's a perfectly valid tack for an author to take. It makes more sense to me than putting two distinct and incompatible methods of vampirization into a story for no apparent reason.

[jere7my]

This. *stake* bye malack, hello ignorant barbarian shaman. What exactly is complicated about that?

The complicated part is the resurrection, which is expensive, uncommon, and, from Malack's POV, of no benefit to him whatsoever.

[Keltest]

The complicated part is the resurrection, which is expensive, uncommon, and, from Malack's POV, of no benefit to him whatsoever.

well, expensive maybe. But both Malack and Durkon are high level clerics. Calling it uncommon to them is like calling skin uncommon to us.

[Kish]

Malack never cast a seventh-level spell.

While I think a lot of the previous lines were more chosen to be misleading than because they're what the character would say, the particular line of Malack's being dissected isn't one of them. Resurrecting the unnamed shaman is complicated relative to not resurrecting the unnamed shaman after Malack is dead. 2+1+1+1 is complicated relative to 2+1. I was at least as dedicated to the "Malack was speaking metaphorically" idea as anyone on the forum. That ship has sailed. Jump off it while you can get back to shore without anything worse than getting drenched, because straight ahead it's shark-infested waters all the way to the edge of the world.

[jere7my]

well, expensive maybe. But both Malack and Durkon are high level clerics. Calling it uncommon to them is like calling skin uncommon to us.

Certainly more complicated than it needed to be to achieve the same end, from Malack's perspective, though.

[Loreweaver15]

Even if you don't buy that personally, it's a perfectly valid tack for an author to take. It makes more sense to me than putting two distinct and incompatible methods of vampirization into a story for no apparent reason.

See, this is where people are talking past each other. While I believe we've been told in-comic that the way it worked for Durkon is the way it works for everyone, Malack included (as silly as I think that is, considering Malack's dialogue), those who don't buy that are not arguing for two separate and incompatible methods of vampirization.

They are arguing for one method of vampirization, which Hel hijacked and subverted, using it as an opportunity to shove one of her own negative energy servants into Durkon's head. They don't believe that the Durkula spirit is part of the process at all; you guys are projecting that upon their argument in the same way that you were assuming that Durkula was the default in spite of apparently contradictory evidence and then filtering every "Malack is the way vamps work, not Durkula" statement through your own assumptions, thinking that those people were proposing two different kinds of vampires.

They're not; they're proposing one.

[jere7my]

They are arguing for one method of vampirization, which Hel hijacked and subverted, using it as an opportunity to shove one of her own negative energy servants into Durkon's head.

That's still two methods: the usual way, and the Hel sleight-of-hand way. That's true even if Hel's way is unique—and we know it's not, since Durkula's dialogue indicates that the memory absorption is a typical part of that process.

Those who argue that Durkula and Malack are fundamentally different kinds of vampires are indeed arguing for two methods of vampirization: one with memory-absorption, and one without. Even if Hel invented the former, it's still a distinct way of creating a vampire, isn't it? (Me, I think it's always the same process, and memories are always absorbed as part of it.)

[Keltest]

That's still two methods: the usual way, and the Hel sleight-of-hand way. That's true even if Hel's way is unique—and we know it's not, since Durkula's dialogue indicates that the memory absorption is a typical part of that process.

Those who argue that Durkula and Malack are fundamentally different kinds of vampires are indeed arguing for two methods of vampirization: one with memory-absorption, and one without. Even if Hel invented the former, it's still a distinct way of creating a vampire, isn't it? (Me, I think it's always the same process, and memories are always absorbed as part of it.)

HPH's dialogue indicated only that it is typical for creatures like him. Whether or not that means vampire spirits or malevolent beings from Hel (and whether there is any difference between the two) has not been stated.

[ti'esar]

Malack never cast a seventh-level spell.

While I think a lot of the previous lines were more chosen to be misleading than because they're what the character would say, the particular line of Malack's being dissected isn't one of them. Resurrecting the unnamed shaman is complicated relative to not resurrecting the unnamed shaman after Malack is dead. 2+1+1+1 is complicated relative to 2+1. I was at least as dedicated to the "Malack was speaking metaphorically" idea as anyone on the forum. That ship has sailed. Jump off it while you can get back to shore without anything worse than getting drenched, because straight ahead it's shark-infested waters all the way to the edge of the world.

The bolded part more or less sums up my current feelings. Based on what we know today, I think it's far more likely that any oddities in what Malack said - and I do think there are some - are the products of misdirection on the Giant's part as opposed to indications that vampirism operated in a different way for Malack then it did for Durkon.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Never said that, why are you asking me?
To me, when you said

We can assume that if Malack worked the same way as Durkon and some evil spirit absorbed his memories, then "Malack" was indeed the original lizardfolk shaman's name, complete with family and all.
I thought that you were saying that if Malack followed the same route as Durkon, then he would take Malack as his name. Apparently, I misunderstood your comment.

[Loreweaver15]

That's still two methods: the usual way, and the Hel sleight-of-hand way. That's true even if Hel's way is unique—and we know it's not, since Durkula's dialogue indicates that the memory absorption is a typical part of that process.

Those who argue that Durkula and Malack are fundamentally different kinds of vampires are indeed arguing for two methods of vampirization: one with memory-absorption, and one without. Even if Hel invented the former, it's still a distinct way of creating a vampire, isn't it? (Me, I think it's always the same process, and memories are always absorbed as part of it.)

The "Hel sleight-of-hand way" is not a method of vampirization, it's a method of hijacking a vampire's body.

[jere7my]

The "Hel sleight-of-hand way" is not a method of vampirization, it's a method of hijacking a vampire's body.

Well, that's a pretty fine point of terminology. My point is that there's no reason for Rich to introduce this layer of complication to the narrative, whatever you want to call it. It's simpler to assume what we see with Durkula is the standard vampirization process, rather than saying it's vampirization plus some additional dark spirit. Whether you want to call that a second method of vampirization or not is moot to me.

[Keltest]

Well, that's a pretty fine point of terminology. My point is that there's no reason for Rich to introduce this layer of complication to the narrative, whatever you want to call it. It's simpler to assume what we see with Durkula is the standard vampirization process, rather than saying it's vampirization plus some additional dark spirit. Whether you want to call that a second method of vampirization or not is moot to me.

There may be no reason that we can see thus far, but that doesn't mean that he cannot have a story where that becomes relevant. And if we assume that theyre the same, then we need to explain Malack's comments to the contrary. And no, Malack arbitrarily lying to Durkon is not any less convoluted than the idea that Hel messed with Durkon's spirit.

[jere7my]

There may be no reason that we can see thus far, but that doesn't mean that he cannot have a story where that becomes relevant.

Rich had a choice between giving us a world with vampires, dark possessing spirits, and dark-spirit-possessed vampires...or a world with vampires. It's theoretically possible that the former will turn out to be necessary for the story, but right now the story works perfectly well with just the latter. The former seems hopelessly complicated to me, and raises the question of just what makes a vampire a vampire, if not a dark spirit like Durkula. Is a "normal" vampire a corrupted version of the original soul? If so, why is Durkon not corrupted? If Durkula were exorcised, would we be left with Durkon or a different Durkon-vampire?

I'm much happier assuming that Durkula and Malack are both vampires, and the memory absorption process plus a few hundred years led Malack to identify himself with the lizardfolk shaman. No inconsistencies, no convolution.


And if we assume that theyre the same, then we need to explain Malack's comments to the contrary. And no, Malack arbitrarily lying to Durkon is not any less convoluted than the idea that Hel messed with Durkon's spirit.

Apart from the fact that he need not have lied—refer to my post above about memories defining who we are to see why—it's always more convoluted to assume weird exceptions and complications to the way the world works than to assume that a character—particularly a character who's a brutal sociopath—lied.

[Loreweaver15]

I'm much happier assuming that Durkula and Malack are both vampires, and the memory absorption process plus a few hundred years led Malack to identify himself with the lizardfolk shaman. No inconsistencies, no convolution.

See, that's where people are tripping up, because the presented characterization of Malack--particularly when he's musing to himself--doesn't work with these statements, and/or the very idea that this thing just became the lizardfolk shaman doesn't make any sense to them, and therefore the assumptions you must make to support this conclusion don't make any sense to them and seems overly convoluted and, in fact, a tortured twisting of the available information to support a predetermined goal. It doesn't make any sense to me, either, but the latest comic appears to state that this is not a unique situation, so I'm on the fence right now.

[Gift Jeraff]

And no, Malack arbitrarily lying to Durkon is not any less convoluted than the idea that Hel messed with Durkon's spirit.

When did he lie?

When he refers to the living shaman as "I"? jere7my already made a good point about memories and self-identity.

When he called his spawn "Brother Thundershield"? Well, he didn't have any other name...

When he said his spawn will feel more like himself once freed? He never said he will feel more like his old self.

[jere7my]

See, that's where people are tripping up, because the presented characterization of Malack--particularly when he's musing to himself--doesn't work with these statements, and/or the very idea that this thing just became the lizardfolk shaman doesn't make any sense to them, and therefore the assumptions you must make to support this conclusion don't make any sense to them and seems overly convoluted and, in fact, a tortured twisting of the available information to support a predetermined goal. It doesn't make any sense to me, either, but the latest comic appears to state that this is not a unique situation, so I'm on the fence right now.

I don't know of any textual evidence that contradicts the notion that absorbing all of someone's memories blurs the distinction between the personalities, especially after a few centuries. That makes intuitive sense to me, and unless you can offer some textual evidence to contradict it I'm going to continue to assume that's the case. If there are other people who can't wrap their heads around that possibility, I'm not sure they're my problem. I've explained it as best I know how.

What, specifically, from the text, contradicts my theory?

[Keltest]

When did he lie?

When he refers to the living shaman as "I"? jere7my already made a good point about memories and self-identity.

When he called his spawn "Brother Thundershield"? Well, he didn't have any other name...

When he said his spawn will feel more like himself once freed? He never said he will feel more like his old self.

Well for starters, he referred to the lizardman shaman as being the same entity. Moreover, even if he THINKS that hes telling the truth, that just means that hes a few cards short of a deck after all this time, which is not a much better explanation given the equal lack of story indication for this.

[jere7my]

Well for starters, he referred to the lizardman shaman as being the same entity. Moreover, even if he THINKS that hes telling the truth, that just means that hes a few cards short of a deck after all this time, which is not a much better explanation given the equal lack of story indication for this.

If we are defined by our memories—hardly an unusual philosophical position—then why would someone who steals all of another person's memories, then kills them, not consider themselves to be that person, or a merged entity containing that person?

[Keltest]

If we are defined by our memories—hardly an unusual philosophical position—then why would someone who steals all of another person's memories, then kills them, not consider themselves to be that person, or a merged entity containing that person?

because were defined by more than just our memories. Someone with my memories wont be the same person just because they have them, theyre lacking the sometimes subtle snarky yet lovable personality that is me. Memories are a part of the equation, but they are in no way every part of a person.

[jere7my]

because were defined by more than just our memories. Someone with my memories wont be the same person just because they have them, theyre lacking the sometimes subtle snarky yet lovable personality that is me. Memories are a part of the equation, but they are in no way every part of a person.

It is your right to believe so, but there is a whole behaviorist school of philosophy that says we are defined by our memories. You don't have to agree with it; you just have to accept that Rich might be using it in his story. And it's certainly not uncommon in speculative fiction for something that absorbs someone's memories to then profess to be that person (or a merged entity). Why is it so hard to imagine that Malack might be doing exactly that?

[zimmerwald1915]

There seems to be an assumption floating around that when a vampire-spirit "absorbs" a memory, what it's doing is copying a memory, leaving the original copy to the host, and keeping the copy so it can reference the memory without having to consult the host. But what if "absorb" actually means "absorb?" What if every time the host shows the vampire-spirit a memory, the host loses that memory? At the end of the process, the host would be left bereft of every part of their identity shaped by their memories (crediting for a moment the position that there is some part of the identity not shaped by their memories). At that point, the vampire-spirit would be the only being worthy of the name, despite the host's continued existence and presence.

[Keltest]

It is your right to believe so, but there is a whole behaviorist school of philosophy that says we are defined by our memories. You don't have to agree with it; you just have to accept that Rich might be using it in his story. And it's certainly not uncommon in speculative fiction for something that absorbs someone's memories to then profess to be that person (or a merged entity). Why is it so hard to imagine that Malack might be doing exactly that?

Because it feels fundamentally wrong to me. I guess well have to agree to disagree. But I would like to point out that, while not openly contradicted in the text, the idea that Rich believes in this school of thought is, if anything, less visible in the text than our theory.

[jere7my]

Because it feels fundamentally wrong to me. I guess well have to agree to disagree. But I would like to point out that, while not openly contradicted in the text, the idea that Rich believes in this school of thought is, if anything, less visible in the text than our theory.

Rich doesn't have to believe it, although he might; it's a perfectly common sentiment, as a cursory Google search will show. All he has to do is show that Malack believes it.

The alternative—that Malack's vampirization didn't involve a dark spirit absorbing the shaman's memories—raises too many questions when we try to reconcile it with what we've seen of Durkula. If not an invading spirit, what made Malack a vampire? Why isn't there any evidence of this third process or entity in Durkon's head?

[Keltest]

Rich doesn't have to believe it, although he might; it's a perfectly common sentiment, as a cursory Google search will show. All he has to do is show that Malack believes it.

The alternative—that Malack's vampirization didn't involve a dark spirit absorbing the shaman's memories—raises too many questions when we try to reconcile it with what we've seen of Durkula. If not an invading spirit, what made Malack a vampire? Why isn't there any evidence of this third process or entity in Durkon's head?

What makes any undead? Magic happens, then dead men go walking. The nature of this is not adequately explained even in many D&D sourcebooks, usually limited to something like "animated by negative energy". As for why we don't see that in Durkon's head, its because it represents the interaction between HPoH and Durkon's spirit, not a thought bubble in visual form.

[jere7my]

What makes any undead? Magic happens, then dead men go walking. The nature of this is not adequately explained even in many D&D sourcebooks, usually limited to something like "animated by negative energy". As for why we don't see that in Durkon's head, its because it represents the interaction between HPoH and Durkon's spirit, not a thought bubble in visual form.

Right, but what would be making the decisions if Durkula weren't there? Not Durkon—he's the same, uncorrupted Durkon we always knew. Under your theory, the shaman would have to have been in Malack's driver's seat, but corrupted somehow. Why do we see no evidence of this with Durkon? Why did Malack change his name if he's the same person? There's no end to the questions it raises.

[Kish]

so I'm on the fence right now.
I'm pretty sure you'll regret climbing back on it, but we'll see.

[Keltest]

Right, but what would be making the decisions if Durkula weren't there? Not Durkon—he's the same, uncorrupted Durkon we always knew. Under your theory, the shaman would have to have been in Malack's driver's seat, but corrupted somehow. Why do we see no evidence of this with Durkon? Why did Malack change his name if he's the same person? There's no end to the questions it raises.

Maybe because Durkon isn't in the driver's seat, to use your metaphor, and the one who is, is already a corrupt spirit of negative energy, and thus unaffected (or at least not personality wise)

[Everyl]

Maybe because Durkon isn't in the driver's seat, to use your metaphor, and the one who is, is already a corrupt spirit of negative energy, and thus unaffected (or at least not personality wise)

It's very kind of Hel to preserve Durkon's soul against what would otherwise have been inevitable spiritual corruption, then. After all, vampires become Evil as a part of acquiring the template - if it isn't because an evil spirit that steals their memories has taken over the body, then it's because their souls are perverted and twisted into something completely different from what it was before (assuming they weren't Evil to begin with).

I don't see how that's simpler than saying that Malack, as a negative-energy spirit born in Nergal's realm, has no concept of "brotherhood" other than that which he stole from the lizardman whose body he now animates.

Edit: Removing messed-up quote boxes

[Keltest]

It's very kind of Hel to preserve Durkon's soul against what would otherwise have been inevitable spiritual corruption, then. After all, vampires become Evil as a part of acquiring the template - if it isn't because an evil spirit that steals their memories has taken over the body, then it's because their souls are perverted and twisted into something completely different from what it was before (assuming they weren't Evil to begin with).

I don't see how that's simpler than saying that Malack, as a negative-energy spirit born in Nergal's realm, has no concept of "brotherhood" other than that which he stole from the lizardman whose body he now animates.

Edit: Removing messed-up quote boxes

It doesn't have to be simpler, its just not nearly as needlessly complex as some people claim it is. Its as supported by the text as any theory is, and we don't need to bend over backwards to justify past events in the comic. Should it be proven impossible in the comic or by word of giant, I will abandon the theory, but until then its functional

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Really, until some Word of Giant comes along (and most likely even past then) people will just go with what theory they consider to require the least amount of assumptions or contradictions with the comic. Which theory has these characteristics is what people seem to be arguing over currently.

[Loreweaver15]

Rich doesn't have to believe it, although he might; it's a perfectly common sentiment, as a cursory Google search will show. All he has to do is show that Malack believes it.

The alternative—that Malack's vampirization didn't involve a dark spirit absorbing the shaman's memories—raises too many questions when we try to reconcile it with what we've seen of Durkula. If not an invading spirit, what made Malack a vampire? Why isn't there any evidence of this third process or entity in Durkon's head?

On the contrary, it raises exactly one question: how did Hel shove her dark spirit into Durkon's head? Other than that, everything we've seen about vampires can be easily explained by the normal vampirization process, which corrupts people by virtue of a) instilling an overwhelming hunger for the blood of the living due to their new biological makeup and b) may or may not involve channeling dark energy through their veins. Non-Buffy vampirism corrupts people not because they're instantly corrupted but because they've been forcibly addicted to magical heroin.

Now, Rich appears to be making it clear that he's going a Buffy-esque route with his vampires, which has me a bit on edge on the forums because the people who've been arguing against my former position don't appear to have a clear picture of what that position is.

[jere7my]

On the contrary, it raises exactly one question: how did Hel shove her dark spirit into Durkon's head? Other than that, everything we've seen about vampires can be easily explained by the normal vampirization process, which corrupts people by virtue of a) instilling an overwhelming hunger for the blood of the living due to their new biological makeup and b) may or may not involve channeling dark energy through their veins. Non-Buffy vampirism corrupts people not because they're instantly corrupted but because they've been forcibly addicted to magical heroin.

It raises more questions than that. Why, if Hel just sent a dark spirit to take over, did she have to wait until Durkon was a vampire? Isn't "interfering with the usual vampiric process of dwarves" kind of a weirdly specific power? If Durkula were exorcised, would Durkon (who seems fine now) suddenly be corrupted, or would he be okay? Would his friends have to do something extra, beyond the normal de-vamping process, to save him? If he would be corrupted, why aren't we shown some kind of hint of that? If Malack is still the shaman, why did he change his name? Why would Hel refer to him as "Nergal's snake" if he had no sprit sent by Nergal? Why would Rich choose to complicate Durkon's situation like that when he could've just made vampires work that way from the beginning (as I believe he did)? Does Durkula act differently because he's in a corrupted body? Doesn't double-corruption seem redundant?

It all seems unnecessarily complicated, when dark sprit + identity absorption fits all the facts and only takes one assumption—an assumption that's pretty common in memory-stealing stories.

[Kish]

It raises more questions than that. Why, if Hel just sent a dark spirit to take over, did she have to wait until Durkon was a vampire? Isn't "interfering with the usual vampiric process of dwarves" kind of a weirdly specific power? If Durkula were exorcised, would Durkon (who seems fine now) suddenly be corrupted, or would he be okay? Would his friends have to do something extra, beyond the normal de-vamping process, to save him? If he would be corrupted, why aren't we shown some kind of hint of that? If Malack is still the shaman, why did he change his name? Why would Hel refer to him as "Nergal's snake" if he had no sprit sent by Nergal? Why would Rich choose to complicate Durkon's situation like that when he could've just made vampires work that way from the beginning (as I believe he did)? Does Durkula act differently because he's in a corrupted body? Doesn't double-corruption seem redundant?
...If evil gods can claim those vampires they choose as servants by "corrupting the process" in this way, why in all the Outer Planes would they choose not to do so in so much as one case, never mind in the vast majority of cases?

[Falbrogna]

Who--what--"supposed 'growth'"? Who said Malack was supposed to have growth?

You mean, other than when Malack said "I had a different name when I was alive, two hundred years ago. I was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists"?
This sort of contempt for his "past ignorant self" suggests that he considers himself grown above of that.


I think you're underestimating the degree to which our memories define who we are. -cut

Sticking more to earth: Vampire Durkon doesn't seem to show any emotional attachment to the memories he's absorbing. That's more proof than anything you've said.

See, this is where people are talking past each other. While I believe we've been told in-comic that the way it worked for Durkon is the way it works for everyone, Malack included (as silly as I think that is, considering Malack's dialogue), those who don't buy that are not arguing for two separate and incompatible methods of vampirization.

They are arguing for one method of vampirization, which Hel hijacked and subverted, using it as an opportunity to shove one of her own negative energy servants into Durkon's head. They don't believe that the Durkula spirit is part of the process at all; you guys are projecting that upon their argument in the same way that you were assuming that Durkula was the default in spite of apparently contradictory evidence and then filtering every "Malack is the way vamps work, not Durkula" statement through your own assumptions, thinking that those people were proposing two different kinds of vampires.

They're not; they're proposing one.

Thanks man. Sometimes it's really hard to have a message pass by correctly in these lands.


Those who argue that Durkula and Malack are fundamentally different kinds of vampires are indeed arguing for two methods of vampirization: one with memory-absorption, and one without. Even if Hel invented the former, it's still a distinct way of creating a vampire, isn't it? (Me, I think it's always the same process, and memories are always absorbed as part of it.)

See what I meant? :smallwink:
No, it's not "still a distinct way of creating a vampire", but "a distinct way to take hold of someone's body via spirit possession".
We don't know if it applies to vampires only.


The "Hel sleight-of-hand way" is not a method of vampirization, it's a method of hijacking a vampire's body.

Thanks again.

[jere7my]

You mean, other than when Malack said "I had a different name when I was alive, two hundred years ago. I was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists"?
This sort of contempt for his "past ignorant self" suggests that he considers himself grown above of that.

Or that he considers the merged entity that he became superior to the shaman whose memories he stole.


Sticking more to earth: Vampire Durkon doesn't seem to show any emotional attachment to the memories he's absorbing. That's more proof than anything you've said.

You mean he's displaying contempt for his past ignorant self? Yes, I see how that is very different from Malack. ;)

I would say that it's early days yet in the memory absorption process; Durkula's attitude may change as he finishes absorbing Durkon and incorporates more of his memories into his self. But he'll always be an evil version of Durkon; there's no reason to think Durkula will ever look back fondly on the touchy-feely memories from "his" youth. We have no reason to think the Malack-spirit looked back fondly on the warm toasty memories from his youth, do we? Re: his brothers, he remembers "the taste of their blood far more vividly than any fraternal bond." (Almost like the fraternal bond was an absorbed memory, and the blood a "real" one!)


No, it's not "still a distinct way of creating a vampire", but "a distinct way to take hold of someone's body via spirit possession".
We don't know if it applies to vampires only.

As I said above, this seems like a pointless distinction. From a storytelling perspective, according to you we've got two vampires with fundamentally different processes going on under the hood. However they got there, it strikes me as a needless complication to have vampires, dark spirits that can possess people, and dark-spirit-possessed vampires when the whole story to this point would work with vampires that absorb and adopt their hosts' identities.

[Kish]

Does Malack's arguably-implied self-perceived growth need "depth"? Do you see the irony in your unchanged argument now hinging on something you hadn't read when you first made it?

[Loreweaver15]

As I said above, this seems like a pointless distinction. From a storytelling perspective, according to you we've got two vampires with fundamentally different processes going on under the hood. However they got there, it strikes me as a needless complication to have vampires, dark spirits that can possess people, and dark-spirit-possessed vampires when the whole story to this point would work with vampires that absorb and adopt their hosts' identities.

No, now you're deliberately missing the point. They're arguing that there's only one kind of vampire, and also some kind of negative energy spirit that can possess the undead. I think it unlikely at this point, but it is a real difference and distinction.

Your continual misrepresentation of the argument is starting to become ludicrous; it's almost as if you've constructed some sort of straw mannequin to poke holes in instead of actually addressing the relative complexity of the opposition's theory.

Again, the corruptive part of being a vampire is the forced addiction to magical evil heroin. Good vampires don't come about because the vampire examined him- or herself and said NAH I THINK I'LL STOP BEING A JERK TODAY, Good vampires come about because the vampire musters their willpower to fight the obscene hunger and compulsion to drink the blood of the living.

[jere7my]

No, now you're deliberately missing the point. They're arguing that there's only one kind of vampire, and also some kind of negative energy spirit that can possess the undead. I think it unlikely at this point, but it is a real difference and distinction.

I understand your point perfectly well; I daresay you're missing mine. We've got two vampires: Durkula and Malack. According to the theory in question, one of them is possessed by a dark spirit in addition to being a vampire, and one of them got their original soul corrupted through the normal course of being a vampire. Those are "fundamentally different processes going on under the hood": they say one is a straight-up vampire, and one is a vampire plus a possessing spirit. Those are different, right? Thus, we've got regular vampires, some kind of dark spirits that can possess people, and at least one vampire that's possessed by a dark spirit, yes? Exactly like I said?


Your continual misrepresentation of the argument is starting to become ludicrous; it's almost as if you've constructed some sort of straw mannequin to poke holes in instead of actually addressing the relative complexity of the opposition's theory.

I would politely suggest revisiting the forum rules.

[Falbrogna]

It raises more questions than that. Why, if Hel just sent a dark spirit to take over, did she have to wait until Durkon was a vampire? Isn't "interfering with the usual vampiric process of dwarves" kind of a weirdly specific power? If Durkula were exorcised, would Durkon (who seems fine now) suddenly be corrupted, or would he be okay? Would his friends have to do something extra, beyond the normal de-vamping process, to save him? If he would be corrupted, why aren't we shown some kind of hint of that? If Malack is still the shaman, why did he change his name? Why would Hel refer to him as "Nergal's snake" if he had no sprit sent by Nergal? Why would Rich choose to complicate Durkon's situation like that when he could've just made vampires work that way from the beginning (as I believe he did)? Does Durkula act differently because he's in a corrupted body? Doesn't double-corruption seem redundant?

It all seems unnecessarily complicated, when dark sprit + identity absorption fits all the facts and only takes one assumption—an assumption that's pretty common in memory-stealing stories.

Half these questions are over-complicated just to add numbers.
"How di Hel send the dark spirit?" Because she's a death deity with privileges over dwarves. 'nuff said.
"What if she didn't, what of Durkon?" He'd be stuck in an undead, blood-sucking, negative energy body, which would somewhat affect his behaviour and needs. How much, we cannot tell. It didn't happen.
"Why did Malack change his name?" Because he despises his past self.
"Why did Hel refer to him as Nergal's snake?" Are you kidding me?


You mean he's displaying contempt for his past ignorant self?
That's nothing about love and attachment that could be related to ignorance, so no, he doesn't.


As I said above, this seems like a pointless distinction. From a storytelling perspective, according to you we've got two vampires with fundamentally different processes going on under the hood. However they got there, it strikes me as a needless complication to have vampires, dark spirits that can possess people, and dark-spirit-possessed vampires when the whole story to this point would work with vampires that absorb and adopt their hosts' identities.

We have vampires and hijacking dark spirits. That is all.
As other people said multiple times the story works both ways, it's just that there's not enought info (and enough inconsistencies) to rule either of the possibilities out, which brings us back to the title of this thread:

"Nope".


Does Malack's arguably-implied self-perceived growth need "depth"? Do you see the irony in your unchanged argument now hinging on something you hadn't read when you first made it?

I see the irony in thinking that just because I slipped my mind once everything I said should be invalid. I read that line well, thank you, I merely focused on the latter "ignorant barbarian shaman" part rather than the name thingie, which was kind of cosmetic and forgettable at the time.
My critic always hinged on the perception of Malack's depth which is negated by this evil spirit thingie.

[jere7my]

Half these questions are over-complicated just to add numbers.
"How di Hel send the dark spirit?" Because she's a death deity with privileges over dwarves. 'nuff said.
"What if she didn't, what of Durkon?" He'd be stuck in an undead, blood-sucking, negative energy body, which would somewhat affect his behaviour and needs. How much, we cannot tell. It didn't happen.
"Why did Malack change his name?" Because he despises his past self.
"Why did Hel refer to him as Nergal's snake?" Are you kidding me?

I would say these are not so much "answers" as "assumptions" (and one "dismissal"). But there are plenty more where that came from: What are the limits on this possession power of Hel's? Can all dark gods do it, or is Hel special? If the latter, what makes her special; if the former, why didn't Nergal send a spirit into Malack? Is Hel limited to vampires? If so, what's her connection to vampires? If not, why aren't there more Hel-possessed people?

You might be able to make guesses at the answers to these questions, but there are no answers in the text. And it wouldn't address the one huge, glaring question that supercedes all the others:

Why would Rich give us one typical method of vampirization (bloodlust/addiction/corruption), then add another story element that looks an awful lot like a second typical method of vampirization (evil spirit controlling the body)? Even if Hel-possession isn't vampirization, as you say, it looks almost exactly like Buffy-style vamping: there's a demon controlling Durkon's body. Why would Rich conflate vampirization and something that could easily be confused for another common method of vampirization—and then not give us a line of dialogue to clear things up? "Even if you get rid of me, you'll still be a vampire, fool dwarf! Mwa ha ha!" Why would he put vampirization and near-vampirization into the same story—indeed, the same body? "I'm gonna make Durkon a vampire—and then put a demon in his body, so he's like a double vampire, only not really, because demon possession isn't vampirization, despite that being how it happens on Buffy! Mwa ha ha!"


We have vampires and hijacking dark spirits. That is all.

And you have a vampire that's been hijacked by a dark spirit. That's a third thing, since it (according to you) changes the effects of vampirization, and presumably would be different from a hijacked non-vampire.


As other people said multiple times the story works both ways, it's just that there's not enought info (and enough inconsistencies) to rule either of the possibilities out, which brings us back to the title of this thread:

"Nope".

Me, I would say that the answer to this thread is "Yes, but there are always holdouts."

[Loreweaver15]

And you have a vampire that's been hijacked by a dark spirit. That's a third thing, since it (according to you) changes the effects of vampirization, and presumably would be different from a hijacked non-vampire.

How does it change the effects of vampirization? It just means someone else is piloting the body, and Durkon may or may not be experiencing any of the hunger.

So, no, according to the Hel's Hand theory, there's still just vampires and hijacking dark spirits.

[jere7my]

How does it change the effects of vampirization? It just means someone else is piloting the body, and Durkon may or may not be experiencing any of the hunger.

So, no, according to the Hel's Hand theory, there's still just vampires and hijacking dark spirits.

Because Durkon's soul is not being corrupted, or if it is it's happening very ambiguously. Becoming a vampire, but having some other spirit take the corruption and bloodlust for you, seems like a major difference to me.

But this is a really, really fine point to get hung up on. Whether it's three things or two things that interact in non-obvious ways, it's still more complicated than just having straight-up vampires, for no story benefit I can see. It seems clear to me that we just have vampires, and some folks misread Malack's story before.

[Falbrogna]

I would say these are not so much "answers" as "assumptions" -cut-

Why would Rich give us one typical method of vampirization (bloodlust/addiction/corruption), then add another story element that looks an awful lot like a second typical method of vampirization -

Because it's interesting and serves the story's purposes. 'nuff said.


And you have a vampire that's been hijacked by a dark spirit. That's a third thing, since it (according to you) changes the effects of vampirization, and presumably would be different from a hijacked non-vampire.
That's not a third thing the same as someone casting Magic Jar on someone else doesn't make it "a third way to be born".
There's vampires, and there's Hel's spirits who can possess undeads/people. Durkon isn't being "corrupted" because he's been driven to the back seat and can't feel anything about his new condition.
It's that simple.


Me, I would say that the answer to this thread is "Yes, but there are always holdouts."
This very thread proves that the answer is no.

[Everyl]

Personally, I think that, if Rich is trying to present D&D vampires and homebrewed evil possessing spirits as separate phenomena, he's not doing a very good job of it. He's even cited the D&D rules writeup (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279603-OOTS-883-The-Discussion-Thread/page3&p=15060436#post15060436) of vampires in forum discussions before, leading me to suspect that he's sticking pretty close to how that template works. Notably, being evil comes with the template. You change a new vampire's alignment at the same time that you apply their new ability score modifiers, not after they've given in to their newfound taste for murder enough to warrant an alignment change even if they were a non-vampire who suddenly started killing innocents. Perhaps a vampire could change their alignment later, but the moment the corpse stands back up, it's already Evil.

Now, Rich plays fast and loose with the rules pretty frequently. I wouldn't normally expect a detail like that to be sacrosanct. I tend to believe it's in force, though, because the "vampires-are-evil-possessing-spirits" model of vampirism explains it very neatly. If a vampire's original soul is still in command ,then that would imply that it has been instantly corrupted to Evil, raising all sorts of questions - how does forced alignment change like this work? If they're staked and resurrected, do they stay Evil? Can it even truly be said to be the same person if their entire personality and worldview is replaced with an Evil one the moment they rise from the grave? In the case of OOTS and this conversation so far, it also raises the question of why adding an extra Evil spirit to the automatically-Evil vampire somehow makes the vampire (in this case, Durkon) not Evil.

To me, Occam's Razor on the evidence presented so far suggests that vampires are animated by evil spirits who steal the memories of their hosts. It certainly sounds a lot simpler than positing the existence of homebrewed evil negative-energy memory-stealing spirits who are common enough to talk about how their situation "usually" works, but not common enough to have ever been hinted at in the first 945 comics, or to have a term for them more precise than "evil spirit."

It's worth noting that this is the opposite stance of what I believed prior to comic 946. I'm used to the Anne Rice-inspired model of vampirism that's used in works like the World of Darkness setting, which is what people like Falbrogna are advocating for the OOTS setting. That's a system where vampires aren't inherently evil, but their morals tend to get compromised over time by the realities of their lust for fresh human blood. The way Malack talked suggested that something like this was the norm in the OOTS-verse, too, and I thought it would be consistent with the Giant's claims that all of Durkon's character development since 2013 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?294096-The-MitD-outwitting-Xykon/page9&p=15709954#post15709954) was leading up to him becoming a vampire. After all, how could dying and being replaced with an evil doppleganger bring about character development? But now, it's been shown that Durkon's soul is still trapped in his body as a (theoretically) powerless observer. In just the 3 comics since that reveal, we've learned major new things about Durkon, making it clear that his character development is, if anything, accelerating.

[Loreweaver15]

That's what I think too; it was fairly poorly demonstrated prior to 948, but Durkula's comments to Durkon about how it "usually" works tip it over into "this is just how it is" territory.

I'm just really sick of the other side being misrepresented so much.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

That's what I think too; it was fairly poorly demonstrated prior to 948, but Durkula's comments to Durkon about how it "usually" works tip it over into "this is just how it is" territory.

I'm just really sick of the other side being misrepresented so much.

I'm really sick of the argument about vampires in OOTS in general.

[jere7my]

Because it's interesting and serves the story's purposes. 'nuff said.

That's begging the question. What story purpose does it serve? What benefit would there be to showing us one standard form of vampirization, then bringing in something that looks a lot like a second standard form of vampirization (but secretly isn't) and applying it to the same character? What purpose could there be in not giving the audience an explanation for this complicated vamped-and-possessed situation for Durkon you're proposing? One line of dialogue? Some kind of hint?


That's not a third thing the same as someone casting Magic Jar on someone else doesn't make it "a third way to be born".
There's vampires, and there's Hel's spirits who can possess undeads/people. Durkon isn't being "corrupted" because he's been driven to the back seat and can't feel anything about his new condition.
It's that simple.

From the audience's point of view, if you're correct, then what's happening to Durkon is not what happens to most vampires. That's a layer of complication that would require some attention and explanation, if it were true.


This very thread proves that the answer is no.

We're never going to get 100% buy-in for any explanation. There will always be one or two lone holdouts. As far as I'm concerned, the question is settled.

[Loreweaver15]

That's begging the question. What story purpose does it serve? What benefit would there be to showing us one standard form of vampirization, then bringing in something that looks a lot like a second standard form of vampirization (but secretly isn't) and applying it to the same character? What purpose could there be in not giving the audience an explanation for this complicated vamped-and-possessed situation for Durkon you're proposing? One line of dialogue? Some kind of hint?

From the audience's point of view, if you're correct, then what's happening to Durkon is not what happens to most vampires. That's a layer of complication that would require some attention and explanation, if it were true.

Yeah, that's easy; the very simplest of story routes would be if Durkon was going to run into other vampires at some point along the way, where we'd get that attention and explanation, and this would turn out to be a misdirection (if it was true). On up from that: setting up fascinating internal struggles no matter WHAT the standard form of vampirization was, introducing Hel as an antagonist, basically any reason that you have for introducing this negative energy spirit is a narrative path for both the Hel's Hand and I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Buffy theories.

Not to mention that it's literally been two strips since the revelation, roughly 60% of which was spent in an unrelated flashback. Are you expecting some kind of instant gratification for the "level of attention and explanation", or are you expecting Rich to tell us a story?

[zimmerwald1915]

Not to mention that it's literally been two strips since the revelation, roughly 60% of which was spent in an unrelated flashback. Are you expecting some kind of instant gratification for the "level of attention and explanation", or are you expecting Rich to tell us a story?
Well, given the Giant's statements on the matter, I expect more payoff than setup, and more revelation than mystery, from here on out. Particularly as Durkon is not the central focus of The Order of the Stick.

[Keltest]

Well, given the Giant's statements on the matter, I expect more payoff than setup, and more revelation than mystery, from here on out. Particularly as Durkon is not the central focus of The Order of the Stick.

Its the second strip in the book, so there is definitely going to be more mystery and setup. And quite frankly it seems obvious to me that the central focus has in fact shifted towards Durkon for the time being. Given that we are literally seeing inside his head and all...

[Kish]

That's what I think too; it was fairly poorly demonstrated prior to 948, but Durkula's comments to Durkon about how it "usually" works tip it over into "this is just how it is" territory.

I'm just really sick of the other side being misrepresented so much.
So you're back off the fence then?

[Falbrogna]

That's begging the question. What story purpose does it serve? What benefit would there be to showing us one standard form of vampirization, then bringing in something that looks a lot like a second standard form of vampirization (but secretly isn't) and applying it to the same character? What purpose could there be in not giving the audience an explanation for this complicated vamped-and-possessed situation for Durkon you're proposing? One line of dialogue? Some kind of hint?
What is it that you exactly want after barely two strips? I don't get it.


We're never going to get 100% buy-in for any explanation. There will always be one or two lone holdouts. As far as I'm concerned, the question is settled.
Feel free to think so if you want, but the comic's present inconsistencies still say that the answer is no.

[Loreweaver15]

So you're back off the fence then?

I'm clinging to the "This is how it works" side of the fence, grumpily refusing to step down onto the grass :P

[jere7my]

What is it that you exactly want after barely two strips? I don't get it.

Barely two, three, who can count?

What I would want, to even consider your theory plausible, is a plausible reason for Rich to throw two methods of vampirization at Durkon (one of which isn't really vampirization, but looks just like it) when one would work just as well, then not let the audience know immediately that that was happening. Without that, it's as plausible a plot twist as "That's not really Durkon; it's an illusion cast by the werewolf god Frank to fool Durkula." Also technically possible, but unlikely in the extreme without some hint from Rich.

You can propose ANY theory and justify it with "It's for story purposes. We don't know yet." What is your support for THIS theory?


Feel free to think so if you want, but the comic's present inconsistencies still say that the answer is no.

Ah, right, the inconsistencies you won't tell me about. What inconsistencies can't be explained by a dark spirit absorbing Malack's memories and identifying with him? Specifically, with quotes from the text?

[Loreweaver15]

What I would want, to even consider your theory plausible, is a plausible reason for Rich to throw two methods of vampirization at Durkon (one of which isn't really vampirization, but looks just like it)

One.

One method of vampirization.

One!

Under the Hel's Hand theory, Malack and Durkon are the exact same kind of vampire!

The only difference is that Durkon's body has been hijacked by Hel's negative energy spirit!

Why are you still insisting that they're two different kinds of vampires?

[jere7my]

One.

One method of vampirization.

One!

Under the Hel's Hand theory, Malack and Durkon are the exact same kind of vampire!

The only difference is that Durkon's body has been hijacked by Hel's negative energy spirit!

Why are you still insisting that they're two different kinds of vampires?

Read what's in parentheses, there.

[Loreweaver15]

Read what's in parentheses, there.

What's in parentheses is the point of the post, because it's wrong.

Under the Hel's Hand theory, Durkon is a vampire.

Just like Malack.

It's vampirization!

It's the same thing!

The only difference is that Durkon has a puppeteer parasite in his brain!

[jere7my]

What's in parentheses is the point of the post, because it's wrong.

Under the Hel's Hand theory, Durkon is a vampire.

Just like Malack.

It's vampirization!

It's the same thing!

The only difference is that Durkon has a puppeteer parasite in his brain!

The point is, in the world of vampire fiction, "body hijacked by a negative energy spirit" is one of the main methods of making a vampire. If Rich is using that method to hijack Durkon's body, but isn't calling it vampirization, he's using something that looks just like one standard method of vampirization on top of another standard method of vampirization.

Honestly, I don't think that's terribly complicated, and I've explained it like three times.

[Kish]

If "having a puppeteer parasite in [one's] brain" doesn't require vampirism, I have to wonder why any of the Order do not have puppeteer parasites in their brains, since apparently it's an evil god's I-Win button.

Or does it require dying and coming back? Assuming for the sake of argument that no member of the Order has died off-panel, that leaves "why doesn't Roy?" He sort-of worships the Northern gods, meaning Hel is part of the pantheon he falls under, so it wouldn't even be a different evil god.

Or it's something that can only happen to a vampire, that nonetheless has nothing to do with vampirism, and that you don't actually think happened--a purely semantic exercise in Devil's Advocacy, otherwise known as "thoroughly pointless even by this forum's standards."

[Koo Rehtorb]

This is so stupid.

[Keltest]

The point is, in the world of vampire fiction, "body hijacked by a negative energy spirit" is one of the main methods of making a vampire. If Rich is using that method to hijack Durkon's body, but isn't calling it vampirization, he's using something that looks just like one standard method of vampirization on top of another standard method of vampirization.

Honestly, I don't think that's terribly complicated, and I've explained it like three times.

mind control and possession are not only in the domain of vampires. Even if its just able to affect undead, saying possession = vampirism is just incorrect.

and now, allow me to ask you a question. If your theory is to be true, what is your explanation for Malack giving out right contradicting information?

[jere7my]

mind control and possession are not only in the domain of vampires. Even if its just able to affect undead, saying possession = vampirism is just incorrect.

How fortunate, then, that that's not what I said!

One common way of depicting vampirism is to show someone's body being hijacked by a dark spirit. I don't think this is a controversial statement; it's basically how it works on Buffy. Another common way of depicting vampirism is to show them being corrupted by insatiable bloodlust, which is what Falbrogna et al. claim happened to the shaman that became Malack. In both cases, the vampire generally ends up with an aversion to sunlight, a lust for blood, etc.

Falbrogna's theory would have us believe that Durkon was afflicted with the second form of vampirism, then also afflicted with something that looks, to the audience, exactly like the first kind of vampirism, but isn't. Yes, Exorcist-style possession is also a thing, but here we've got both things going on in the same vampirized body, which seems pointlessly complicated and confusing for the audience. Why would Rich hit Durkon with vampirism, then install a dark spirit that gives every impression of being a second form of vampirism, but isn't really? And then not give any indication that the "corrupting bloodlust" kind of vampirization ever happened? It staggers the mind! It would be like showing us Peter Parker getting bitten by a radioactive spider, then later revealing that he's actually from Krypton and the spider-bite had nothing to do with anything.

I truly don't know how to explain this any more clearly.


and now, allow me to ask you a question. If your theory is to be true, what is your explanation for Malack giving out right contradicting information?

I'm not sure what "right contradicting information" is. Could you provide specific quotes from the text?

I re-read everything Malack said after being revealed as a vampire, and found nothing to contradict the notion that the evil spirit absorbed all the shaman's memories and identified with it, which is also a standard memory-absorbing trope. He remembers having brothers, e.g., but remembers drinking their blood much more strongly, which fits with the notion of absorbed memories not being quite as strong as real ones. He tells Durkula he'll be "...confused" for a while if he's released from thralldom too soon, which fits with the notion that it takes a while for the dark spirit to absorb all the memories.

This is, incidentally, exactly how vampirism is depicted on Buffy: vampires who talk about their life before being vamped generally use the first person. "I died so many years ago." It's common shorthand when writing dialogue for vampires; I think there's a lot of overthinking going on here.

[Keltest]

How fortunate, then, that that's not what I said!

One common way of depicting vampirism is to show someone's body being hijacked by a dark spirit. I don't think this is a controversial statement; it's basically how it works on Buffy. Another common way of depicting vampirism is to show them being corrupted by insatiable bloodlust, which is what Falbrogna et al. claim happened to the shaman that became Malack. In both cases, the vampire generally ends up with an aversion to sunlight, a lust for blood, etc.

Falbrogna's theory would have us believe that Durkon was afflicted with the second form of vampirism, then also afflicted with something that looks, to the audience, exactly like the first kind of vampirism, but isn't. Yes, Exorcist-style possession is also a thing, but here we've got both things going on in the same vampirized body, which seems pointlessly complicated and confusing for the audience. Why would Rich hit Durkon with vampirism, then install a dark spirit that gives every impression of being a second form of vampirism, but isn't really? And then not give any indication that the "corrupting bloodlust" kind of vampirization ever happened? It staggers the mind! It would be like showing us Peter Parker getting bitten by a radioactive spider, then later revealing that he's actually from Krypton and the spider-bite had nothing to do with anything.

I truly don't know how to explain this any more clearly.



I'm not sure what "right contradicting information" is. Could you provide specific quotes from the text?

outright, my apologies. Anyway, for example, he mentions resurrection would be a complicated way of killing the person he was today. If he were a spirit, that would not be any more complicated that just decapitating him. He mentions that he will release Durkon when they get back to Bleedingham, when he will feel more like himself. Yet if Malack were a memory spirit, even one with the Shaman's memories, he would know the process takes longer than that.


I re-read everything Malack said after being revealed as a vampire, and found nothing to contradict the notion that the evil spirit absorbed all the shaman's memories and identified with it, which is also a standard memory-absorbing trope. He remembers having brothers, e.g., but remembers drinking their blood much more strongly, which fits with the notion of absorbed memories not being quite as strong as real ones. He tells Durkula he'll be "...confused" for a while if he's released from thralldom too soon, which fits with the notion that it takes a while for the dark spirit to absorb all the memories.
Except HPoH is clearly NOT confused, nor would he be upon being released. If anything, he would be MORE confused the longer Malack waited.


This is, incidentally, exactly how vampirism is depicted on Buffy: vampires who talk about their life before being vamped generally use the first person. "I died so many years ago." It's common shorthand when writing dialogue for vampires; I think there's a lot of overthinking going on here.
Buffy was very inconsistent with that. Most vampires were described as blank slated who had the personality taken over by a demon, Angel was portrayed s having a split personality, rather than the same one simply with no conscience. And later on they appear to abandon the possession idea entirely.

[jere7my]

Anyway, for example, he mentions resurrection would be a complicated way of killing the person he was today. If he were a spirit, that would not be any more complicated that just decapitating him.

Casting a seventh-level spell with a 1000GP material component is a bit more complicated than shoving a bit of wood through someone's chest—and Malack says exactly that: "Save your diamond dust and stake me instead."


He mentions that he will release Durkon when they get back to Bleedingham, when he will feel more like himself. Yet if Malack were a memory spirit, even one with the Shaman's memories, he would know the process takes longer than that.

We don't know when Malack is expecting to return to Bleedingham. He says, "Until then, you will help us achieve our goals as my servant." Sounds like he has other things to take care of before then; this is a hypothetical timeline issue. And "more like yourself" is not "100% like yourself"; he might just mean "able to impersonate Durkon reasonably well," which Durkula can do now. It might be a minor inconsistency, but it's pretty handwavey.


Except HPoH is clearly NOT confused, nor would he be upon being released. If anything, he would be MORE confused the longer Malack waited.

"Confused" = "not acting like the Durkon I remember" and/or "not accustomed to your new body yet." The ellipsis before "confusing" suggests he's using a circumlocution here. Letting the dark spirit get settled in Durkon's brain and rifle through some memories before releasing him from thralldom seems polite. And Durkula does need an explanation of why sunlight burns in 882; "confused" seems like a pretty reasonable description to me.

Edit: I thought of a third possibility: that there's a period of imprinting when a vampire is sired, and if it's released before the imprinting is through then it might turn on its sire, or just leave. So there are three possibilities:

1) "You might not know how to be a vampire yet, and walk into a patch of sunlight (like you do a few strips later), so I'm going to keep you on a leash for your safety."

2) "You won't have had a chance to absorb many memories yet, and it would break the polite fiction that you're still my friend Durkon if you forgot my name, so I'm just gonna keep you thralled until you're a little more Durkonish."

3) "Newly minted vampires aren't born with any attachment to their sire, but a few days of thralldom fixes that. I'm going to keep you as a thrall so you don't try to eat my face."

(Keep in mind that Malack's dialogue serves ulterior motives here. For most of his conversation with Durkon, he wants to give Durkon the impression that he's a reasonable being; saying "Oh, actually, I was never really the shaman; I'm actually a demon" doesn't seem like the way to go. And Rich wanted to set the audience up to think Durkula was one kind of vampire before revealing at the end of the book that, no, Durkon's not even slightly in charge anymore.)


Buffy was very inconsistent with that. Most vampires were described as blank slated who had the personality taken over by a demon, Angel was portrayed s having a split personality, rather than the same one simply with no conscience. And later on they appear to abandon the possession idea entirely.

Regardless, most of the non-ensouled vampires on Buffy referred to their pre-vamped lives, when they did, in the first person. See Spike, pre-ensoulment, talking about being William. This is not a novel or unusual way of treating demon-possession-style vampirization.

Here's a question for you: if the dark spirit of Hel has nothing to do with vampirization, if it's an independent possessing spirit that has no connection to Durkon or vampires apart from opportunistically taking control of Durkon's body, why does Hel say "Nergal's snake may have sired you" when speaking to it? It was never sired, right?

[Keltest]

Casting a seventh-level spell with a 1000GP material component is a bit more complicated than shoving a bit of wood through someone's chest—and Malack says exactly that: "Save your diamond dust and stake me instead."
The execution may be more co9mplicated on Durkon's part, but its effects on Malack would be nearly identical. Youll also note that he did not say "a complicated way of killing me." He specifically said it would be "destroying the person I am." Implying that durkon might as well kill him, because he's be taking away everything that made Malack who he was anyway.




We don't know when Malack is expecting to return to Bleedingham. He says, "Until then, you will help us achieve our goals as my servant." Sounds like he has other things to take care of before then; this is a hypothetical timeline issue. And "more like yourself" is not "100% like yourself"; he might just mean "able to impersonate Durkon reasonably well," which Durkula can do now. It might be a minor inconsistency, but it's pretty handwavey.
If that's the case, there is no indication for it in any of the comics, especially since he didn't want to be out there in the first place.




"Confused" = "not acting like the Durkon I remember" and/or "not accustomed to your new body yet." The ellipsis before "confusing" suggests he's using a circumlocution here. Letting the dark spirit get settled in Durkon's brain and rifle through some memories before releasing him from thralldom seems polite. And Durkula does need an explanation of why sunlight burns in 882; "confused" seems like a pretty reasonable description to me.
Alright, point for the sunlight thing. But I don't know how mentally dominating someone could in any way be considered beneficial to them unless it prevents them from hurting themselves inadvertently, which we clearly see did not happen.


(Keep in mind that Malack's dialogue serves ulterior motives here. For most of his conversation with Durkon, he wants to give Durkon the impression that he's a reasonable being; saying "Oh, actually, I was never really the shaman; I'm actually a demon" doesn't seem like the way to go. And Rich wanted to set the audience up to think Durkula was one kind of vampire before revealing at the end of the book that, no, Durkon's not even slightly in charge anymore.)
Im fairly confidant that Rich is capable of giving that impression without giving malack conflicting dialogue. If it came to that, Malack could simply not bring his past self up, or have Malack speak about it completely in the third person.




Regardless, most of the non-ensouled vampires on Buffy referred to their pre-vamped lives, when they did, in the first person. See Spike, pre-ensoulment, talking about being William. This is not a novel or unusual way of treating demon-possession-style vampirization.
but that doesn't mean it has any relevance on what Rich is doing either.


Here's a question for you: if the dark spirit of Hel has nothing to do with vampirization, if it's an independent possessing spirit that has no connection to Durkon or vampires apart from opportunistically taking control of Durkon's body, why does Hel say "Nergal's snake may have sired you" when speaking to it? It was never sired, right?

That depends on what degree you consider the spirit to "own" Durkon's body, I suppose. How else would you refer to someone in someone else's body? Regardless of what is meant by it, she immediately follows up saying that "Your dark spirit was birthed in my halls."

[zimmerwald1915]

If "having a puppeteer parasite in [one's] brain" doesn't require vampirism, I have to wonder why any of the Order do not have puppeteer parasites in their brains, since apparently it's an evil god's I-Win button.

Or does it require dying and coming back? Assuming for the sake of argument that no member of the Order has died off-panel, that leaves "why doesn't Roy?" He sort-of worships the Northern gods, meaning Hel is part of the pantheon he falls under, so it wouldn't even be a different evil god.
This point seems to have gone unaddressed, which is a shame.

[Keltest]

This point seems to have gone unaddressed, which is a shame.

Hel outright states she got her High Priest because Durkon was a dwarf who died. I didn't think it needed addressing, since its more or less dealt with in comic.

[jere7my]

The execution may be more co9mplicated on Durkon's part, but its effects on Malack would be nearly identical.

Uh, yes. That fits with the dialogue. Why do you think it has to refer to more than the method of killing him?


Youll also note that he did not say "a complicated way of killing me." He specifically said it would be "destroying the person I am." Implying that durkon might as well kill him, because he's be taking away everything that made Malack who he was anyway.

Yes. If Malack the evil spirit who absorbed the shaman thinks of himself as the shaman, only better, than that's exactly what he would say.


If that's the case, there is no indication for it in any of the comics, especially since he didn't want to be out there in the first place.

Except for the line about having things to do before unthralling Durkula. That's an indication right there that Malack isn't just going to travel home and release him.


Alright, point for the sunlight thing. But I don't know how mentally dominating someone could in any way be considered beneficial to them unless it prevents them from hurting themselves inadvertently, which we clearly see did not happen.

We saw Durkula do the equivalent of stubbing his toe. If Malack weren't able to command him, wouldn't it be reasonable for Malack to worry he would get into some more serious trouble? If Durkula went running for the sunny outdoors, don't you think Malack would want to be able to say "STOP RIGHT THERE, YOUNG MAN"?


Im fairly confidant that Rich is capable of giving that impression without giving malack conflicting dialogue.

Which is what he did. He did, however, give Malack dialogue that could be interpreted multiple ways.


but that doesn't mean it has any relevance on what Rich is doing either.

The fact that it's the way it worked in a very widely known pop-culture representation of vampires means it's fair game for Rich to draw upon, and in a perfect world would stop people being confused by Malack referring to his pre-vamping self in the first person.


That depends on what degree you consider the spirit to "own" Durkon's body, I suppose. How else would you refer to someone in someone else's body? Regardless of what is meant by it, she immediately follows up saying that "Your dark spirit was birthed in my halls."

Exactly. Not "You were birthed in my halls"; "Your dark spirit was birthed in my halls." If she were talking to her possessing spirit hiding inside a vampire, she'd speak to him directly. Something like "Nergal's snake may have sired the vampire, but you were birthed in my halls." Hel clearly thinks of the dark spirit as an essential part of the vampire.

[jere7my]

Hel outright states she got her High Priest because Durkon was a dwarf who died. I didn't think it needed addressing, since its more or less dealt with in comic.

So Hel sticks dark spirits into every dwarf that dies, or just those that die heroically in battle?

[Keltest]

So Hel sticks dark spirits into every dwarf that dies, or just those that die heroically in battle?

how many undead dwarves have you seen besides Durkon? Like, at all? And of them, how many of them are sentient in any way?

[zimmerwald1915]

how many undead dwarves have you seen besides Durkon? Like, at all? And of them, how many of them are sentient in any way?
Push the question back a bit. How many dwarves have we seen at all besides Durkon (before the current book)? I only remember three: Kraagor, Kaboom Redaxe, and the unnamed duergar black marketeer who supplied Haley's Resistance.

EDIT: also, we have potentially two more examples of vampirism in addition to Malack and Durkon.

I'm away from my book, but if I remember correctly, in the graveyard where Eugene was buried, there was tombstone that read something like "<decedant's name>, totally not coming back as a vampire, honest!" So our examples would include this person and his presumptive sire. The graveyard would be in the Northern Lands, Hel's domain.

[Kish]

Setting aside the issue of why it would be something only Hel can do, that Loki, Tiamat, Rat, and so on can't do. Setting aside the fact that a question I asked of Loreweaver is now an argument between Zimmer and Keltest.

Who said anything about "undead"? The claim was specifically that it wasn't part of vampirism; anyone advocating that claim needs to explain what exactly the abilities and limitations of this extremely-hypothetical brain parasite are (and then explain why believing in the brain parasite makes more sense than believing in the possession model of vampirism).

[Keltest]

Uh, yes. That fits with the dialogue. Why do you think it has to refer to more than the method of killing him?
Because Malack doesn't say "it would kill me" at any point. He says it would "Destroy the person he is today." Implying that he would not outright die, but would lose a fundamental part of his person (ie the vampirism).



Yes. If Malack the evil spirit who absorbed the shaman thinks of himself as the shaman, only better, than that's exactly what he would say.
So youre now suggesting that not only does he have the shaman's memories, he has his personality too? So... besides being composed of negative energy, how is there a possessing spirit in this scenario at all?



Except for the line about having things to do before unthralling Durkula. That's an indication right there that Malack isn't just going to travel home and release him.

unless youre talking about this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html) I cant find the scene youre thinking of. And if you are talking about that one, obviously they aren't done there yet. They haven't found the gate at that point.


We saw Durkula do the equivalent of stubbing his toe. If Malack weren't able to command him, wouldn't it be reasonable for Malack to worry he would get into some more serious trouble? If Durkula went running for the sunny outdoors, don't you think Malack would want to be able to say "STOP RIGHT THERE, YOUNG MAN"?

possibly, but Durkon immediately know that it was the sun burning him, and both he and Malack were able to survive for a little while in the sunlight. Long enough for Durkon to go "Oh crap, sun!" and turn around, at least.



The fact that it's the way it worked in a very widely known pop-culture representation of vampires means it's fair game for Rich to draw upon, and in a perfect world would stop people being confused by Malack referring to his pre-vamping self in the first person.
Again, the fact that it could have inspired him doesn't mean that it is a reliable or relevant source for what happens.


Exactly. Not "You were birthed in my halls"; "Your dark spirit was birthed in my halls." If she were talking to her possessing spirit hiding inside a vampire, she'd speak to him directly. Something like "Nergal's snake may have sired the vampire, but you were birthed in my halls." Hel clearly thinks of the dark spirit as an essential part of the vampire.
That doesn't even make sense. Durkon is, for all intents and purposes, not there for the purposes of conversation. Plus, up to that point, she WAS talking to the dark spirit specifically, since we can see Durkon having no say -at all- about what is happening. he cant even taunt futilely at Hel.

[Keltest]

Push the question back a bit. How many dwarves have we seen at all besides Durkon (before the current book)? I only remember three: Kraagor, Kaboom Redaxe, and the unnamed duergar black marketeer who supplied Haley's Resistance.

EDIT: also, we have potentially two more examples of vampirism in addition to Malack and Durkon.

I'm away from my book, but if I remember correctly, in the graveyard where Eugene was buried, there was tombstone that read something like "<decedant's name>, totally not coming back as a vampire, honest!" So our examples would include this person and his presumptive sire. The graveyard would be in the Northern Lands, Hel's domain.

there have been a handful of unnamed background dwarves that may or may not have been bearded gnomes. And youre forgetting Hilgya.

[zimmerwald1915]

Setting aside the fact that a question I asked of Loreweaver is now an argument between Zimmer and Keltest.
Erm, why should this be a problem? The discussion has more or less resolved into being between factions rather than between individuals, as open, public discussions are wont to do. If one wants to keep a discussion private, one can always resort to PMs.


And youre forgetting Hilgya.
Shame on me :smallredface:

[Keltest]

Setting aside the issue of why it would be something only Hel can do, that Loki, Tiamat, Rat, and so on can't do. Setting aside the fact that a question I asked of Loreweaver is now an argument between Zimmer and Keltest.

Who said anything about "undead"? The claim was specifically that it wasn't part of vampirism; anyone advocating that claim needs to explain what exactly the abilities and limitations of this extremely-hypothetical brain parasite are (and then explain why believing in the brain parasite makes more sense than believing in the possession model of vampirism).

Hel has dominion over dead dwarves. Not live dwarves, just dead ones.

[jere7my]

So youre now suggesting that not only does he have the shaman's memories, he has his personality too? So... besides being composed of negative energy, how is there a possessing spirit in this scenario at all?

I have been stating from the beginning that absorbing all of someone's memories could result in a merged entity, yes: someone who thinks of themselves as the being they absorbed, plus. This is depicted time and time again in fiction.


unless youre talking about this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html) I cant find the scene youre thinking of. And if you are talking about that one, obviously they aren't done there yet. They haven't found the gate at that point.

That is indeed what I was talking about. My only point was that they were not about to turn around and head home; there was more to do. There was and is no way to know how long those tasks would have taken.


possibly, but Durkon immediately know that it was the sun burning him, and both he and Malack were able to survive for a little while in the sunlight. Long enough for Durkon to go "Oh crap, sun!" and turn around, at least.

I take it you don't have children? A child won't run into a fire (probably), but a parent still wants their child to obey them, for their own safety. A "parent" who's an evil sociopath might consider mental domination a fine answer to that dilemma.


Again, the fact that it could have inspired him doesn't mean that it is a reliable or relevant source for what happens.

But it does offer a counterexample to the argument that no possessing vamp-demon would ever refer to its pre-vamped self in the first person. It demonstrates that that is indeed one common way of portraying vampires. You reacted with incredulity to the fact that "not only does he have the shaman's memories, he has his personality too"—if that's a common way of depicting vampires, why is it so hard for you to accept that that's how it's being done here?


That doesn't even make sense. Durkon is, for all intents and purposes, not there for the purposes of conversation. Plus, up to that point, she WAS talking to the dark spirit specifically, since we can see Durkon having no say -at all- about what is happening. he cant even taunt futilely at Hel.

Who mentioned Durkon? Hel's dialogue demonstrates that she draws no distinction between the vampire and her dark spirit, as you are trying to do.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

What's in parentheses is the point of the post, because it's wrong.

Under the Hel's Hand theory, Durkon is a vampire.

Just like Malack.

It's vampirization!

It's the same thing!

The only difference is that Durkon has a puppeteer parasite in his brain!
So, are you arguing that being turned into a Vampire is purely a physical change in OOTS? Because Durkon doesn't seem to have had any mental changes. This also raises the question of what it is about undead that allows Hel to put her parasites into them, and only into dwarves. In the other hypothesis, it is assumed the god of death gets control of the vampire of the race they lead. However, here I see no reason why Hel gets dwarves.

[Keltest]

So, are you arguing that being turned into a Vampire is purely a physical change in OOTS? Because Durkon doesn't seem to have had any mental changes. This also raises the question of what it is about undead that allows Hel to put her parasites into them, and only into dwarves. In the other hypothesis, it is assumed the god of death gets control of the vampire of the race they lead. However, here I see no reason why Hel gets dwarves.

The parasite camp has two sub-camps. One of which is that being evil is not some magical compulsion that happens, but simply a result of prolonged periods of having to kill people every week to eat, as well as being shunned and hated. The other theory is that since Durkon's spirit is not in the driver's seat, he isn't being affected by the negative energy powering his body.

as for Hel getting dwarves, its not like the whole idea that dwarves who get sick and die have a special hell isn't pretty arbitrary in the first place.

[SavageWombat]

I'm seeing some difficulties here with the mind-soul dichotomy that so often trips up philosophers.

We clearly know that souls exist in OotS - we've seen them. So the issue is not whether the mind also has a separate soul - it's whether the soul has a separate mind.

I would say that (opinion only) Durkon has one mind, but two souls. The evil soul, born in Hel's halls just like a newborn dwarf's soul comes from Thor's or wherever, is in control and commands Durkon's mind. He can cast spells, after all. He can reason and speak. But the thing he doesn't have access to is memory - and when the memories are fully absorbed, the two souls will fuse like there was only ever one.

The vampiric spirit doesn't to be a special memory-absorbing monster - it's a soul, albeit a neg-E soul equivalent. It only seems to be a fully realized individual because Durkon is/was.

[zimmerwald1915]

The vampiric spirit doesn't to be a special memory-absorbing monster - it's a soul, albeit a neg-E soul equivalent. It only seems to be a fully realized individual because Durkon is/was.
I'm not sure the vampire-spirit can be a special memory-absorbing monster. If it were, it would be represented by a monster statblock, not by a template, and it could be encountered independently of the host.

[Everyl]

Hel has dominion over dead dwarves. Not live dwarves, just dead ones.

Then why has there never been any mention of the dwarves' strong cultural taboo against resurrection? After all, if even the most noble warrior's death can result in infection by an evil spiritual brain-parasite, then one would think that the dwarves would be quite against the idea of resurrection.

[Keltest]

Then why has there never been any mention of the dwarves' strong cultural taboo against resurrection? After all, if even the most noble warrior's death can result in infection by an evil spiritual brain-parasite, then one would think that the dwarves would be quite against the idea of resurrection.

well a resurrected dwarf isn't dead, now are they.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

The parasite camp has two sub-camps. One of which is that being evil is not some magical compulsion that happens, but simply a result of prolonged periods of having to kill people every week to eat, as well as being shunned and hated. The other theory is that since Durkon's spirit is not in the driver's seat, he isn't being affected by the negative energy powering his body.

as for Hel getting dwarves, its not like the whole idea that dwarves who get sick and die have a special hell isn't pretty arbitrary in the first place.

Option A still holds that it vampirization is purely a physical change, as the alignment change is something that happens over time. Option B seems to say that being animated by Negative Energy makes you evil, but only if you're in control of your body, which does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

Hel getting the dishonored dead is less arbitrary than Hel being able to implant parasites into Dwarven undead who died any kind of death.

[Keltest]

Option A still holds that it vampirization is purely a physical change, as the alignment change is something that happens over time. Option B seems to say that being animated by Negative Energy makes you evil, but only if you're in control of your body, which does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

Hel getting the dishonored dead is less arbitrary than Hel being able to implant parasites into Dwarven undead who died any kind of death.

There comes a point where you have to throw your hands in the air and say "its magic, alright?!". Rich can be as arbitrary (or not) as he wants to be.

[zimmerwald1915]

There comes a point where you have to throw your hands in the air and say "its magic, alright?!". Rich can be as arbitrary (or not) as he wants to be.
Even so, the point remains. If evil gods in general can hijack vampirization, then situations like Durkon's should be more common. But they don't seem to be. If Hel can hijack undead in general, then situations like Durkon's should be more common (and she ought to have been interested in Xykon, a Northern human). But they don't seem to be. If Durkon's situation is an anomaly or exception to how things generally work, there ought to be an explanation for what allowed it. But there doesn't seem to be a limiting principle to any of the proffered exceptions, which means they should not be exceptions, but the rule.

"It's magic!" works to explain away mechanical unknowns with how a magical process works the way it does. It does not work to handwave away the logical consequences of a process working the way it does.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

There comes a point where you have to throw your hands in the air and say "its magic, alright?!". Rich can be as arbitrary (or not) as he wants to be.

That's not exactly a convincing argument in favor of your theory.

[Keltest]

Even so, the point remains. If evil gods in general can hijack vampirization, then situations like Durkon's should be more common. But they don't seem to be. If Hel can hijack undead in general, then situations like Durkon's should be more common (and she ought to have been interested in Xykon, a Northern human). But they don't seem to be. If Durkon's situation is an anomaly or exception to how things generally work, there ought to be an explanation for what allowed it. But there doesn't seem to be a limiting principle to any of the proffered exceptions, which means they should not be exceptions, but the rule.

"It's magic!" works to explain away mechanical unknowns with how a magical process works the way it does. It does not work to handwave away the logical consequences of a process working the way it does.

How do we know it doesn't happen more often? The comic focuses on the Order of the Stick, which means that we only see the things they interact with for the most part. In a world where D&D mechanics rule, there are going to be at least 2 or 3 attempted apocalypses in a given week. And presumably omnipotent deities aren't going to limit themselves to one single plan to achieve their goals if they can avoid doing so.

[Kish]

Erm, why should this be a problem? The discussion has more or less resolved into being between factions rather than between individuals, as open, public discussions are wont to do. If one wants to keep a discussion private, one can always resort to PMs.
I don't mind any number of answers to my question from Keltest or other random posters. I do mind a number of answers to my question from the person I addressed it to, when that number is 0. Ah well, life is full of disappointments.

[zimmerwald1915]

How do we know it doesn't happen more often? The comic focuses on the Order of the Stick, which means that we only see the things they interact with for the most part. In a world where D&D mechanics rule, there are going to be at least 2 or 3 attempted apocalypses in a given week.
Well, there you go, you've answered your own question. The story of the Order of the Stick has run the geographical and cultural gamut, and corpse-piloting negative energy spirits seem to be a very small minority of both beings in general and undead in particular. They're so much the exception that Durkon's vampire-spirit seems to think that the living will suspect it of being such. As you put it, if it was easy for evil gods to put negative-energy spirits into corpses, they should be doing it all the time, and they should have overrun the world or taken over the story by their attempt to do so. If it was easy for Hel to put negative-energy spirits into corpses, she should be doing it all the time, and they should have overrun the world or taken over the story by their attempt to do so. But that hasn't happened.

[Falbrogna]

Barely two, three, who can count?

What I would want, to even consider your theory plausible, is a plausible reason for Rich to throw two methods of vampirization at Durkon

Oh, for the love of... :smallsigh: Did all that talk about "vampires" and "parasite" completely go over your head?


Ah, right, the inconsistencies you won't tell me about. What inconsistencies can't be explained by a dark spirit absorbing Malack's memories and identifying with him? Specifically, with quotes from the text?

And yet again, you keep saying that things you don't remember or didn't notice doesn't exist.
Everyone pointed out the inconsistencies of Malack's in the first two or three pages of this thread, stop insisting that "they keep not telling me!" when you're merely not seeing them.


What's in parentheses is the point of the post, because it's wrong.

Under the Hel's Hand theory, Durkon is a vampire.

Just like Malack.

It's vampirization!

It's the same thing!

The only difference is that Durkon has a puppeteer parasite in his brain!

Thanks for existing.


If "having a puppeteer parasite in [one's] brain" doesn't require vampirism, I have to wonder why any of the Order do not have puppeteer parasites in their brains, since apparently it's an evil god's I-Win button.

Or does it require dying and coming back? Assuming for the sake of argument that no member of the Order has died off-panel, that leaves "why doesn't Roy?" He sort-of worships the Northern gods, meaning Hel is part of the pantheon he falls under, so it wouldn't even be a different evil god.

Because "dwarves fall under her purview".
Simple.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Because "dwarves fall under her purview".
Simple.

Why though? In the other theory, Dwarves fall under her purview because the god of death for each pantheon is the one who gets the vampire, and since Dwarves worship the Northern Gods, Hel gets the dwarves. Here, I don't see any reason why that would be. Yes, Hel does get those who dies in a dishonorable fashion, but Durkon dies fighting.

[Falbrogna]

Why though? In the other theory, Dwarves fall under her purview because the god of death for each pantheon is the one who gets the vampire, and since Dwarves worship the Northern Gods, Hel gets the dwarves. Here, I don't see any reason why that would be. Yes, Hel does get those who dies in a dishonorable fashion, but Durkon dies fighting.

I don't see anything preposterous in a sneaky god like Hel concocting something like this to slip under Thor's thumbs.
"So we get to fight over dead dwarves, but what about their corpses? What if, unknown to Thor, I could plant some sleeper agents in free-willed or apparently mindless undeads? That moron will never see it coming."

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I don't see anything preposterous in a sneaky god like Hel concocting something like this to slip under Thor's thumbs.
"So we get to fight over dead dwarves, but what about their corpses? What if, unknown to Thor, I could plant some sleeper agents in free-willed or apparently mindless undeads? That moron will never see it coming."

Then, why only Dwarves? Clearly, she can break the rules, why not try to possess Malack as well? And, why can she do this, but not Nergal or Ereshkagal.

[Keltest]

Then, why only Dwarves? Clearly, she can break the rules, why not try to possess Malack as well? And, why can she do this, but not Nergal or Ereshkagal.

you already asked that question.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

you already asked that question.

And I haven't received a satisfactory answer.

[Falbrogna]

Then, why only Dwarves? Clearly, she can break the rules, why not try to possess Malack as well? And, why can she do this, but not Nergal or Ereshkagal.

And I haven't received a satisfactory answer.
What else do you need other than "she's a death deity specifically addressed to managing dwarves afterlives"?

[Keltest]

And I haven't received a satisfactory answer.

Because Hel is the Dwarven god of death. not the Northern god of death. She only gets to keep the souls of dwarves who died of disease, but she is still a death goddess.

Yes, its arbitrary. But its been established as that arbitrary in comic, so its not like were stretching ourselves trying to make conditions that fit.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Are you kidding me? What else do you need other than "she's a death deity specifically addressed to managing dwarves afterlives"?

One that explains why she gets to manage Durkon's that doesn't ask me to believe she only breaks the rules for Dwarven vampires.

However, I see that this has become a matter of what I personally believe to be more likely, so I don't think I'll be continuing this particular conversation until we get more evidence.

[Falbrogna]

One that explains why she gets to manage Durkon's that doesn't ask me to believe she only breaks the rules for Dwarven vampires.

A Dwarven God of Death circumventing rules regarding Dwarven deaths (not "only dwarven vampires"), I honestly don't see what's so hard to believe.

[The Giant]

There is absolutely zero difference between Malack and Durkon's vampirizations, with the sole exception that Hel made the spirit sitting in Durkon's head while Nergal made the one that was sitting in Malack's. Hel is able to put that spirit into Durkon's body because of the physical vampirization process that Malack enacts on Durkon's corpse, which opens a door to Negative Energy and traps Durkon's spirit inside it. Which would also be true of any other vampire created from a person who fell under the Northern Pantheon's domain, though she wouldn't take a personal interest in just any person because they wouldn't be a powerful cleric.

Hel does not have rightful dominion over Durkon's soul as part of her normal assignment of dishonored souls, however, because Durkon did in fact die in battle. She got involved because she is also, separately, the Northern deity of undeath, and one of her "duties" is making the evil spirits for all Northern vampires. The vampirization process basically jammed up the normal disposition of Durkon's soul by trapping it inside the undead body. Where Durkon's actual soul ends up will not be determined until/unless it is freed. It's a like a naturally occurring Trap the Soul spell.

Nothing that happens with vampires in this comic can be extrapolated to work similarly with other undead. All types of undead work differently, that's why they are different types in the first place. Xykon is still Xykon.

All of Malack's dialogue regarding who he is/was should be viewed through the lens of me not wanting to spoil the scene from #946. Some of what he says is metaphorical and all of it is deliberately ambiguous, because I was consciously trying to make you think one thing while another thing was actually true. As a rule of thumb, it is not in my interest to lock down the metaphysics of things if I don't have to, so don't expect that I will have characters exposition How Things Work just to clear up your confusion.

Likewise, any assumptions that characters in the comic know or understand the details of how this process occurs on a detailed internal level should be thrown out the window. They don't. Being a vampire is super-rare; being returned to life after being a vampire so you can share the logistics of how it worked from your point of view in such a way that it entered a general body of knowledge that people would have learned about in the course of their education is simply not something that has ever occurred.

I'm sure there are more byzantine arguments going around that I'm missing, but really, this isn't as complicated as most of you are making it. There is only one way that vampirization works, and it overrides the natural order of things, including where souls go. That's why everyone says things like, "That's against the natural order of things!" about it. However, Hel is not breaking the rules of vampirization itself at all.

[Falbrogna]

So it is as I always feared, instead of Malack's "rise from humble origins to unholy undead power" it was "died as a commoner, evil spirit got the body".
Damn.

Edit\ I forgot: thanks for clarifying this up, despite being a bit of a letdown to me.

[factotum]

Well, Word of God has spoken...I'm a little disappointed that this *is* how vampirisation works in the Stickverse, but there's little point arguing along those lines because it works how it works and it won't change now. :smallfrown:

[Keltest]

Thank you for explaining that Giant. Now if youll excuse me, im going to go pout in the corner until the next comic.:smallfrown:

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Well, there's the answer. Now, we have an answer to the OP. Can we move on now?

[Peelee]

Well, Word of God has spoken...I'm a little disappointed that this *is* how vampirisation works in the Stickverse, but there's little point arguing along those lines because it works how it works and it won't change now. :smallfrown:

May I ask why?

[Keltest]

May I ask why?

because Rich said so. Literally.

[Kish]

So it is as I always feared, instead of Malack's "rise from humble origins to unholy undead power" it was "died as a commoner, evil spirit got the body".
Damn.
I'm still blinking at how much you claim to know about the lizardfolk shaman who was taken over by Malack. All we know about him is based on a line which you didn't even remember when you started arguing the case, and which tells us as much about who and what he really was like as if the High Priest of Hel, in two hundred years, said, "I had a different name when I was alive, two hundred years ago. I was an idiot who thought trees were dangerous." Commoner? Humble origins? What?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Shocking. Who could possibly have foreseen this?

[Peelee]

because Rich said so. Literally.

The Giant speaking seems like little reason to be disappointed. Or were you talking about something else? Because I was asking why the disappointment.

[SavageWombat]

"I had a different name when I was alive, two hundreds years ago. I was an idiot who thought trees were dangerous."

I'm sorry; you think that fully-merged Durkon isn't going to be terrified of enormous multi-limbed creatures that can destroy his undead form with one good called shot to the heart?

[Kish]

I think fully-merged Durkon is not going to be anything because the High Priest of Hel isn't that long for the world, but hypothetically speaking, I'm reasonably sure Hel would explain to her mysteriously human-accented high priest, should he pick up anything from Durkon's mind that confused him, that trees are inanimate plants and Thor is a buffoon.

Religious fanaticism seems very much to be all that Durkon and the High Priest have in common.

[Shale]

He'd be justifiably wary of ents, but anybody should be wary of ents.

[jere7my]

Oh, for the love of... :smallsigh: Did all that talk about "vampires" and "parasite" completely go over your head?

This thread has become pleasantly moot, but I do want to say that you might want to read the whole thread before going for the insult next time. This very misinterpetation of my post was addressed in the next few replies. Makes for some irony in this statement:


And yet again, you keep saying that things you don't remember or didn't notice doesn't exist.

:smallbiggrin:

[Loreweaver15]

Well, as disappointed as I am, we have our answer. Oh well. Thanks for clearing it up, Rich!